The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Trigger Time]

It beats the hell out of working for a living like the rest of us!

They probably see themselves as working class hero's lol

 

[Kutnupe14]

I had a officer once tell me that if a person was wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt and had pine tree air fresheners in the car,he would get searched more so then a person not dressed that way.Would that be considered profiling?I am just wondering?

Those are indicators. If the person is stopped (and can't leave) based on what he is wearing, that's illegal. If the person is stopped legally, you use the indicators to decide if you want to proceed further with an investigation.

 

[ghitch75]

this is all going way to far!!!

ESPN broadcaster Robert Lee taken off UVA game due to name - Sports - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[ghitch75]

more out of control left.....

High school students say they were harassed at Howard University for wearing pro-Trump gear | Fox News

 

[Birds Away]

Well that maybe not your intention but you do. Now, I'll try not to call your service into question just because I disagree with you.

That isn't why I questioned it and I think you know that.

 

[Dddrees]

That isn't why I questioned it and I think you know that.

No I don't. I don't see what my service has to do with that discussion. However I would like to hear you expand on that a bit and explain what your trying to say,

 

[Birds Away]

No I don't. I don't see what my service has to do with that discussion. However I would like to hear you expand on that a bit and explain what your trying to say,

Fine. Many of your statements and, more recently, objections to the latest policies regarding the war in Afghanistan seem inconsistent with a career military person. I think everyone, civilian and military, understands and acknowledges that there must be civilian oversight of the military. That's how our system is designed and, for the most part, it has been successful. The problem comes when our civilian masters usurp the jobs of the Generals and Admirals and start directing things at a tactical level. Our system works best when the political leaders define the specific objectives and allow the professional military officers determine the strategy to meet those objectives. Anyone who has served more than one tour, and most of those as well, understand that the infusion of politics on the battlefield costs us lives. Civilian meddling in the ROE costs us lives. We have all learned the lessons from LBJs insistence on dictating the day to day tactics in Vietnam. It cost us countless lives. Rumsfeld megalomania in always thinking he was the smartest guy in the room. His decision to throw out the battle plan of his generals and make up one of his own cost us dearly. The Obama Administration's highly restrictive ROE cost us many lives. I fully support civilian oversight but civilian meddling in the tactical situation is far too costly. In short, politics on the battlefield is deadly for our troops. You demand to know what is going to happen in Afghanistan. You wrongly believe that we live in a democracy and that it is your right as a citizen to know. Our system was designed as a republic so that day to day decisions would not be made by the mob but by elected representatives. They are tasked with providing this oversight and the leadership in Congress will, as it always has been, be periodically briefed on what is happening anywhere that we are engaged. This has always happened and should always continue. That way the people's representatives can provide feedback to the administration if they see something going awry. This is all done in a secure setting so that nothing that could put our troops at further risk is divulged. Your objection to this longstanding arrangement reeks of partisan angst and, IMO, is inconsistent with someone who completed a 20 year career in the active military.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Those are indicators. If the person is stopped (and can't leave) based on what he is wearing, that's illegal. If the person is stopped legally, you use the indicators to decide if you want to proceed further with an investigation.

I think we all (or at least most of us) agree that the stop has to be legitimate... tail light out, failure to yield, speeding, etc. I "know" about those other "indicators" because I was stopped multiple times a year when I was in high school and college, literally dozens of times, as best I could tell, simply because I was young, longer hair, wearing concert tee-shirts and driving a "hot rod". I'm not counting the two times I was nabbed for actual speeding, lol!

And, all of that abruptly stopped when I graduated college and bought a brand-new muscle car. I went from looking like a "kid" in a "hot rod" to a yuppie in a new muscle car. In the decades since, I was stopped EXACTLY twice, both for infractions. There is no doubt I was being profiled since "kids" in "hot rods" are/were often up to no good.

My son had similar "stops" for no legitimate reason in this decade, though not as numerous, and normally limited to nights when teens tend to be drinking en mass, like prom and graduation nights. He also fit the "kid" in a "hot rod" wearing a concert tee profile.

So, I looked like an "extra" who just walked off of a Kid Rock video, and those were "indicators". Would a black youth who looked like he just walked off of a Jay-Z video, in a "pimped out" ride, also exhibit "indicators"? Again, assuming a legal stop even if pretextual. Honestly, I see the two as equivalent, young males going for (or are actually) the "bad boy" or "gangsta" look. I know that was the look I was going for, though the attention I was seeking wasn't from the cops! Lol!

 

[Dddrees]

Fine. Many of your statements and, more recently, objections to the latest policies regarding the war in Afghanistan seem inconsistent with a career military person. I think everyone, civilian and military, understands and acknowledges that there must be civilian oversight of the military. That's how our system is designed and, for the most part, it has been successful. The problem comes when our civilian masters usurp the jobs of the Generals and Admirals and start directing things at a tactical level. Our system works best when the political leaders define the specific objectives and allow the professional military officers determine the strategy to meet those objectives. Anyone who has served more than one tour, and most of those as well, understand that the infusion of politics on the battlefield costs us lives. Civilian meddling in the ROE costs us lives. We have all learned the lessons from LBJs insistence on dictating the day to day tactics in Vietnam. It cost us countless lives. Rumsfeld megalomania in always thinking he was the smartest guy in the room. His decision to throw out the battle plan of his generals and make up one of his own cost us dearly. The Obama Administration's highly restrictive ROE cost us many lives. I fully support civilian oversight but civilian meddling in the tactical situation is far too costly. In short, politics on the battlefield is deadly for our troops. You demand to know what is going to happen in Afghanistan. You wrongly believe that we live in a democracy and that it is your right as a citizen to know. Our system was designed as a republic so that day to day decisions would not be made by the mob but by elected representatives. They are tasked with providing this oversight and the leadership in Congress will, as it always has been, be periodically briefed on what is happening anywhere that we are engaged. This has always happened and should always continue. That way the people's representatives can provide feedback to the administration if they see something going awry. This is all done in a secure setting so that nothing that could put our troops at further risk is divulged. Your objection to this longstanding arrangement reeks of partisan angst and, IMO, is inconsistent with someone who completed a 20 year career in the active military.

Your feelings about what is and what is not inconsistent with a person who served 20yrs is an opinion which is yours and that is all it is. A persons beliefs about certain things aren't necessary dictated just because whether they serve or not. What do you think the military indoctrines you or brainwashes you to believe something once you begin service? Frankly I find it best not to question some ones service to their country. Typically the fact that someon serves their country is considered something as long as they did so honorably to stand for itself.

My opinion is my opinion and I have the luxury of expressing that opinion based on the fact that I live in a Republic that is based on that freedom. I served to protect those rights and you have no right questioning that. Nor would I question your service although I vehemently disagree with you over politics.

Now all this other stuff of whether or not I believe the force should be micromanaged or not is nothing more than an assumption you've created in your head based on a belief that you have since I don't support Donald Trump I necessarily support something else. In fact actually stated in one of these threads somewhere I thought that not micromanaging was a good thing.

Bottom line I find your questioning of my service insulting and your assumptions are just that, your assumptions.

 

[ghitch75]

Your feelings about what is and what is not inconsistent with a person who served 20yrs is an opinion which is yours and that is all it is. A persons beliefs about certain things aren't necessary dictated just because whether they serve or not. What do you think the military indoctrines you or brainwashes you to believe something once you begin service? Frankly I find it best not to question some ones service to their country. Typically the fact that someon serves their country is considered something as long as they did so honorably to stand for itself.

My opinion is my opinion and I have the luxury of expressing that opinion based on the fact that I live in a Republic that is based on that freedom. I served to protect those rights and you have no right questioning that. Nor would I question your service although I vehemently disagree with you over politics.

Now all this other stuff of whether or not I believe the force should be micromanaged or not is nothing more than an assumption you've created in your head based on a belief that you have since I don't support Donald Trump I necessarily support something else. In fact actually stated in one of these threads somewhere I thought that not micromanaging was a good thing.

Bottom line I find your questioning of my service insulting and your assumptions are just that, your assumptions.

just a quick question.......if you where still in service would and did you slam YOUR commander and chief as you have here?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Do you even know why you want Joe pardoned? i.e. why he is in contempt of court (prior to looking?)

Ok, I looked and here's what I found... IANAL, so anyone else who's read the court findings is welcome to jump in.

Arpaio was found in contempt because of statements he made, multiple times that he was going to continue doing what he had been doing and enforcing the laws.

BUT, the evidence stated in the court documents indicates THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T DO THAT. During the 2011-2013 period there were three illegals stopped, found to be "only illgegal" and turned over to border partrol. This is out of about 200-250 illegals with criminal complaints that ICE accepted custody during that period. Prior to the injunction, when Arpaio was operating under [STRIKE]208g[/STRIKE] 287g jurisdiction (even after suspended in 2009 by the Obama administration) there were hundreds, if not more, a year turned over to ICE solely for illegal status.

I found no discussion of whether the three, who were found to be "detained" for the hour and fifteen minute drive to the border patrol consented or not.

Edit: The program that allows state/locals to enforce immigration law is 287g, not 208g. Corrected in red.

 

[Dddrees]

just a quick question.......if you where still in service would and did you slam YOUR commander and chief as you have here?

No, but I know of a Colonel who did. It was a Divarty Comander who did so in front of the Senior NCOs and Comanders in his Command.

The one and only time I can ever remember such a thing happening.

By the way his last name was Gingrich and the President was Clinton.

So tell me was he wrong?

And yes supposedly he was a relative of the Speaker of the House.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, I looked and here's what I found... IANAL, so anyone else who's read the court findings is welcome to jump in.

Arpaio was found in contempt because of statements he made, multiple times that he was going to continue doing what he had been doing and enforcing the laws.

BUT, the evidence stated in the court documents indicates THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T DO THAT. During the 2011-2013 period there were three illegals stopped, found to be "only illgegal" and turned over to border partrol. This is out of about 200-250 illegals with criminal complaints that ICE accepted custody during that period. Prior to the injunction, when Arpaio was operating under 208g jurisdiction (even after suspended in 2009 by the Obama administration) there were hundreds, if not more, a year turned over to ICE solely for illegal status.

I found no discussion of whether the three, who were found to be "detained" for the hour and fifteen minute drive to the border patrol consented or not.

Three? The court found that there were 157 illegals turned over, who had committed no state crimes, in violation of the order. I have no problem with the catching illegals, but not at the expense of other Americans.

 

[Birds Away]

I don't care who's in charge. It could be the most capable President we ever had. It could be the most successfully military leader in our history but that's not the point. We're a Democratic society with a need to know in order to protect that Democracy.

No, I don't want time tables, and I don't need to know whenever they're going to take a s*** either. But I do want a better idea as to what our involvement will be with regard to troop strength and define his strategy better.

Your feelings about what is and what is not inconsistent with a person who served 20yrs is an opinion which is yours and that is all it is. A persons beliefs about certain things aren't necessary dictated just because whether they serve or not. What do you think the military indoctrines you or brainwashes you to believe something once you begin service? Frankly I find it best not to question some ones service to their country. Typically the fact that someon serves their country is considered something as long as they did so honorably to stand for itself.

My opinion is my opinion and I have the luxury of expressing that opinion based on the fact that I live in a Republic that is based on that freedom. I served to protect those rights and you have no right questioning that. Nor would I question your service although I vehemently disagree with you over politics.

Now all this other stuff of whether or not I believe the force should be micromanaged or not is nothing more than an assumption you've created in your head based on a belief that you have since I don't support Donald Trump I necessarily support something else. In fact actually stated in one of these threads somewhere I thought that not micromanaging was a good thing.

Bottom line I find your questioning of my service insulting and your assumptions are just that, your assumptions.

Not assumptions, I was just going off your own statements.

As to brainwashing, no, the military doesn't brainwash people. However long service tends to give people enough experience to learn a few common truths. But, apparently, not as common as one would think.

 

[Dddrees]

Not assumptions, I was just going off your own statements.

As to brainwashing, no, the military doesn't brainwash people. However long service tends to give people enough experience to learn a few common truths. But, apparently, not as common as one would think.

Your confusing your beliefs with others and although he may enjoy a high degree of favorability among service members and vets it's by no means 100% by any means.

 

[Birds Away]

I don't care who's in charge. It could be the most capable President we ever had. It could be the most successfully military leader in our history but that's not the point. We're a Democratic society with a need to know in order to protect that Democracy.

No, I don't want time tables, and I don't need to know whenever they're going to take a s*** either. But I do want a better idea as to what our involvement will be with regard to troop strength and define his strategy better.

Your confusing your beliefs with others and although he may enjoy a high degree of favorability among service members and vets it's by no means 100% by any means.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't know what you're reading but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Every senior NCO knows that more politics on the battlefield is a BAD thing.

 

[Dddrees]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't know what you're reading but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Every senior NCO knows that more politics on the battlefield is a BAD thing.

What in the Hell are you talking about? Who in the hell said anything about politics on the battlefield? That is except for my response with regards to the other individuals question whether or not I slammed a President while on duty. Which I didn't but whom I knew of a Colonel that did. What in the Hell are you talking about?

 

[Birds Away]

I don't care who's in charge. It could be the most capable President we ever had. It could be the most successfully military leader in our history but that's not the point. We're a Democratic society with a need to know in order to protect that Democracy.

No, I don't want time tables, and I don't need to know whenever they're going to take a s*** either. But I do want a better idea as to what our involvement will be with regard to troop strength and define his strategy better.

What in the Hell are you talking about? Who in the hell said anything about politics on the battlefield? That is except for my response with regards to the other individuals question whether or not I slammed a President while on duty. Which I didn't but whom I knew of a Colonel that did. What in the Hell are you talking about?

These are your posts. I'm keep quoting them in order to respond to them. Take just a moment to read what you wrote. That is what in the hell I am talking about. Sheesh.

 

[Dddrees]

These are your posts. I'm keep quoting them in order to respond to them. Take just a moment to read what you wrote. That is what in the hell I am talking about. Sheesh.

Yeah, and you have no idea what your talking about. You keep confusing your beliefs and assumptions with what others are actually saying. A desire to hold one's leaders accountable has nothing to do with battlefield politics.

 

[Dddrees]

President continues to go to War with his own party.


https://mobile.twitter.com/realDona...2?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet