Fighting on My Behalf?
Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage. This week. Who knows how his position may evolve once he’s cashed all those Hollywood and entertainment industry checks that are now pouring in due to our president’s adoption of a new wide stance. If all those in the gay, lesbian, blah, blah, blah society think they have this guy in their pocket, they’d better count their fingers before they think they’ve won this fight. Based upon what Barack Obama has so often done to those who are no longer useful to him, they may spend the next four years politically flattened out on the road to sexual liberation, covered with massive tire treads. The possibility exists of roadside IED’s.
But for now, Obama’s for gay marriage and based on details in his announcement, that includes our military. Now that, folks, should provide for some interesting situations in base housing. How do you suppose the sergeants major and master sergeants and sergeants first class are all going to respond when a couple of gay specialists throw a wine and cheese tasting pool party at their quarters right in the midst of enlisted housing, inviting all their civilian acquaintances from the local gay bars and bath houses? One who has served can only imagine the response, worse even for gay lieutenants in officers’ housing.
But for now, we must understand that Barack Obama is taking this courageous wide stance for all those gay people in the military who are out there fighting on his behalf. Three immediate questions come to mind: First, is it only the gay military folks who are fighting on his behalf? Second, if it’s all our troops fighting on his behalf, does that now mean they are no longer serving the nation at large? Has, under the imperious Obama administration, the United States military become some sort of Praetorian Guard, whose allegiances belong only to Dear Leader? The third and most important question is this: When you take away his teleprompter, just how big a fumbling fool is this demonstratively failed product of affirmative action?
Good grief, even the rawest buck sergeant knows that his troops are first loyal to themselves, meaning the immediate, cohesive unit, starting with their squad, moving up through platoon and company to a tenuous battalion loyalty; then to the mission, and as a distant last, to flag and country. In six years of active duty in the Army, most of one of those in ground combat, I never once heard a soldier express the belief that he was serving on behalf of John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, the presidents of the time. Not once. Had any trooper done so, he would have immediately become suspect by his entire chain of command. For this inept commander in chief to reference the troops as fighting on his behalf can only lead to one conclusion:
Obama’s been staring at his own image in the golf course pond for far too long and far too often.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
I find myself wondering if in five-hundred years Obama won’t be in the same sort of stories as Prince John. Petulant, narcissistic and inept with a comical sidekick? It’s that or Caligula, golfing as the world nose-dives. I’m fine with civil unions, in particular because I’m about the only one in my family to support my sister, but I wish they’d stop harping marriage thing. Find a church that supports it for the ceremony or settle for the union and call it good. Let whatever god you worship settle it after the fact. Now if I could just scrub Zombie’s Folsom photo essays I’d be a happier person.
I’ve always been curious why the government should give a shit one way or another about marriage or civil unions. If a particular denomination wants to allow one or both, have a fucking blast. But there shouldn’t be any benefits, financial or otherwise, to said union, which is why I always had a hard spot with single guys getting fucked over on the boat when the married guys got the good deal–pay, duty, and other. And the gay marriage bit is the same deal.
#2 That’s a more valid point than I had. Good luck yanking the bennies away though. Hell, we’ve got people that think that TV is a right now and demand we pay for it, could you imagine taking away something with more weight behind it?
No NO NO I think I finally understand the fighting on his behalf statement. He means the Gay soilders are fighting on his behalf everyone else is fighting for freedom and liberty.
Great piece. @ #4 Great post.
The new Oath of Enlistment: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend Barack Obama against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me Allah.”
Well done Poetrooper! The dear leader and narcissism bits and links are absolutely clutch!
It really didn’t matter what obama said about gay marriage. The celebuturds and gay ‘rights’ groups were going to support him no matter what, since he is a democrat after all. The fact that he “supports” gay marriage was just icing on the cake for them, and feel a little more of a comfort zone in expressing public support for barrack.
You want to know why the government wants gay marriage? One word: TAXES. Right now, living with someone while not being married to them is cheaper in the tax long-run than actually being married to them. Most of the gay couples can get the same benefits out of civil unions as marriage, but they want equality. By that, it means the government has put it in their heads that until they can “marry” they won’t be truly equal. What they don’t realize is that by legalizing gay marriage, all they are doing is giving the government the ability to tax them more.
Don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but facts is facts.
@8
I’m not sure about that… my impression is that he had to make some gesture to appease the people at Clooney’s party so they would open up their checkbooks. $15 million, I heard.
I think I saw this same story on an episode of “West Wing”, where the Democrat president is being blackmailed by the Hollywood left into supporting gay marriage or risk the campaign donations. Unlike Obama, though, Martin Sheen’s character didn’t wimp out.
The Big Red One’s position on gay marriage has “evolved”? Well, there’s a ribaldry there just waiting to be had, but I think I’ll pass. Instead, check out the verse, “On My Behalf”, by the Bard of Murdock & illustration by yours truly at my site:
http://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/on-his-behalf/
Stupid talking points: Sometimes it really is amazing just how much of the stupid people can fit in one blog post. #1. He’s just doing this for political gain and massive amounts of gay cash. I know it’s really hard for you guys to fathom political courage considering the fact that the Repukes are about to nominate the worlds greatest political pussy to be their champion. But gay marriage just went down to defeat in North Carolina, a state which President Obama won in 2008. Gay donors were already flocking to Obama in records numbers BEFORE he made his announcement: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54539.html Furthermore the fact that Mitt “I’ll be better for Gay rights then Ted Kennedy” is now running to the right of George W. Bush on gay rights is all the impetus any gay person of any sense needs to donate. That and the fact that, contrary to your idiotic “count your fingers” talking point, President Obama has done far more for gay rights then any President in history. Gays have no worries about the steadfastness of President Obama. If i were you I’d be way more worried about Mitt “I’m no Reagan Republican” Romney. As far as your second paragraph goes. The imaginary Sergeant and Lieutenant of your masturbatory bath house fantasy will react the same way they react when the black sergeant shows up with his gold teeth and the bling and starts blaring his rap music or when the Hispanic shows up with his (insert whatever the fuck kind of racial bigoted stereotype you want to fill in here). They’ll deal with it. There’s been gays serving openly in the military for 8 months now and so far none of the disasters predicted by the bigots have come to pass. Just as none of the disasters predicted by those against racial integration have come to pass. The actual failed “affirmative action” President is George W. Bush. Of course when it’s rich folks they call it “legacy” rather than affirmative action. But of course that doesn’t bother you, because then it’s white folks gaming the system and that’s… Read more »
Oh, by the way, keep bringing up “the wide stance” I love it when people are reminded of REPUBLICAN hypocricy. It was Larry Craig, Conservative Republican, the man who “loved his wife” who had the “wide stance” not any Democrat.
“Sometimes it really is amazing just how much of the stupid people can fit in one blog post.”
I don’t think it’s amazing at all, I mean there’s droves of you stupid people out there,Insipid, but you guys don’t post on the same topic all at once. Thank God.
Redacted, demonstrating more stupid. The blog was Poetrooper, what i gave was a response.
Sure insipid, like your bullshit “i’ll stop blaming bush when you start blaming bush” chicken shit cop-out is the pinnacle of intelligence. It’s pretty easy to stop reading your drivel, you usually can’t get past the first few words without blaming GWB. With that it’s easy determine your posts are utterly retarded without having to go through the pain of reading them.
A success? We certainly don’t need anymore “success” if Baracka is one.
Now, to make it easy on you, as I realize the one pot meth lab just delivered, please, and I’m sincere, please source your claim that Obama graduated, and that he graduated in the top of his class. That requires a grade point average, published, along with the class standings and grade point averages.
Oh, and “galls you to think that a commoner is sullying the White House”? This “White House”? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/103287/obama-gay-marriage-tina-brown-newsweek-cover?page=0,1
Oh, and what “black man” are you talking about? By the Zimmerman Standard, he’s certainly no black man.
Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude at Harvard which places him firmly in the top 10% of all students there. Furthermore he was allowed to join the Harvard Law Review which only accepts 85 our of a 1000 applicants. I’ll stipulate that his getting elected head of the law review was more to do with his skills as a politician, but my guess is they wouldn’t of done it if they all thought he was a dummy.
Romney, by the way, graduated Cum Laude and was never selected for the Law Review. So yeah, the commoner beat him
http://nymag.com/news/politics/encyclopedia/lawschool-2012/
The reason i blame George W. Bush and the Republican party is because it is their fault. You’re supposed to be the party of responsibility, it’s past time you took it. The Republicans are the ones that ruined the economy and got us into an unnecessary war. You’re blaming the hangover on the guy who’s giving you the asprin.
@12Insipid…Well it would certainly appear you chose an appropriate username there, Insipid. Can’t begin to convey the joy it brings me to get some liberal’s shorts tied in the knots yours appear to be. Hope it’s not too painful. Soak ’em in warm water and wrap ’em around your head, Dude.
And please, please, promise me that you’ll watch for my future posts and comment on each and every one as you have here.
No one could better substantiate my points for me than you have, Bubba. Keep it coming, OK?
God, I love liberals like this…
Russ, i assume you’re poetrooper from your response.
As much as you “love” “liberals like this” i love Conservatives like you even more. Conservatives like you are what is marginalizing your party and relegating it to a regional, meaningless Southern Party. So please, keep alienating the gay, black, latino and women vote. Nothing can make me happier.
As far as Obama being black goes. He is. He looks black he calls himself black, most of the public considers him black. As far as your made up Zimmerman rule, i’ll see it and raise it the “one drop” rule. A rule you Conservatives made up which you can’t back away from now.
Hmm….this failure in the white house has spent more in 3 years than GWB did in 8. (and more than this country did on WWI and II COMBINED) Casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have skyrocketed in Nobama’s three years squatting in the WH. Yeah, he’s doing a bang up job alright. Face it, your boy’s a fuck up.
And you’re just either ignorant or a liar. Though i’m not discounting the possibility you could be both, redacted. In terms of Iraq, he’s pulled us out of there and we haven’t engaged in active combat there in quite some time. So you’re just wrong about casualties “skyrocketing” there. In terms of Afghanistan, he increased the troops there to try and finish the job fuck-up Bush should of done in 2002 when he decided it was more important to go after a country that DIDN’T attack us.
Bush is the one that almost spent us into oblivion, not President Obama. No matter what “fuzzy math” you try and pull that’s a fact. Yes, the debt went higher under Obama because President Obama is using more honest book keeping. Namely he’s no longer funding the wars on emergency supplementals.
But make no mistake, it was the two unpaid for wars, the unpaid for Bush Tax cuts, the unpaid for Medicare prescription drug plans and the cost of the Bush recession that is responsible for the VAST bulk of our debt:
http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac143/ThisIsMyTime_2010/BushDeficitsVsObama.jpg
What I posted are undisputable, quantifiable facts and you just can’t handle it. Look it up yourself, it’s not some super secret hidden document. It’s all over the web.
And to suggest troops magically stopped dying in Iraq when Obummer was sworn in just shows how ignorant you really are. Let’s see…he was sworn in on January 20th 2009. The troop be withdraw date was set for December 31, 2011. That’s quite a bit of time between the two, almost 3 years. So either you suck at math or live in a dream land or can’t accept reality, or all of the above.
I’m not claiming troops “magically stopped dying” what i am saying is that your claim that casualties in Iraq “skyrocketed” since Obama became President is just wrong. As our activity and the troop level in Iraq went down, so did our casualties and as our activity and troop level in Afghanistan went up, our casualties there “skyrocketed”.
Nope. Hate to say it, but it just isn’t so. The casualty rate accelerated in BOTH theatres. In Afghanistan alone, two thirds of the casualties since 2001 came under the Obama regime, and the rate of civilian casualties has also increased. Try harder next time pal.
@28 – “The casualty rate accelerated in BOTH theatres.”
Not unless you have a different definition of skyrocketed. US casualties were highest in Iraq during the surge, and had steadily tapered off ever since through the withdrawal in Dec 2011. Year by year, the number of US casualties decreased since 2008. This is indisputable.
In AFG, the casualty rate for US forces has dramatically risen with the surge there. The same dynamics have existed in both current and preceding Administrations.
Sigh…..here goes:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june072009/war_casualties_tk_6-6-09.php
Indisputable? I think not. There’s more, but you don’t expect me to do all the work for you, do you? I mean surely you’re capable of doing your own search right? I just got the ball rolling. Glad I could help. 😉
Indisputable.
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
Thanks for playing.
So, the claim by his magnificence that the troops are fighting on his behalf is also Bush’s fault?
Wow!
Hmm, reading the charts they do in fact show an accelerated casualty rate. Do you shoot yourself in the foot this often? Or is it you don’t read everything you post beforehand?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R40824.pdf
Now sit down before you hurt yourself son.
Please do explain your alternate reality of what ‘accelerated’ means when the numbers trend markedly downward.
Do you typically post links that don’t source your claims?
FURTHERMORE, it even shows civilian casualties also accelerated. To steal a page from your playbook: Why did Obama murder all those innocnt people??!
Ok check it out: From YOUR source, let’s go to May of 09. 39 Casualties. June, 51 (that’s 12 more than May) July, 47, ok, a bit less, August 42, fair enough, September 62(!) I’m pretty sure that’s called an accelerated casualty rate. Now this pattern repeats all the way to July 11 where it totals 63. See? Simple math my friend. Has learning occured? Yes? Good. I think we’re done here.
@36 – “Has learning occurred”? Sadly I think that it has not. In posts 26 and 28, you specifically reference the accelerated casualty rate of US forces….which is what I responded to. Now you come back and attempt to use ISF casualties to support you statement. That’s fine…..if you really meant ISF all along…..you are still ignoring the continual downward trend in casualties in all sectors….ISF included. Furthermore, you set the parameters of comparing the casualty rate between the two Administrations.
Hills and valleys between weeks and months, when the downward trend is obvious and measurable….does not equal acceleration.
So are you trying to say adding ISF casualties to US casualties would make casualty totals……LESS? Are you fucking with me right now?! And NOWHERE, absolutely nowhere did I specify U.S. casualties. Not in post 26, nor in post 28. your ship’s sinkin fast bud.
Is English your second langauge? In no category of casualties has there been a trend of acceleration since 2009. And your own words in posts 26 and 28 speak for themselves.
This has been no different than arguing with Insipid. At least he has a better grasp of math. He uses baseless charges to bolster his partisan argument just the same though. I do note that you’ve run away from the term ‘skyrocketed’ however.
But no matter….feel free to believe what you wish. The facts stand on their own.
Gonna call both of you here – a “rate” is what exactly? A comparison of something with something? Perhaps a percentage of something??
You were both talking raw numbers in your arguments. Go ahead, compare raw numbers if you want to, but don’t call it a rate unless it is the raw number as a percentage of something else, like maybe number of total troops in theatre, or whatever you choose.
That’s a fair point…..we probably both misused the term ‘rate’ when we really meant ‘trend’. I can’t foresee any parameters of rate versus percentage that would source ‘skyrocketing’…..but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
@#24, you post a link to a pie chart purporting to support your claim, correct? A pie chart, which, if you had bothered to note the fine print in the bottom left of the chart shows it’s origination as the office of the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi?
You’re too funny, no, really.
The only economic figures I’d accept, that you posted, insipid, would be the cost of Big Mac meal combo.
And, where’s his grade point average? What’s that? You can’t find it?
The Zimmerman Standard, do try to put the meth pipe down and pay attention. It’s the latest one in play, and by the left.
[…] Fighting on My Behalf? – This Ain’t Hell […]
Facts do stand on their own, you know, facts like 51 is greater than 39. Along with 47,42,62,48,49,90,46,44,43,40,65,54,63. Unless they changed the rules concerning math or something…
I saw so many good comments back in the early section, shooooooot, skipped straight to the end here!
In 1974, I willingly wrote that blank check and handed it to my Uncle to fill in the amount as required. 20 years later, all I wanted from the draft dodger in the Whitehouse was his signature on my retirement papers. And now THIS? An illegal alien poofter in the big chair?
Fine. Treason OR espionage, the penalty remains the same. And the Gay Chupacabra deserves it.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to throw in the Narcissistic in the description of the illegal alien poofter. How polite of me.
Nope, the rules for math have not changed. Just as the definition of skyrocketing and accelerated has not changed.
Well, when 39 people die in May of 09, and 90 die in roughly the same amount of time in August of the same year, for example, i’d say that’s “accelerated”.
Not really, because as your own numbers show, that’s a spike, an abnormality when the numbers for all categories writ large, trend down.
If one person dies one week and three people die the next….and nobody dies the following week, I suppose you could claim that there was acceleration, but it’s sort of disingenuous. You set the parameters of the Obama Administration v. the Bush Administration in your previous post. I would say that the numbers don’t show skyrocketing nor acceleration within those parameters.
Sure they do. Numbers don’t lie.