Let me ask you this. If he had been a traditional values Evangelical Christian, what would you think his chances of getting appointed would have been? Zero? So why is it acceptable for one side to apply these exclusionary tests but not the other?
I'm a non-interventionist but this changed my mind....
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
Let me ask you this. If he had been a traditional values Evangelical Christian, what would you think his chances of getting appointed would have been? Zero? So why is it acceptable for one side to apply these exclusionary tests but not the other?
I'm not disagreeing with you as to the why he was appointed, or the reasons behind why a Christian would not be appointed. All I asked you to clarify is whether you thought he was unfit for his position simply because he was gay.
The left went apoplectic at My Lai when anyone said they were ordered to do it and they demanded that it never be allowed as an excuse again.
Now, when they're in charge, their only criteria for promotion is that the underling will follow whatever order they give without hesitation or question.
Now, when they're in charge, their only criteria for promotion is that the underling will follow whatever order they give without hesitation or question.
Whether or not he is "fit" for the position is somewhat different from whether or not he should be confirmed. Were republican appointees who belonged to private golf clubs with no black members "fit" to serve? Many were rejected on that basis. Were democrat appointees with illegal alien maids fit to serve? Several were rejected in the Clinton administration.
I would argue that all these nominees were probably "fit" to serve in the sense that they could have executed the duties of the office. Was it appropriate to confirm them because of the symbolism involved? That is a more difficult question.
I can see how a case can be made that people who will be enforcing antidiscrimination laws should not belong to exclusionary clubs, even if it is perfectly legal. I don't happen to agree, but I see the argument.
By the same token, I think allowing openly gay service members is a mistaken policy. So the symbolism of a gay Secretary of the Army reinforces a bad policy choice and suggests more movement in the wrong direction.
The more interesting question is how senate republicans will justify their inevitable surrender.
If it's symbolism it at least carries with it the trivial matter of competence. The man appears to be fully qualified to perform the role (all our past grievances notwithstanding).
So, do you think the Army is basically getting dicked up the ass with this nomination?
I'm not so sure about that. In the end, we'll never know. Impossible to prove a negative. His top appointments are highly suspect, however. Just like Sotomayer from Bush. She's was totally unqualified. The problem with all this minority promotion business is it engages in exactly the same type of racial discrimination liberals promised to eradicate. The system still favors based on racial and sexual attributes, just now in an opposite way. Instead of white men, women, gays and minorities are promoted. The system was supposed to promote based on the content of ones character, not physical attributes. To promote based on physical attributes was called racist by liberals which is now exactly what theyre doing. When confronted, Liberals will say this is 'social justice' and that they're engaged in social engineering in attempt to create role models. It's totally fucked. They fight for an ideal, then support discrimination, then invent new ideals as to why their discrimination is justified. This is why I dont like talking about liberalism because it makes my brain hurt. Basically, it seems they're infantile hypocrites who seek to rationalize bad behavior. I hit my wife because I love her and she needed to learn a lesson. I raped her because its better she learn sex from me then some stranger on a street. They invent their own code of morality and then if they don't meet it, invent a new moral reason why they didn't follow it. Its rationalization behavior.
Last edited: