ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

rdx-fx wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

THIS is why I voted for McCain/MILF.  He may be politics as usual, but at least he's not a dangerously clueless newbie.
This is politics as usual. Government is the answer.
More government is not the answer - competent government is.

A first-term junior senator from Chicago, with no executive experience isn't the answer.
I mean, for fucks sake, did they elect Obama just so they could make Bush Jr look 'poised and Presidential' in comparison?!

ghettoperson wrote:

For most of the problems that the US has suffered whilst Obama has been in office, I can't say that I can really think of any better alternatives that he could have done, or that any other President would have done.
Luckily, you're not running for President any time soon, then, eh?

We have had Presidents in the past, that have led us through tougher situations, with better leadership, better vision, and more resolve.
Unfortunately, those Presidents are too far in the past. None of those ex-Presidents are even among the living, even.
So how would you have fixed the economy, and why exactly do you believe Obama's economic advisors to be wrong? Like with with the rest of your points, you seem to be copying the Republicans in their strategy of 'Obama is wrong' on everything, but don't seem to be able to point out what the problem is with his plans nor have a better solution.

It's all very well saying "oh good job you're not running for President" but unfortunately smartass comments like that don't back up your argument.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

rdx-fx wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

THIS is why I voted for McCain/MILF.  He may be politics as usual, but at least he's not a dangerously clueless newbie.
This is politics as usual. Government is the answer.
More government is not the answer - competent government is.

A first-term junior senator from Chicago, with no executive experience isn't the answer.
I mean, for fucks sake, did they elect Obama just so they could make Bush Jr look 'poised and Presidential' in comparison?!
The last part of my post was being sarcastic. If you look at everything you've highlighted our President in being incompetent (minus the "no clue how to interact with foreign heads of state"), you'll see that government has always been the suggested solution. Could it possibly be that the best government in some scenarios, is no government?
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5964|Truthistan

rdx-fx wrote:

And now he's trying to misdirect attention with petty "Mommy, they hurt my widdle feewings!  They say they don't like me!"
Then fucking resign, you pussy!  Or drink some concrete and harden the fuck up!°
...
° 'Drink some concrete and harden the fuck up', seen elsewhere on BF2S, original author unknown.
I agree... PBO should have had the stones to have him court marshalled, accepting his resignation is letting McChrystal off easy.

IMO the only people upset about McChrystal's sacking are going to be the ex-military types and GOP wannabe generals, ie followers of Dick Cheney and ilk, who would never vote for PBO anyway, so really there's no controversy here to really speak of. The dumba$$ was blabbing to the rolling stone magazine about crap he had no business gossiping about, he got fired, end of story. No use crying about it, McChrystal did it to himself, its done.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6551|the dank(super) side of Oregon

rdx-fx wrote:

And now he's trying to misdirect attention with petty "Mommy, they hurt my widdle feewings!  They say they don't like me!"
It's not about hurt feelings.  It's about insubordination, plain and simple.  McChrystal forgot his place, again, and paid the price.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6467

owned.

    *  You may post 6 seconds ago
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

Worth noting that a bunch of Republicans have backed Obama on this decision.
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6324
The real story is that no one has any faith in the Commander in Chief.

Imagine the Field Day the Media would have had with this if the Generals had implied similar things about Bush.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6467

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

The real story is that no one has any faith in the Commander in Chief.

Imagine the Field Day the Media would have had with this if the Generals had implied similar things about Bush.
bidness as usual, what?

who the FUCK cares whot the banks, business, big money put in office. the give them a toney, swank, uptown address with a big lawn and kitchen privileges

https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3449507070_726a7dd28a.jpg

but do you really, really think there's a difference between republican and democrat in the white house?

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/21025/burnzz/siggy.jpg
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

And now he's trying to misdirect attention with petty "Mommy, they hurt my widdle feewings!  They say they don't like me!"
Then fucking resign, you pussy!  Or drink some concrete and harden the fuck up!°
...
° 'Drink some concrete and harden the fuck up', seen elsewhere on BF2S, original author unknown.
I agree... PBO should have had the stones to have him court marshalled, accepting his resignation is letting McChrystal off easy.

IMO the only people upset about McChrystal's sacking are going to be the ex-military types and GOP wannabe generals, ie followers of Dick Cheney and ilk, who would never vote for PBO anyway, so really there's no controversy here to really speak of. The dumba$$ was blabbing to the rolling stone magazine about crap he had no business gossiping about, he got fired, end of story. No use crying about it, McChrystal did it to himself, its done.
There's nothing "court-martialable" in what happened. If Obama pressed for a court martial, he'd look even stupider in his handling of military affairs (in general--no pun intended) than he does already.

The way he handled this was exactly the way it should've been handled, tbh. McChrystal was relieved of his command and resigned his commission. Congress will decide what grade he will retire at. He's done.

IMO, McChrystal knew exactly what was going to happen, and made a calculated decision to do it. That's why he didn't object to the article or try to deflect the contents in any way. He wanted it all to come out, hoping for the discussion that would arise to become public in the hopes it would affect public discourse on the Administration's handling of the war. At least, that's what I believe a strategist would have done...and McChrystal is nothing if not a strategist.

Now with Petraeus as COMUSF-A and ISAF, who will run CENTCOM? What will the dynamic be between Petraeus and his successor/new boss? Or will Petraeus remain as CDRCENTCOM as well? That would be an interesting precedent.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
What about section 88
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

What about section 88
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Show where McChrystal was actually quoted as saying anything in that article.

There's nothing in that article that would stand up in an Article 32 proceeding.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

And now he's trying to misdirect attention with petty "Mommy, they hurt my widdle feewings!  They say they don't like me!"
It's not about hurt feelings.  It's about insubordination, plain and simple.  McChrystal forgot his place, again, and paid the price.
This.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

What about section 88
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Show where McChrystal was actually quoted as saying anything in that article.

There's nothing in that article that would stand up in an Article 32 proceeding.
I guess we'll wait and see if he sues for wrongful dismissal.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
rdx-fx
...
+955|6561

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

More government is not the answer - competent government is.
Lets not get started on the Republican record of the previous two terms.
By all means.  The last two administrations were much less than they should've been.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

More government is not the answer - competent government is.
Lets not get started on the Republican record of the previous two terms.
By all means.  The last two administrations were much less than they should've been.
Reagan always gets a lot of love, but honestly, I don't think we've had an exceptional president since Eisenhower.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

More government is not the answer - competent government is.
Lets not get started on the Republican record of the previous two terms.
By all means.  The last two administrations were much less than they should've been.
Your hardon for Reagan is completely misguided. The housing crisis happened because of actions taken during his administration. The ballooning of the deficit is his responsibility. The explosion of debt as a commodity is his doing. I can go on and on and on if you want me to.

The explosive growth of the 80s was entirely an illusion built on massively overleveraged businesses and governments.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

Reagan indeed is not the conservative hero everyone would like to believe. This is something I don't quite understand, and you don't have to even research much about his administration to realize that.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

What about section 88
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Show where McChrystal was actually quoted as saying anything in that article.

There's nothing in that article that would stand up in an Article 32 proceeding.
I guess we'll wait and see if he sues for wrongful dismissal.
Not gonna happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
rdx-fx
...
+955|6561

JohnG@lt wrote:

Your hardon for Reagan is completely misguided. [...] I can go on and on and on if you want me to.
And where in the hell did you imagine I even implied I had a "Hardon for Reagan"?




ghettoperson wrote:

So how would you have fixed the economy, and why exactly do you believe Obama's economic advisors to be wrong?
Firstly, I'd listen to the available subject matter experts (like Greenspan on economics, for one example), especially when they're talking in their particular area of expertise, and warning that critical key factors are being ignored. 

Secondly, the same error Bush Jr made, Obama is making - hiring people based more on doctrinal loyalty, and less on practical proven experience and knowlege.

Thirdly, I would not be shoving a massive entitlement program onto the shoulders of the American taxpayers, in the middle of a recession.  Rather, I would be taking a hard look at limiting governmental spending, reigning in wasteful programs, and focusing the money instead on neglected core infrastructure essentials that would have direct and measurable impact on improving our economy.
Transportation infrastructure, real education programs, restarting some of our neglected industrial infrastructure, becoming more energy independent, etc... 

ghettoperson wrote:

Like with with the rest of your points, you seem to be copying the Republicans in their strategy of 'Obama is wrong' on everything, but don't seem to be able to point out what the problem is with his plans nor have a better solution.
If you have me colored in as a GOP parrot, you are as ill-informed as any of the worst of Obama's advisors.

The problems with Obama are legion.  Let me hit a few highlights;
  • He speaks ill of his own people, to a foreign head of state, in a land where speaking ill of your own tribe is considered a huge lapse in moral character.
  • He surrounds himself with loyalists, rather than proven subject matter experts
  • He is seen internationally as an inept novice, and generally someone completely ill prepared to be the head of state for any nation, much less the United States of America.
  • He seems more concerned with appearances, and less concerned with content.
  • He is dangerously inexperienced to be the head of state.


ghettoperson wrote:

For most of the problems that the US has suffered whilst Obama has been in office, I can't say that I can really think of any better alternatives that he could have done, or that any other President would have done.

RDX-fX wrote:

Luckily, you're not running for President any time soon, then, eh?

ghettoperson wrote:

It's all very well saying "oh good job you're not running for President" but unfortunately smartass comments like that don't back up your argument.
Fine.
I'll explain it with more words and less humor.
I would hope that, out of 300 million people, we could find a chief executive with more depth of knowledge, more experience, more eloquence, and more creativity in solving difficult problems.  Someone that would come up with solutions better than either you or I could.  Same meaning as the shorter, more sarcastic quip.

Phrozenbot wrote:

The last part of my post was being sarcastic. If you look at everything you've highlighted our President in being incompetent (minus the "no clue how to interact with foreign heads of state"), you'll see that government has always been the suggested solution. Could it possibly be that the best government in some scenarios, is no government?
Not necessarily no government, but a smarter, smaller, more measured and reasoned government.

My sarcastic line is "We never had a Democracy, and we've given up our Republic in favor of a Bureaucracy"

If by 'no government', you intend that in many situations, government drones should keep their porky little hands out of things to avoid screwing things up worse - then, yes, I'd agree with that assessment in many situations.



The original article is HERE

Some choice quotes;

Rolling Stone wrote:

Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Rolling Stone wrote:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says.

Rolling Stone wrote:

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position."

Rolling Stone wrote:

Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

Rolling Stone wrote:

Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "
The more of the article I read, the more I respect Gen. McChrystal.
Though, with his apparent attitude of 'Make Mission, say what needs to be said,fuck politics, fuck 'nice-nice' I am amazed that the man ever made it past Colonel.

I saw nothing disloyal in anything directly attributable to McChrystal.

I did, however, see many instances of him calling things as he saw them.  Plain, straightforward, and honest.
That is exactly what you want in a General officer tasked with getting real results.
It is rare and fortunate to be able to find any General officer that is more concerned with Mission than he is with Appearances.

But, alas, Obama's administration, towing the official party line, and nodding your head in polite agreement with every vapid ill-formed idea that the Obama Select thinks up is the key to longevity.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard