Mad Dog

Married2Allis · Dec 2, 2016

General James Mattis (Marine Corps ret.) to be the new Secretary of Defense ... go Mad Dog!!!

PaGlenn · Dec 2, 2016

I remember back in the sixties they made a wine brand called 'Mad Dog'

rrlund · Dec 2, 2016

Been sick on that stuff one too many times.

Married2Allis · Dec 2, 2016

I remember something called Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill wine was trouble for me one Saturday night. Can still still remember the smell. :shock:

Tony in Bama · Dec 2, 2016

MD 20/20. Brings back some memories....

Part Time Pete · Dec 2, 2016

Made me forget some memories...

bumblebee · Dec 2, 2016

I heard on the news that nnalert has appointed 4 former generals to cabinet posts. During his campaign he said that he knew more than the generals!

steve706 · Dec 2, 2016

Nothing is better than having a leatherneck with experience on the ground who does not sugarcoat his words as a leader.

Dalex · Dec 2, 2016

I think it was 90% sugar ...but tasted good !

IHC pickups · Dec 2, 2016

HOO-RAY.

Ande · Dec 2, 2016

Couldn't agree more!
Finally were going to start winning again!

Tony in Bama · Dec 2, 2016

Yup, once was enough for me!

Geo-TH,In · Dec 2, 2016

About time someone does what Toby Keith made a song about shortly after 911. Put a boot in their butt. I would get poofed if I used the actual word. Sure you get my meaning.

Steamboat · Dec 2, 2016

CONSTITIONALY NOT QUALIFIED! There is a very good reason that the framers of the Constitution decided that the military will be supervised by a civilian. He must be retired at least 7 years.

fightfire · Dec 2, 2016

1 thing...Congressional Waiver. Been done before. Gen Marshall.

cuby · Dec 2, 2016

When will this post be taken off by the YT boys ? Isnt this political? My post was taken off {can not find it} and no names mentioned.

James Howell · Dec 2, 2016

"[i:654c4848f0]It's unclear whether the legislation required to make Mattis Pentagon chief will be difficult to obtain from Congress. The <a href="http://events.tbo.com/news/politics/national/nnalert-has-chosen-former-centcom-chief-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/2304799">1947 national security law</a> said that any general must wait 10 years from leaving active duty before becoming defense secretary. The 10-year period was reduced to seven years in 2008 for several senior civilian defense positions, including defense secretary.[/i:654c4848f0]"

"[i:654c4848f0]<a href="http://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2016/12/retired-general-nominated-to-serve-as-secretary-of-defense/">Mattis</a> would be only the second retired general to serve as defense secretary, the first being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall">George C. Marshall</a> in 1950-51 during the Korean War. Marshall was a much different figure, having previously served as U.S. secretary of state and playing a key role in creating closer ties with Western Europe after World War II.

<font color="#ff0000">The only previous exception to the law requiring a gap after military service was for Marshall.</font>[/i:654c4848f0]"

showcrop · Dec 2, 2016

(quoted from post at 13:16:00 12/02/16) About time someone does what Toby Keith made a song about shortly after 911. Put a boot in their butt. I would get poofed if I used the actual word. Sure you get my meaning.

I believe that you are thinking of Aaron Tippin.

IA Roy · Dec 2, 2016

Today I listened to an Iowa state level congressman on WHO radio interviewed by Simon Conway. This gentleman served as his aid some years back. He made a convincing argument that Mad Dog was the man for the job. Evidently he worked for him before the nickname was attached to the man.

dzc3 · Dec 2, 2016

Hey Steamboat I was reading the Constitution and could not find the part about 7 year wait between a military gig and a political one. Can you help me out.

Traditional Farmer · Dec 3, 2016

Nothing in the Constitution about it one way or the other,there is a 7 year rule that can be waivered to let him serve and its been done before.

Bret4207 · Dec 3, 2016

(quoted from post at 17:56:00 12/02/16) CONSTITIONALY NOT QUALIFIED! There is a very good reason that the framers of the Constitution decided that the military will be supervised by a civilian. He must be retired at least 7 years.

Okay, first off the framers of the Constitution put nothing about this in the Constitution. This isn't a "Constitutional issue", it's a policy issue. This first came up in the National Security Act of 1947. It was almost immediately over waived in 1950 so Gen George Marshall could serve, and it required 10 years back then, not 7 like now. It's a non-issue since Congress can waive the policy whenever it pleases. That's how the rule is written. The only people referring to this as a "Constitutional issue" are political hacks from the left who, unfortunately, are getting a lot of air time from the leftist political hacks in the media who aren't doing their job and researching the "Constitutionality" of this issue...which doesn't exist!

RodinNS · Dec 3, 2016

You're quite correct on the historical aspects of the argument. However... my belief is that in principle... the policy as it was originally
put in place was probably not a bad one in that it keeps the military under the control of civilians and not the other way around. There are
always exceptional individuals at times when it makes sense to make an exception for.... but that ought to be rare. I suppose the question in
this case would be... was there no one else as equally qualified who would fall within the current boundaries of policy?

Rod

GordoSD · Dec 3, 2016

Thunderbird was my nemesis. One time only.

1948CaseVAI · Dec 3, 2016

(quoted from post at 11:09:00 12/02/16) I remember back in the sixties they made a wine brand called 'Mad Dog'

Mad Dog was the slang name for Mogen-David 20-20. I confiscated and broke thousands of bottles in the 70s when I had a walking beat on skid row. In those days we just broke them on the sidewalk and went on.

oldtanker · Dec 3, 2016

(quoted from post at 07:57:11 12/03/16) You're quite correct on the historical aspects of the argument. However... my belief is that in principle... the policy as it was originally
put in place was probably not a bad one in that it keeps the military under the control of civilians and not the other way around. There are
always exceptional individuals at times when it makes sense to make an exception for.... but that ought to be rare. I suppose the question in
this case would be... was there no one else as equally qualified who would fall within the current boundaries of policy?

Rod

I don't know. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs Seems the military leaders are more prone to see things how they are, not how a politician want's them to be. Guy with 4 starts on his collar, a Marine, telling the truth and saying a decision like that is not his to make! He know the cost in lives VS the gain!

Rick

Steamboat · Dec 3, 2016

You are exactly correct, James! Thank you for setting me straight. I reckon I had misinterpreted the Commander-in-chief position as being civilian control. 10US Code Section 13 is what regulates Sec. Def, NOT the constitution. Sorry.

RodinNS · Dec 3, 2016

Some are.... some aren't. If you get lucky and get the one with a level head... it goes great! If you don't................. well, not so
much.
Like I said, some are worthy of exception. Most are not. In this case I have no opinion on that aspect since I really haven't delved into who
he is or what he's done. No doubt the house will...

Rod

Bret4207 · Dec 3, 2016

(quoted from post at 11:57:11 12/03/16) You're quite correct on the historical aspects of the argument. However... my belief is that in principle... the policy as it was originally
put in place was probably not a bad one in that it keeps the military under the control of civilians and not the other way around. There are
always exceptional individuals at times when it makes sense to make an exception for.... but that ought to be rare. I suppose the question in
this case would be... was there no one else as equally qualified who would fall within the current boundaries of policy?

Rod

IMO it's always better to have someone with a working knowledge of the military and a true appreciation of the world as it really exists rather than another paper pushing political hack in the office of the Sec Def. We've tried appeasement and apology for 8 years now. Time to get real.

Steamboat · Dec 3, 2016

You are right. Sec. def is regulated by 10 USC Part 13, NOT original Constitution. Framers did however warn about military direct involvement in government. That is what separates us from military juntas of so many third world countries.

RodinNS · Dec 3, 2016

I don't think you have to wear a uniform to understand how the world works.... and often times some detachment from those they oversee is a
healthy thing. From what I've observed over the years some of the worst ministers in the government have come from the professions they've
overseen. They often come with a narrow agenda/point of view that leads to being a bigger hinderance than if they had come from another
field. Coming to the table with an outsider's view is sometimes more useful in challenging the status quo than being an insider...

Rod

Bret4207 · Dec 5, 2016

We tried the outsider approach for quite a while now. It's not working for us.

Mad Dog

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads