The Obamatard trashes a General!
in [Design]
|
Prev: BP
Next: Sr. System Architect with Synaptics
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Jun 2010 16:00 On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > On 06/23/2010 11:30 AM, UltimatePatriot wrote: > > > > > Unreal. At least he put the right guy in his place. > > So, should _everyone_ in the military be able to publicly criticize > their superiors without constraint? Or should it just be that top > generals should be able to criticize the commander-in-chief without > restraint? Gen. McChrystal didn't criticize the President at all that I saw, but yeah, the vibe from his staff wasn't glowing. So, he had to go--Obama can't tolerate dissent, even private, even whispered. > Maybe they should be able to criticize him first and then overthrow him, > too -- hell, that works so well in South America, Africa, South Asia, > just about all the 'stans, and so many other really nifty places, maybe > it's how we should do things here! AFAICT that's already happened. We're now not much different from those places, just a few years behind them in the evolution. (That's not hype, either.) We're ruled by a junta that seizes and punishes without right or trial or law. Temporarily, one hopes. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 24 Jun 2010 19:47 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Archie > Unreal. At least he put the right guy in his place. > >MooseFET > After what General McChrystal said >MooseFET > to a reporter, he was doomed. You >MooseFET > can't allow that sort of thing to stand. > >BillBowden > Maybe not, but the emperor still has >BillBowden > no clothes. Patton would have said >BillBowden > the same, and MacArthur would have >BillBowden > told him he didn't have time to visit >BillBowden > the White house. > >krw > MacArthur was fired. > >Patton had his fuel cut off. By Ike.
From: DrParnassus on 25 Jun 2010 00:51 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:38:31 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > >So, should _everyone_ in the military be able to publicly criticize >their superiors without constraint? That is not what happened.
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Jun 2010 02:53 On Jun 24, 11:51 pm, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:38:31 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> > wrote: > > > > >So, should _everyone_ in the military be able to publicly criticize > >their superiors without constraint? > > That is not what happened. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
From: JosephKK on 26 Jun 2010 09:26
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:38:31 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >On 06/23/2010 11:30 AM, UltimatePatriot wrote: >> >> Unreal. At least he put the right guy in his place. > >So, should _everyone_ in the military be able to publicly criticize >their superiors without constraint? Or should it just be that top >generals should be able to criticize the commander-in-chief without >restraint? > >Maybe they should be able to criticize him first and then overthrow him, >too -- hell, that works so well in South America, Africa, South Asia, >just about all the 'stans, and so many other really nifty places, maybe >it's how we should do things here! How about you actually read the rolling stone article before shooting off your mouth? |