Professional Soldiers ® - Fred Thompson, President?

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Fred Thompson, President? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13740)

CoLawman,

Great info. You never cease to amaze.:D

Funny thing you mentioned "sleep". I'm about to hit the rack now.

If it comes down to Hillary on the Democrat side, and someone else on the Republican side, Hillary will lose. People in America aren't going to vote in a woman.....at least not for a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dub (Post 186036)

A little quick to judge the women do you think? What is your evidence?

Whats there to be upset about besides the fact that you might not be able to pull something like that when your his age :munchin

Did you read the part where I said that it wasn't my opinion, but that it is a position that I have heard expressed (repeatedly)?

Take the personal remarks and disagreements to PM and stay on topic here.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choose (Post 186073)

If it comes down to Hillary on the Democrat side, and someone else on the Republican side, Hillary will lose. People in America aren't going to vote in a woman.....at least not for a while.

Well, I can definitely state as an American I would not vote for that woman. Ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsy (Post 186146)

Well, I can definitely state as an American I would not vote for that woman. Ever.

"That woman", LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choose (Post 186073)

If it comes down to Hillary on the Democrat side, and someone else on the Republican side, Hillary will lose. People in America aren't going to vote in a woman.....at least not for a while.

The Democrats aren't ready to vote in a woman yet, either.

Hillary will still get the nomination, though.

She's more of a man than any of her Democratic opponents.

I wish all politicians would be this direct.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/fred..._terror_co.php

I like Fred's ideas.
His "Four Pillars" haven't received much media attention.

http://www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/Speec...2-fd9405b2efe0

The "Four Pillars" part:

We are still feeling the effects of these reductions today. We have major shortcomings in U.S. defense capabilities. To confront these shortcomings, we must address several key priorities:

First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent - and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation.

Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a "Million-Member" ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow's threats as well as today's.

Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old...twice the age of most of you. The Army's main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use.

We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs.

Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation's finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families.

And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report.

These four pillars of a revitalized national defense are part of a much more detailed plan that must include, among other initiatives, enhancing the capabilities of our Special Operations Forces to hunt down terrorists; rebuilding the Navy to show American resolve, full time, in trouble spots; strengthening our intelligence gathering and analysis; procuring modern long-range cargo aircraft to project power anytime, anywhere; building a robust missile defense system to defend our homeland, our troops and our allies from ballistic missiles; and ensuring the means to protect our space-based assets and cyber systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 190238)

Okay, well I just watched the debate, I thought this debate was really interesting.

What really was interesting was that General who was a Special Forces officer course graduate, but openly homosexual? One thing I am wondering is, all of you QPs on here mention about the problems that homosexuals in the military would cause (or do cause), but this man spent 40+ years in the military, but says the military members are professional enough to deal with this.

My question why would he say this, if so many other combat soldiers claim otherwise? I'd imagine say for things like showers, or say for checking for ticks in private areas out in the field, and other such things, that being gay would cause problems unforseeable (for example might be bad if a Private became sexually attracted to his Sergeant or something).

Also, from what I understand from reading multiple conversations between military members (including here), when women were forced on the military, that it caused a lot of problems that the military hadn't forseen. If members of the military were not professional enough to stop problems from happening resulting from women (which many of which weren't even the women's fault from what I've read, they just were unforscene results of women being in the military), what would make this General think that such problems would not happen with openly homosexual people allowed into the military?

I disagree with the premise (unstated assumption) of your question,
which is that because he is a General officer, he is intelligent.

As for being SF, IF he is in fact he did graduate the SF Course, there's a good chance he did it during the years where some were able to get a "paper tab."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 190238)

What really was interesting was that General who was a Special Forces officer course graduate, but openly homosexual? One thing I am wondering is, all of you QPs on here mention about the problems that homosexuals in the military would cause (or do cause), but this man spent 40+ years in the military, but says the military members are professional enough to deal with this.

My question (as an outsider) is, why would he say this, if so many other combat soldiers claim otherwise? I'd imagine say for things like showers, or say for checking for ticks in private areas out in the field, and other such things, that being gay would cause problems unforseeable (for example might be bad if a Private became sexually attracted to his Sergeant or something).

Also, from what I understand from reading multiple conversations between military members (including here), when women were forced on the military, that it caused a lot of problems that the military hadn't forseen. If members of the military were not professional enough to stop problems from happening resulting from women (which many of which weren't even the women's fault from what I've read, they just were unforscene results of women being in the military), what would make this General think that such problems would not happen with openly homosexual people allowed into the military?

This has NOTHING to do with "Fred Thompson for President" and screams of a personal agenda.:rolleyes:

Eagle

General Kerr on a Hillary Steering Committee

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3...e-70a16edc311b

It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.