• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marines forced to disarm before meeting secdef panetta

Wiseone said:
I'm not disagreeing with you about Tricare, I'm not taking a stance on whether the raising of fees is right or wrong I was merely correcting you on your original point.

As for the other two things, its just opinion but personally I think you are being way too sensitive. Especially about the pronunciation, no one can have perfect pronunciation even if they strive for it. Hell I've said "Marine Corpse" a few times because it just slipped out, doesn't mean I disrespect you guys and your fragile fragile egos. ;)
Click to expand...

Good debate btw. Thanks for staying civil. And yes, we Marines do have fragile egos. When you have some nut politician proposing our abolishment every 5-8 years, we tend to get overly sensitive lol.
 
If the Afghan forces want to have the same right to remain armed in the presence of senior officers and dignitaries, like the Marines do, then they should have to earn it, like the Marines have.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Funny how it's OK to cut bennies for the military, but the teachers unions, et al, in states where they are going broke paying union healthcare, is a no go. What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

Please note where I said it was okay to cut healthcare for the military.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Okay, a few things we need to get straight.
Click to expand...

Okay.

MarineTpartier said:
1) We are speaking of politics in very different lights. You are speaking of it in terms of setting policies. That is a correct definition. However, I am speaking of it in terms of the way most of our politicians practice it. The definitions we gave for the way we're viewing the word politics in this debate is the origin of our debate and a rather fruitless one. Essentially, you are talking about futbol and I'm talking about football. Same pronunciation, very different meanings.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

MarineTpartier said:
2) I agree with you that the offices I speak of do set policies. The point I am making is the the SECDEF, SecState, etc do not normally engage in the version of politics I am speaking of. The public smears, shots at the other side, shady fund raising, superpacs, etc. Thats what I mean by politicis in the way I am using it.
Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong about that. Cabinet secretaries engage in those things all the time. About the only people in government who don't are members of the civil service.

MarineTpartier said:
3) Is the SECDEF, or is he not responsible for voicing the concerns of the military? I can answer that for you. Yes, he is. And you know he is. So lets stop arguing over something that you are obviously disagreeing with me about just for the sake of disagreeing. Its a moot point, one that I've proven, one that you have tried to half-heartedly agree with only because you know you're wrong but don't want to cede a point, and one that I am tired of arguing because I can't provide any better proof than posting the guys responsibilities directly for US law. Wait, I did that already.
Click to expand...

And I never said that he wasn't responsible for that.

What I said was that was not his primary responsibility. He has other responsibilities that may be more important. Such as directing and administrating the military according to the President's wishes. Which demanding these marines to disarm in order to ensure diplomatic relations with the Afghanis may be an example of.
 
MarineTpartier said:
You know, I was enjoying intelligent debate with you until I saw this. This is partisan hackery at its finest. Do we really need to go into tax cuts? How many times has the POTUS signed payroll tax cuts? Hasn't he signed off on Bush tax cuts over and over? Last time I checked, the House of Representatives couldn't pass tax cuts on their own. It required the Dem controlled Senate and that guy you are defending so vehemently (and inaccurately) to get them approved. I could get smarmy with you but I won't. I'm not wasting good smack on an obvious partisan hack. And your lean says other. LOL!
Click to expand...

So please point out which taxes the GOP would like to increase in order to pay for healthcare for the military.
 
Much ado about nothing.
 
samsmart said:
Well, you're wrong about that. Cabinet secretaries engage in those things all the time. About the only people in government who don't are members of the civil service.
Click to expand...
Proof? Example?
samsmart said:
And I never said that he wasn't responsible for that. What I said was that was not his primary responsibility. He has other responsibilities that may be more important. Such as directing and administrating the military according to the President's wishes. Which demanding these marines to disarm in order to ensure diplomatic relations with the Afghanis may be an example of.
Click to expand...
Wow, you just aren't going to admit that you misinterperted my original statement are you? Whatever floats your boat.
I've made my point about the rest of this statement. No need to repeat myself.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Proof? Example?
Click to expand...

How about when Secretary of State Colin Powell was lied to by the rest of GWB's administration and was talked into making the case to the UN about how Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war there?

Or how Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez "could not recall" to Congress anything regarding the dismissal of 7 U.S. Attorneys because they weren't loyal enough to the GOP or because they refused to go after Democratic politicians?

How about when Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger participated in the Iran-Contra Affair and was indicted by a grand jury on 2 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction of justice but was pardoned by GHW Bush?

How about when Richard G. Kleindeist was Nixon's Attorney General and perjured himself before Congress when he said that Nixon and Ehrlichman did not tell him to drop the Watergate break-in?

Or why not go right to the first Cabinet of George Washington and how Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson were direct opponents of each other and were both individual leaders of the political groups of the federalists and the democratic-republicans and that was the first party system in the United States?

MarineTpartier said:
Wow, you just aren't going to admit that you misinterperted my original statement are you? Whatever floats your boat.
I've made my point about the rest of this statement. No need to repeat myself.
Click to expand...

That's because I didn't misrepresent you.

I never said that you said that it was SecDef's primary responsibility. I was pointing it out to you.
 
samsmart said:
So please point out which taxes the GOP would like to increase in order to pay for healthcare for the military.
Click to expand...

How about the Dept of Energy? How about the EPA? How about the Dept of Ed? How about the State Dept? How about the Intel Agencies? IMHO, if you cut the military, then every other federal dept gets the same amount of cut. And no replacing those jobs cut by these agencies with contractors. It's time the govt learned, just like we folks in the hinterlands have had to learn, to do with less and no one coming in with an extra dollar to pick up the slack.
 
Hatuey said:
Did you fall into any holes making that giant leap in logic?
Click to expand...

Not at all. If you can be froggy with your "much ado", sounds like it's a free-for-all.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Not at all. If you can be froggy with your "much ado", sounds like it's a free-for-all.
Click to expand...

I'm being "froggy" about.... telling people this is a lot of fussing over nothing? Do you know what "much ado about nothing" means? I'll give you a clue: First sentence of this post.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm being "froggy" about.... telling people this is a lot of fussing over nothing? Do you know what "much ado about nothing" means? I'll give you a clue: First sentence of this post.
Click to expand...

Now let me gather my thought . . . . IYO, it's much ado, to other folks, especially those who serve or have served this country, it is not a "nothing issue.

So a question to you. If you think this a nothing thread, why even waste your time on it?
 
Billy the Kid said:
Now let me gather my thought
Click to expand...

Should I take that to mean that you can only gather one thought at a time? Actually, forget I asked. As long as you're gathering that thought safely and with all the required protections, I'm happy. I'd hate to see you hurt yourself thinking this thing out too hard.

. . . . IYO, it's much ado, to other folks, especially those who serve or have served this country, it is not a "nothing issue.
Click to expand...

It's much ado about nothing because people are getting worked up over something minimal. This is no more important than what Obama had for breakfast today. It was Halal meat with hummus. He is a Muslim after all.

So a question to you. If you think this a nothing thread, why even waste your time on it?
Click to expand...

It's a free forum. Sooner or later you'll realize that being told that you're complaining about something minimal - is a legitimate point of debate. :)
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Should I take that to mean that you can only gather one thought at a time? Actually, forget I asked. As long as you're gathering that thought safely and with all the required protections, I'm happy. I'd hate to see you hurt yourself thinking this thing out too hard.

Don't worry about me. Just keep doing what you're doing. It just seemed since you didn't think this a worthy thread, you wouldn't have wasted your time here. But if you like it, I like it for you.

It's much ado about nothing because people are getting worked up over something minimal. This is no more important than what Obama had for breakfast today. It was Halal meat with hummus. He is a Muslim after all.

I really don't see how the above is relevant, but if you like it, I like it for you.

It's a free forum. Sooner or later you'll realize that being told that you're complaining about something minimal - is a legitimate point of debate. :)
Click to expand...

Of course it's a free forum. And one with many, many threads. I just post on the ones that are relevant to me, evidently you don't. But again, if you like it I like it for you. :2razz:
 
Billy the Kid said:
Of course it's a free forum. And one with many, many threads. I just post on the ones that are relevant to me, evidently you don't. But again, if you like it I like it for you. :2razz:
Click to expand...

So then I should take this to mean you don't like being told you're complaining about something insignificant? Here I'll give a test in consistency - did you show this much feigned outrage when Bush laughed at not finding any WMDs even though it got 4K of our soldiers killed? If you did, then I think you should tone the dial down on this supposed "insult" to our military.
 
Hatuey said:
So then I should take this to mean you don't like being told you're complaining about something insignificant? Here I'll give a test in consistency - did you show this much feigned outrage when Bush laughed at not finding any WMDs even though it got 4K of our soldiers killed? If you did, then I think you should tone the dial down on this supposed "insult" to our military.
Click to expand...

I don't feign, is the 1st thing you should know. It was stupid to disarm the military. What does Bush and WMD have to do with this topic. This topic wasn't - "Were you as upset with SECDEF'S disarming the Marines asd you were about Bush and WMDs". But if you must drag that smelly red herring over the scent trail, have at it.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I don't feign, is the 1st thing you should know. It was stupid to disarm the military. What does Bush and WMD have to do with this topic. This topic wasn't - "Were you as upset with SECDEF'S disarming the Marines asd you were about Bush and WMDs". But if you must drag that smelly red herring over the scent trail, have at it.
Click to expand...

Of course it's feigned outrage. It's pretending you're mad about something which doesn't affect troop morale. It's pretending you're offended by somebody you personally or anybody within 300 miles of you is affected by. It's pretending you're offended about something so ridiculously insignificant it didn't even make it out of a blog. Actually it was so insignificant that the guy who actually relayed the order said it wasn't a big deal. I brought up the little Bush thing to point out how silly it is to get angry at these supposed jabs the civilian administration take at the soldiers.
 
Hatuey said:
Of course it's feigned outrage. It's pretending you're mad about something which doesn't affect troop morale. It's pretending you're offended by somebody you personally or anybody within 300 miles of you is affected by. It's pretending you're offended about something so ridiculously insignificant it didn't even make it out of a blog. Actually it was so insignificant that the guy who actually relayed the order said it wasn't a big deal. I brought up the little Bush thing to point out how silly it is to get angry at these supposed jabs the civilian administration take at the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Like he said bro, its not a big deal to you because you don't serve. Just pointing that out. It means a lot to servicemembers, in case you didn't notice the reaction of almost every vet on this website after I posted the link. It's your right to say its much ado about nothing. Maybe it is insignificant to you. But that doesn't mean its insignificant to everyone. Unless you've been elected to represent every user on Debate Politics, and if so, I didn't vote yet.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Like he said bro, its not a big deal to you because you don't serve.
Click to expand...

Funny, I read your link - the guy who is serving and is there doesn't seem to care.

"This is not a big deal," Gurganus said. But he then added that "you've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," referring to Panetta. When it was pointed out that this had not been the custom, Gurganus - who is new to the post - replied, "There's a new sheriff in town."
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't read the feigned outrage memo?
 
Hatuey said:
Funny, I read your link - the guy who is serving and is there doesn't seem to care.
Maybe he didn't read the feigned outrage memo?
Click to expand...
Of course he doesn't care man. He's a General. He's gotta make sure his post Marine Corps career is taken care of. That's how it works. If I could name all of the "contractors" I've met who just so happen to be retired Generals and Colonels, I'd be posting non-stop for a day. Generals are politicians in uniform man. If you notice the Sergeant Major's reaction, that is the true test of how it was perceived.
"All I know is I was told to get the weapons out," Sergeant Major Brandon Hall told The New York Times. Asked why, he replied, "Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."
Translation, we are just enlisted guys are we follow ridiculous orders everyday.
Look, I'm not trying to debate whether this was a big deal or not. Obviously you don't think it was and I do. That's fine. All I'm saying is don't jump to the conclusion that just because its not a big deal to you, don't think it isn't to someone else.
 
We did not have to disarm when I escorted Nancy Pelosi..... maybe the brass was having some wishful thinking....
 
Hatuey said:
Of course it's feigned outrage. It's pretending you're mad about something which doesn't affect troop morale. It's pretending you're offended by somebody you personally or anybody within 300 miles of you is affected by. It's pretending you're offended about something so ridiculously insignificant it didn't even make it out of a blog. Actually it was so insignificant that the guy who actually relayed the order said it wasn't a big deal. I brought up the little Bush thing to point out how silly it is to get angry at these supposed jabs the civilian administration take at the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Got the link to the "doesn't affect troop morale" comment. Now I don't want a quote from the Generals or SECDEF, I want one from all the troops.

As to the Bush comment, you and everyone else knows it's the typical left-wing tactic, when you can't win the debate, bash Bush. But at least you lefties are consistent. We can always count on a "Bush did thus and so" as the answer to every failure on the Demo side.
 
If young men and women want to make the most of their lives, they should choose to serve their country instead of joining the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom