Vultite 57 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) I'm sure ya'll heard by now that General McChrystal has made some inappropriate comments in regards to the Commander in Chief. I can understand a repremand is in order, but not firing a four star general that has earned the respect of the men and women in the military by being out there WITH them and not pushing papers from afar. If he gets fired, I suspect this will spark many other issues. Interesting how our country has lost the freedom of speech and other freedoms that we have taken for granted...guess we'll find out his fate tomorrow. I hope he walks in and gives them the finger and quits if the conversation is headed for him being fired. Edited June 23, 2010 by Vultite Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 He needs to say..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VaiFanatic90 360 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Haha, amen Chevy +1 for the laugh, made my day better. But I couldn't agree more, why hurt ourselves by firing someone who is revered by his subordinates??? We're our own worst enemy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evlblkwpnz 3,418 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 I say put them in the octagon and whoever taps, gets choked out, or gets knocked out has to resign. If I'm dreaming.... I'm dreaming BIG. Stan "The Man" would kick hussein's ass. What if there was a line of people in the military that didn't agree with obama? How long would that line be? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) If I were a betting man (and I'm not). . . I'd bet the good General's command time (and therefore his current military career) is finished. Edited June 23, 2010 by Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 The General will be gone soon. My guess is zero is looking for a replacement. Yakdung Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted June 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 The General will be gone soon. My guess is zero is looking for a replacement. Yakdung Likely to be replaced by some pushover pussy that will do whatever he's told like a good dog. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) The General will be gone soon. My guess is zero is looking for a replacement. Yakdung Likely to be replaced by some pushover pussy that will do whatever he's told like a good dog. Correct. It is disturbing to me that the President of the US has such thin skin. This is another reason I believe he would rejoice in having more control over the Internet. Yakdung Edited June 23, 2010 by yakdung Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Speaking in your capacity as a representative of the United States Army, you do not have the same level of freedom the rest of us do when it comes to criticizing the commander-in-chief. It's been like that for a long, long time. Just like I can get my ass canned for talking shit about my employer, well... Like him or not, the president of this country is also the commander-in-chief, which makes him the highest military authority. If he gets an ass-chewing for criticizing his commander, he's getting off lucky. Doesn't matter if you agree with your commander, even if you think he's fucking up; you can tell him that behind closed doors, but your sure as shit don't allow it to come out in a published interview. Doing so, then following up with an apology immediately after a critical public backlash, shows poor judgment and a lack of foresight. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ktcm7271 999 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Patreus is back. Just saw the news update on NBC. I have to wonder if Bush was president, if these journalists would be as upset. Last time I checked, not many people like their boss. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Patreus is back. Just saw the news update on NBC. I have to wonder if Bush was president, if these journalists would be as upset. Last time I checked, not many people like their boss. Yep, guess I should have took that bet. . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 Speaking in your capacity as a representative of the United States Army, you do not have the same level of freedom the rest of us do when it comes to criticizing the commander-in-chief. It's been like that for a long, long time. Just like I can get my ass canned for talking shit about my employer, well... Like him or not, the president of this country is also the commander-in-chief, which makes him the highest military authority. If he gets an ass-chewing for criticizing his commander, he's getting off lucky. Doesn't matter if you agree with your commander, even if you think he's fucking up; you can tell him that behind closed doors, but your sure as shit don't allow it to come out in a published interview. Doing so, then following up with an apology immediately after a critical public backlash, shows poor judgment and a lack of foresight. You have hit the nail on the head. Criticizing the C-in-C is OUR job! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sly 233 Posted June 24, 2010 Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 Speaking in your capacity as a representative of the United States Army, you do not have the same level of freedom the rest of us do when it comes to criticizing the commander-in-chief. It's been like that for a long, long time. Just like I can get my ass canned for talking shit about my employer, well... Like him or not, the president of this country is also the commander-in-chief, which makes him the highest military authority. If he gets an ass-chewing for criticizing his commander, he's getting off lucky. Doesn't matter if you agree with your commander, even if you think he's fucking up; you can tell him that behind closed doors, but your sure as shit don't allow it to come out in a published interview. Doing so, then following up with an apology immediately after a critical public backlash, shows poor judgment and a lack of foresight. Actually, that's incorrect, unconstitutional, illegal, and a couple more treasonous thing's. The standing POTUS legally has "NO control over the military". Understand the us constitution, prohibit's this for a reason. That being "TREASON". "Commander in chief" is not a legal position for POTUS. You have forgotten how a "Republic" work's. Now your being brainwashed into thinking we are a democracy, soon to be socialist, then marxist regieme. I'm gonna post a thred from "TED", to show what your missing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uzitiger 193 Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 This shows how the leftists led by 'Donkey Ears' Obama are trying to undermine the military. Anything said to the press will be used against them so they can push their homosexual agenda into the military and undermine it. Remember what Obama said during his campaign that he wants a 250,000 man security force with the same abilities and funding as the military. This force will be loyal only to him the same way the SS was loyal to Hitler. This general knows a lot more about the military than the usurper in the White House will ever know and this is why he was fired. He even would go on operations with his soldiers and he was not a desk jockey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 (edited) Actually, that's incorrect, unconstitutional, illegal, and a couple more treasonous thing's. "Commander in chief" is not a legal position for POTUS. You have forgotten how a "Republic" work's. Now your being brainwashed into thinking we are a democracy, soon to be socialist, then marxist regieme. What Constitution are you talking about? Article II, Section II, Clause I, United States Constitution The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into actual service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution Edited July 4, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sly 233 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) Actually, that's incorrect, unconstitutional, illegal, and a couple more treasonous thing's. "Commander in chief" is not a legal position for POTUS. You have forgotten how a "Republic" work's. Now your being brainwashed into thinking we are a democracy, soon to be socialist, then marxist regieme. What Constitution are you talking about? Article II, Section II, Clause I, United States Constitution The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into actual service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution Wrong. Treason.(Article 3, Section 3) Leave "wiki" out of this. Try the actual us constitution. Article 8, Section 11. And tell us who the "Commander in Chief" really is? Classy stated "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into actual service". Know what "actual service" require's? refer to Article 8, Section 11. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/07/01/the-constitution-and-the-powers-of-war/ Edit. We have not been at war during our generation. Edited July 4, 2010 by Sly Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) Leave "wiki" out of this. Yes, I am sure their transcript of the United States Constitution is some altered form of marxist conspiracy The line referring to "the Militia of the several States when called into actual service of the United States" is when the militia is nationalized, i.e. an Indiana National Guard unit is brought under Federal command and sent to Afghanistan. This line is contained after a comma, thus meaning the President of the United States: - is the commander in chief of the army and navy - and the militia of the several states when called into actual service General McChrystal is in the Army, clearly making Obama, as stated by the US Constitution, his commander in chief. You as a gun owner should be very aware of how a comma works in the constitution, as I assume you believe that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not mean that only the militia have a right to keep and bear arms, but that it states a militia is necessary for security and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Right? You are correct that neither of our current "wars" were properly declared as the constitution requires, though. Once again, this time from the national archives, a scanned image of the actual constitution, pages 2 and 3 of 4, containing article II, stating clearly the text I quoted above. Hopefully this will satisfy you. EDIT: Nice job Bean .223 downvoting me for posting scans of the US Constitution I guess you don't like the document or what? Edited July 4, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sly 233 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) sfgjhgjh,fhj Edited July 4, 2010 by Sly 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) Now Classy, I'm not throwing you off here am I? Cuz I know you know that the constitution grants me NONE, ZERO, NO RIGHT'S. ONLY limit's the gov privelege. CORRECT? I challenge you to show me the "ORIGINAL" us Constitution? CAN YOU Classy? Look closely at the one you posted. Cause "THAT AINT IT"! LOL! And Lincoln was a hero "MY ASS"! Yes, you and I both understand that the constitution does not grant rights, rights are endowed to us by the creator and inalienable, the constitution simply states that the government cannot take them away. As for the original constitution, I would be more than happy to accept your challenge and show it to you. You will just have to pay for airfare/lodging because I am broke at the moment. It is displayed daily at the National Archives building in Washington, DC. I could use a vacation though So if you would like to go to DC with me let me know! And who the heck said Abe Lincoln was a hero? I know I certainly did not. Look up "Ex parte Merryman" Edited July 4, 2010 by Classy Kalashnikov 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
blkgunlvr 31 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Got this in email today: > Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:18:05 -0700 > > http://newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/2010/06282010.htm > > > >> The General and the Community Organizer > >> > >> by Paul R. Hollrah > >> June 28, 2010 > >> > >> Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, > >> the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the > >> heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and > >> McChrystal's top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by > >> the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was > >> that they are all wrong. dead wrong. What is certain is that they all > >> owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that > >> they are lame-brained numbskulls. > >> > >> The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal > >> and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, > >> Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended > >> stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of > >> atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the > >> McChrystal party grounded for days. > >> > >> In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder > >> in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was "very aware" that > >> his comments would find their way into print. He said, "McChrystal and > >> his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did > >> ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record." > >> Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal > >> on June 22, titled, The Runaway General. > >> > >> As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked > >> "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass during > >> their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal > >> quoted the general as saying that it was "a 10-minute photo op." He went > >> on to say, "Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he > >> was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't > >> seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed." > >> > >> As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama > >> in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was > >> that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and > >> inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. > >> > >> General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, > >> knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, > >> thoughtful, highly educated, patriots. graduates of West Point and other > >> fine universities. who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To > >> think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of > >> Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a > >> reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic. at the > >> very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and > >> deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so > >> unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. > >> > >> I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were > >> doing. > >> > >> From the day that he became the handpicked "spear carrier" for Obama's > >> unique brand of warfare. playing at being Commander in Chief while > >> playing to his far left constituency. McChrystal's life had been one of > >> constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he > >> needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before > >> deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could > >> not have been happy about that. > >> > >> The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce > >> collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. > >> troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were > >> allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed > >> a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the > >> enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, > >> the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they > >> were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting > >> small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. > >> > >> Under Obama's politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were > >> required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal > >> could not have been happy about that. > >> > >> A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric > >> Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation > >> Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A > >> great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and > >> battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill > >> Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible. > >> > >> But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers > >> who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. > >> It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers > >> and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing > >> their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be > >> surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded > >> posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity. > >> > >> I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White > >> House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided > >> that he'd had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he > >> was prepared to retire they decided to push back. to make the most of a > >> bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off > >> his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a > >> day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all > >> about him. > >> > >> They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a > >> one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies > >> and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief > >> of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in > >> uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their > >> messenger very carefully. > >> > >> They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of > >> just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like > >> any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn > >> on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a > >> chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of > >> conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of > >> some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix > >> the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael > >> Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine. > >> > >> During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between > >> Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices. both bad. > >> He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war > >> effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he > >> could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own > >> mind, he was the Commander in Chief. > >> > >> In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual. a man > >> not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few > >> rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He > >> chose the latter of the two options. > >> > >> But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the > >> fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what > >> they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the > >> American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in > >> Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of > >> the uniformed services. from the newest Private E-1 up to the top > >> four-star generals and admirals. > >> > >> That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. > >> > >> From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that > >> Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama > >> is nothing more than a. community organizer. Well done, General! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sly 233 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Now Classy, I'm not throwing you off here am I? Cuz I know you know that the constitution grants me NONE, ZERO, NO RIGHT'S. ONLY limit's the gov privelege. CORRECT? I challenge you to show me the "ORIGINAL" us Constitution? CAN YOU Classy? Look closely at the one you posted. Cause "THAT AINT IT"! LOL! And Lincoln was a hero "MY ASS"! Yes, you and I both understand that the constitution does not grant rights, rights are endowed to us by the creator and inalienable, the constitution simply states that the government cannot take them away. As for the original constitution, I would be more than happy to accept your challenge and show it to you. You will just have to pay for airfare/lodging because I am broke at the moment. It is displayed daily at the National Archives building in Washington, DC. I could use a vacation though So if you would like to go to DC with me let me know! And who the heck said Abe Lincoln was a hero? I know I certainly did not. Look up "Ex parte Merryman" LOL Classy, Hell of a hangover! To HELL with DC, I'm goin to Hawaii. Look's like what I was trying to drunkenly get to was the POTUS does not have legal standing as "CiC". An UNDECLARED military action is UNconstitutional. Classy states "Yes, I am sure their transcript of the United States Constitution is some altered form of marxist conspiracy" Whats the original 13th ammendment? I hate wiki, yet here's what you get. 1865 right? The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 21, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. It was then declared in the proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments. President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states.[1] Wrong. The ORIGINAL 13th dissapeared for some "strange" reason? ever read the original? Thursday, April 26th, 1810 "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility, or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain, any present, pension, office, or emolument, of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." http://www.amendment-13.org/ and some good study here. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigsal 757 Posted July 6, 2010 Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 There is no document written by men that doesn't lack flaws. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sly 233 Posted July 7, 2010 Report Share Posted July 7, 2010 There is no document written by men that doesn't lack flaws. And there is nothing upon the earth that is evil, except of man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.