- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is Vindman and what did he do?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:27 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:27 am to Jjdoc
quote:I am not ignoring this point, doc, I just haven’t gotten to it yet. This thread is one of about 10 things I am doing.
ANd he lied. records show he met with Morrison and gave him the edits the same day. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Again, this may be a question of the timeline ... Jul-10 vs Jul-25. It may be a matter of the time of day. The call was early morning, and it takes hours to prepare and circulate a memo. Assuming that the Vindman comments re the memo were indeed the same day, it may have been late in the day and the meeting with counsel may have occurred in the interim. As I recall, Morrison was actually pretty noncommittal about whether it WAS the same day. He was asked a leading question and answered that it sounded about right.
Of course, none of that goes to any of the questions presented in the OP.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 9:54 am
1
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:36 am to AggieHank86
.... LOL!
DONE with this thread. LMAO!!!!!! WOW!
DONE with this thread. LMAO!!!!!! WOW!
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:39 am to Jjdoc
quote:I watched it, and it does not say that which you claim.
I gave you the video sir of the testimony. I literally linked you to it.
For example, you seem to say that Morrison and Vindman met regarding “edits” on July-24, but Morrison does not say that. He says that they received the memo the same day and that he and Vindman met “fairly quickly” after that. He decidedly does not say that they met on the same day.
You did what you always do. You took an ambiguous piece of evidence and twisted it to present in a manner supporting your position.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 9:42 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:41 am to Jjdoc
quote:So very, very typical. You present ambiguous info, and then you refuse to even consider any interpretation of that info which does not support your preconceptions.
DONE with this thread. LMAO!!!!!! WOW!
It is one of many reasons that thoughtful posters do not take you seriously.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:43 am to AggieHank86
quote:
His first stop for voicing his concerns wasn't his direct supervisor, it was a lawyer.
Do you think that is normal behavior?
quote:
Apparently, he testified that he attempted to contact Morrison, but was unsuccessful.
Then as a military officer, he should’ve known to wait until he could contact him.
You never EVER go outside of the chain of command. And he knew that.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:Says the guy that muddies up the use of chain of command to further his objective.
So very, very typical. You present ambiguous info, and then you refuse to even consider any interpretation of that info which does not support your preconceptions.
It is one of many reasons that thoughtful posters do not take you seriously.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:45 am to AggieHank86
All you need to know is he didn't follow the chain of command. As former military I can tell you this is a huge violation and only can be done on purpose.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:46 am to Jbird
quote:Muddies what?
the guy that muddies up the use of chain of command to further his objective.
Do you understand that a military chain of command and the hierarchy of a civilian administration are NOT the same thing and that a military officer placed into a civilian structure must balance the two?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Do you understand that a military chain of command and the hierarchy of a civilian administration are NOT the same thing and that a military officer placed into a civilian structure must balance the two?
If he’s going to wear that silver oak leaf on his collar, then THAT is what’s supposed to take precedence over any civilian considerations. Not negotiable.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:Says you.
Do you understand that a military chain of command and the hierarchy of a civilian administration are NOT the same thing and that a military officer placed into a civilian structure must balance the two?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:53 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Do you understand that a military chain of command and the hierarchy of a civilian administration are NOT the same thing and that a military officer placed into a civilian structure must balance the two?
No, he must not. He is still a military officer. Period.
I had a couple positions where I mostly worked with civilians. It was expected that I followed the chain of command, even if my superior was a civilian. If I had gone around my boss without consulting him prior to, or immediately after, I would have been up shite creek.
ETA: This is a subject I have direct experience with. You do not.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 9:54 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Who is Vindman
A career O-5 that couldn't get enough attention on Facebook
quote:
what did he do?
Stepped knee deep in shite
Posted on 11/20/19 at 9:57 am to Centinel
quote:Bingo, LibbyHank is grasping to protect a shitty LtCol that was playing games.
ETA: This is a subject I have direct experience with. You do not.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:01 am to Jbird
Only GEOTUS can unite the libs love for our military. 4D-fricking-chess!
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:02 am to Jbird
Yep. And as he always does, once shown proof, tries to find away.... anyway that it can be the way he wants it to be.
Then he resorts to attacking the person because he cant defens it.
Then he resorts to attacking the person because he cant defens it.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:07 am to Centinel
quote:you are correct, I have never served in the military. So let me ask you a few questions.
This is a subject I have direct experience with. You do not.
In a purely military hierarchy, must every issue go directly to the commanding officer? Are there not issues that should be taken up with the XO, or the personnel officer, or the supply officer, etc.?
In a blended military/civilian environment, are there not issues on which a military officer would be required to follow the protocol of the civilian hierarchy? For instance, if a military officer has a problem with a civilian secretary, is he required to take that to his direct (civilian) supervisor, rather than approaching the human resources director?
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:12 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
take you seriously.
What a tone deaf attempt at an insult. Even for you.
I don’t know any conservative here that takes you seriously and you make every attempt to be taken as such. Dear lawd in heaven...
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:11 am to AggieHank86
Trump needs to get rid of every Obama holdover that is still in the White House ,or has anything to do with Obama now And don’t wait another day why he didn’t do this the first day is beyond me.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:14 am to AggieHank86
That is absolutely incorrect. There is no balancing. If you are active military you follow the military chain of command 100%. Your supervisor will instruct you what you are to do with civilians.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:14 am to SOSFAN
Hush. Hank knows better than you. Just ask him.
You already answered his question. He didn’t believe you because he is without bias, wise and kind.
You already answered his question. He didn’t believe you because he is without bias, wise and kind.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:16 am
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News