Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Can you say …

Can you say …

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I found it somewhat fitting that yesterday only Sarah Palin mentioned Lincoln’s birthday-as far as I know

…she’s so dumb.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Browndog. | February 13, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Dumb like a fox. ;8->

      As I recall, she has been right in principle and practice on every issue that she has remarked on. Unfortunately, she has presumed to harsh the mellow of every dreamer who would presume to realize instant gratification through redistributive and retributive change, who denigrates individual dignity, and devalues human life. Basically anyone who places their dignity uniquely and exclusively before that of others. This is why the left (i.e. individuals who defer their dignity to alphas or mortal gods) principally, but also dreamers who claim the right or “moderate” position, oppose her. They all want self-gratification without consequence and they are willing to purchase indulgences with their vote and with the product of other people’s labor.

I could not care less about when Obama thinks we will have a recovery. He knows nothing about economics and nothing about what makes America work, or what used to make America work.

    n.n in reply to Rick. | February 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Obama is an opportunist, a symptom of a decadent society, here and throughout the world. His claim to fame is that he has exacerbated the disease. He has also exposed the causal factors for a review which was not otherwise forthcoming. If we survive this brush with collapse, then we really should thank him properly for opening our eyes to the progressive corruption which afflicts our society.

Notice, anytime the federal government gives away $1–in whatever form– it instantly becomes a “right” to receive that dollar, and taking it away is draconian and unAmerican.

…just the way it was intended-

Makes me feel a tad Greecey

Add to list…Wait..I thought Mitt had it all wrapped up. No longer the frontrunner..or as NRO says…a tie for first.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Re Santorum and women in combat. Santorum is correct, although he may not be focusing on the best reasons for his conclusions. Accommodating women costs the military vast sums. The only way those expenditures make sense is if the military is improved by having women in it. It is not. So the additional expense doesn’t make sense even IF most women in the military could function as well as most men. The military does not exist to boost individuals through affirmative action. I recommend that anyone interested in these issues bypass the ideological agendas, and see the research summarized very nicely by Prof. Kingsley Browne in Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.

Global Minimum Tax – the basis to fire up a global government – global socialist government. The guys in the Kremlin must be kicking themselves; they tried to get it incrementally via war and subversion and failed. Our smiley faced commies may just get a global socialist government through “reasonable” and “fair” tax policies.

Who woulda thunk it?

In regard to the attack on Santorum by McDonnell, the pro-Romney governor, aka paid political endorser:

Santorum is right about his position on women in combat.

Israel did a study because they had women in combat and combat training and found that women suffered more hip and other fractures than men…PLUS longterm feminine injuries and dysfunctions…loss of fertility, uterine prolapse, etc. Elevated incidence of fractures in younger women are much more significant finding than in the elderly.

It is not a good idea to try to make women into men, or front-line warriors. Very few women are built and stressed for it.

    Browndog in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    If I recall, it was that same study that determined that it was the men that become most vulnerable-

    Their instinct to protect the women tended to compromise the battlefield, and disobey orders-

    I think that is what Santorum was referring to-

    It would be interesting to see a debate between Coulter and McDonnell. Didn’t she just say in her CPAC comments that women making 69% of what men make was okay with her if men continued to pay for dinner?

    The only good thing is that McDonnell’s lack of sense is clearly on display. Nice to know about someone who was talked of for higher things.

Re contraception. Why is it that in the decades since the availability of better and better contraception (and Planned Parenthood) there are more and more “unintended pregnancies” and a burgeoning of unwed motherhood?

(And would it be just completely inappropriate for me to suggest that if a man and woman –together– cannot afford $20 or $50 a month, that perhaps they should reorder their spending priorities, or consider that maybe they are not mature and responsible enough to be having sex.)

    It is a failed enterprise to fulfill dreams of instant gratification (e.g. physical) with promises of deferred responsibility without consequence. It is the same class of failure that has tied fiscal incentives to the integrity of authoritarian interests (principally civil servants). The causal factors of progressive corruption are quite clear and they seem to be inextricably linked with a decadent society, individual existence, or retributive change. Of course, it has not helped that we have pursued a course which is incompatible with the natural order and incapable of preserving individual dignity.

    Well, this is what a large minority, or even a slight majority wanted, and they have chosen to defer their dignity and judgment to alphas or mortal gods to realize it for them.

    As for budgeting, the priorities are always luxury goods and services. The so-called “safety net” has been subject to extraordinary waste, fraud, and abuse, to the extent that people have likely forgotten its limited purpose, and its principal role in sponsoring progressive corruption.

    Anyway, the recent effort to normalize homosexual behavior, and to afford it equal status to monogamous, heterosexual behavior, is confirmation that evolutionary fitness is no longer the priority of our society. I wonder why not. Supposedly, we are purely instinctual creatures with a single-minded obsession with reproduction.

    Also, the progressive philosophy would suggest that marriage not be restricted purely on physical intercourse, and that it is discriminatory to exclude other couplings, both monogamous and polygamous. The hypocrisy is overwhelming!

      tsrblke in reply to n.n. | February 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm

      It’s more than all that. It’s neo-eugenics. Convince “poor people” they shouldn’t have kids, provide them with the means of doing so, back it up with economic drivel.
      Notice the mandate doesn’t simply include “basic contraception” (which is only mildly absurd) but “All FDA approved methods” It’d be like saying everyone get’s free Prilosec when Tums will do the job. (Except worse since antacids at least treat pathology, but it’s the best I can come up with since there’s nothing really comparable.)

Re Israel bombed its own diplomats….

Carl in Jerusalem:

“We don’t try to kill our own people to gain publicity or sympathy. And if we had tried, we would not have missed.”

Gotta love it 🙂

I AM ANGRY as all get-out at the GOP in the legislature for backing down on Obama.

Moreover, the rest of the conservative electorate (aka Tea Party) are also that mad or madder.

I cannot imagine a more useless bunch – They are just standing their watching the insane looting without stopping it – like an emergency room staff letting a patient bleed out while they play Bridge, and still charge the patient’s family anyway.

It’s not hurting them or costing them anything.

Except their next election.

>:8^(

1. “Now they’re questioning whether Mitt really saved the Olympics” (via LI Daily).

a. Blatant hit piece. Here is the cv of Utah Law professor McCormack: clerked for a Democrat federal judge and did pro bono work for the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. Three straws in the wind regarding McCormack’s politics.

b. Reading that piece reminds me of listening to leftists complain that Reagan wasted money on the defense budget because “obviously” the Soviet Union was going to collapse of its own accord.

2. “Global Minimum Tax’ — of course we can, that way businesses not only can’t flee to other states, they can’t flee to other countries!

a. Another unforced error, just when things were looking up for the Democrats.

b. The Democrats, of course, are all for free trade—provided other countries pay their workers US union wages and adopt US environmental standards.

Free contraception as way to buy female votes gives us a new form of prostitution.

Pertaining to the 203rd anniversary of Lincoln’s Birthday…the suggestion of Keith Burgess at the link was to take time to read Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address.

What Lincoln said in this passage is so much like what we are facing today:

“…insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. […]
“Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html)

Beautiful, powerful, words of resolve and words of healing.

Newt Gingrich says the choice upon us is the same choice that Washington and his army faced, the choice that is expressed in the battle code words, ‘Victory Or Death.’
http://www.newt.org/news/video-christmas-day-1776-victory-or-death

Other choices:

“Liberty or Death” – Patrick Henry – 1773

“Live Free or Die” General John Stark – 1809

“Our goal is not victory of might but the vindication of right — not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere and, we hope, around the world.” John F Kennedy – 1962

“Peace, but not at any price.” Benjamin Netanyhu – 2010

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Is anybody in the Obama administration NOT a Marxist hell bent on destroying America?

Women should not be in combat. I have seen pictures time and again of a soldier carrying his wounded comrade to safety. If his partner had been a woman he would have died out there because she would not be strong enough to carry him. Women have a place in the military. They can take the jobs that free up warriors… all the bureaucrat nonsense the military is burdened with.

    janitor in reply to BarbaraS. | February 13, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    There’s some eye-opening research on this too. Loading some units with women because they are non-combat creates its own problems because of the comparatively high rates of women not able to deploy (making these important support units extremely vulnerable). This also eliminates opportunities for men who would cover these jobs, weakening the force overall. It also creates a problem in which “all hands” cannot be used “on deck”, a problem on sea vessels under siege, as well as reducing flexibility when there are heavy casualties in ground combat arenas. And, among numerous other issues, having lots of women in so-called “non-combat” roles simply doesn’t address the multiple administrative problems and unnecessary costs to accommodate them.

    Does including women make the military better? No. Therefore, from a cost standpoint alone, it’s not justified. (Retired military who are politicians, as well as current commanders simply cannot speak out freely on this issue.)

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to BarbaraS. | February 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    I don’t agree, I think women SHOULD get the same opportunities as men to EARN a position in combat. There are plenty of capable women. (I am not saying this because I am a woman.)

    On the other hand, the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will do a lot of damage to the military as a whole.

      Why SHOULD they?

      And at whose, and what cost, to give them this personal opportunity?

      Currently multiple physical standards have been set lower to accommodate women. The excuse is made that it’s only about “physical fitness”. That’s specious. For field exercises, special shower and hygiene facilities have to be available because the girls far more readily get certain kinds of infections if they aren’t. Putting one women into units that otherwise function with four guys means that three good soldiers have to carry extra weight, do extra jobs, and function under extra burden to make up the difference. I could go on and on. The public has not been told the truth.

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm

        What I said is that standards should NOT be lowered to accommodate women, that they should have the same standards. I don’t see why they shouldn’t get the opportunity if they pass.

          Because you can’t tell in advance to find three women in a thousand might be on a par with a mediocre male. That means that the training, recruiting, accommodating and “opportunity” costs are exorbitant for no gain to the military. Moreover, this ignores the problem that no matter how much training, under actual conditions, you still can’t tell. A herculean effort and unwarranted expense to find exceptional women who are as good as run-of-the mill guys.

          Not withstanding the attitudinal differences in men and women (hunter gather/nurturer) there are few women who can compete with men on upper body strength. That is unless you want to shoot women up with steriods like the Russians once did to create “super” women. There is a reason there are no female SEALs or Special Forces. G.I. Jane was a movie, not real life. It is the reason that standards for women had to be lowered in order for them to test out at Fire academies. They can’t to the same physical requirements as men. i.e. lack of upper body strength.

          And while I understand that the liberals would like to make all Americans gender “neutral”, nature has different ideas.

          Forgot to add: Toilet accommodations? Burdensome hygiene needs? Sleep arrangement accommodations? Administrative hassles from romantic issues? Failure to deploy statistics? Higher medical costs and injuries? That statistically, women simply aren’t as brave and that they just don’t function the same way when it’s too late to tell in real combat conditions? It’s not about finding the Venus Williams or Olympic athlete type women who might be as strong or as mechanically capable as the lower fifth of trained men.

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm

          Forgot to add: Toilet accommodations? Burdensome hygiene needs? Sleep arrangement accommodations? Administrative hassles from romantic issues? Failure to deploy statistics? Higher medical costs and injuries? That statistically, women simply aren’t as brave and that they just don’t function the same way when it’s too late to tell in real combat conditions? It’s not about finding the Venus Williams or Olympic athlete type women who might be as strong or as mechanically capable as the lower fifth of trained men.
          ___________________________________________________

          With the Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” the problem with “romantic issues” etc. is already happening.

          I will concede that us women are different than our male counterparts. And I am definitely not advocating a gender neutral society, but women deserve a chance. To say women are not “brave” is nonsense.

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 13, 2012 at 10:06 pm

          @unclesamuel

          US military is the best in the world. I don’t see your point

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm

          Not withstanding the attitudinal differences in men and women (hunter gather/nurturer) there are few women who can compete with men on upper body strength. That is unless you want to shoot women up with steriods like the Russians once did to create “super” women. There is a reason there are no female SEALs or Special Forces. G.I. Jane was a movie, not real life. It is the reason that standards for women had to be lowered in order for them to test out at Fire academies. They can’t to the same physical requirements as men. i.e. lack of upper body strength.And while I understand that the liberals would like to make all Americans gender “neutral”, nature has different ideas.
          ____________________________________________________

          again I don’t see what the big objection to what I proposed is then, holding women to the same testing standards as men. Sink or swim.

          Raquel Pinkbullet: You are missing the costs involved, pointlessly, to find women who can do it. Recruiters are not able to pick these women out. You are missing the training costs. And the morale costs. And the attrition costs. And that these recruited women then will have to be put somewhere — and recruiting them displaces potential male recruits, and also means less capable men now have to move into infantry and other combat positions — because these women have to work “somewhere. That it lowers the military readiness and capabilities overall. You are missing that even when those 3/1000 women, they are still not going to be better than a below-average guy.

          There is no “should” or “deserve” about it. The military’s purpose is to protect the country. There are no rights. Men still register for a possible draft. They can be ordered in effect to die. The military does not exist to give job opportunities. If a person is disabled, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t meet height or weight necessaries for a certain function, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t speak English well, no affirmative action. No accommodation.

          And gay guys can still be big, strong, and able to spend five straight days sleeping on wet ground without changing their clothes and not have to change a tampon or get a vaginal infection that knocks them out of commission.

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm

          You are missing the costs involved, pointlessly, to find women who can do it. Recruiters are not able to pick these women out. You are missing the training costs. And the morale costs. And the attrition costs. And that these recruited women then will have to be put somewhere — and recruiting them displaces potential male recruits, and also means less capable men now have to move into infantry and other combat positions — because these women have to work “somewhere. That it lowers the military readiness and capabilities overall. You are missing that even when those 3/1000 women, they are still not going to be better than a below-average guy.

          There is no “should” or “deserve” about it. The military’s purpose is to protect the country. There are no rights. Men still register for a possible draft. They can be ordered in effect to die. The military does not exist to give job opportunities. If a person is disabled, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t meet height or weight necessaries for a certain function, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t speak English well, no affirmative action. No accommodation.

          And gay guys can still be big, strong, and able to spend five straight days sleeping on wet ground without changing their clothes and not have to change a tampon or get a vaginal infection that knocks them out of commission
          ______________________________________________________

          Except affirmative action is very prevalent in today’s military. Minorities benefit from a lot of affirmative action programs. At MEPS, in San Jose, CA, there were minorities scoring below the minimum score on and getting waivers.

          Among other things waivers for asthma, weak knees, and other medical conditions are routinely given. There are people who can barely speak English that are accepted. Even criminal record waivers.

          And gays cause a lot more problems to unit morale than women. Especially now with the Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Why should gays be accepted while women get discriminated against. Homosexuality is a perversion that has no place in the military. One of the biggest traitors in Military history was a gay male.

          I don’t see the problem in holding women to the same standard as men.

          (I should note that I am considered a “minority” as I am Cuban, classified as “Hispanic”)

          I don’t see the problem in holding women to the same standard as men.

          Okay, then. I concede, conditioned on hearing your ideas on how we hold can women to the same standards as men. I have many questions; here are just a few:

          What is your plan to deploy the pregnant 20-year-old woman? Abortion? Or a prophylactic sterilization upon commitment so that she can be held to the “same standards” as a man?

          What is your plan to deploy the 25-year-old single mother of two toddlers who joined as a childless clueless 18-year-old tough girl (the age when females are strongest, compared with 30-35 for males) and now doesn’t want to leave her children?

          What is your plan for women infantry”persons” and grunts who will have to go into the field when they have their periods? Or forget that. Just the ubiquitous bladder infection from trudging through that swamp water for hours and then not changing clothes for days? Or forget that. Just the non-private bathroom facilities. Okay with you?

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 14, 2012 at 12:08 am

          Okay, then. I concede, conditioned on hearing your ideas on how we hold can women to the same standards as men. I have many questions; here are just a few:

          What is your plan to deploy the pregnant 20-year-old woman? Abortion? Or a prophylactic sterilization upon commitment so that she can be held to the “same standards” as a man?

          What is your plan to deploy the 25-year-old single mother of two toddlers who joined as a childless clueless 18-year-old tough girl (the age when females are strongest, compared with 30-35 for males) and now doesn’t want to leave her children?

          What is your plan for women infantry”persons” and grunts who will have to go into the field when they have their periods? Or forget that. Just the ubiquitous bladder infection from trudging through that swamp water for hours and then not changing clothes for days? Or forget that. Just the non-private bathroom facilities. Okay with you?
          ______________________________________________________–

          Fair enough.

          The 20 year old pregnant female- Pre-deployment discharge.
          Scenario 2: Dishonorable discharge.

          Scenario 3: So what you are saying is that when women on their period we can’t do our jobs?

          So men are immune to infections and illness right?

          So let me ask you this:

          How about men that are accepted that have asthma, or are dumb as a box of rocks or can barely speak english or read?

          How about non-private bathrooms with homosexuals?

          How about men like Alvin Greene?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene who because of political correctness and God knows what else slides by for 13 years?

          Basically the military accepts men who can barely write their own name see Alvin Greene, yet you’re worried about a woman’s period?

          The 20 year old pregnant female- Pre-deployment discharge.

          Wrong answer. That’s not the male standard. The military has wasted money, time, and training, now has unit readiness problems, and women who don’t want to deploy have an easy out — just get pregnant.

          Scenario 2: Dishonorable discharge. [The single mother who didn’t face reality as a young recruit.]

          Wong answer. That’s not the male standard.

          Scenario 3: So what you are saying is that when women on their period we can’t do our jobs?

          If you haven’t seen it, pick up the DVD of Generation Kill (2008). If I recall, there are one or two scenes that might illustrate the bathroom facilities.

          So men are immune to infections and illness right?

          Women are far more susceptible to bladder infections, and are the only sex susceptible to vaginal infections, the optimal conditions for both of which correlate with field combat.

          So let me ask you this: How about men that are accepted that have asthma, or are dumb as a box of rocks or can barely speak english or read? How about non-private bathrooms with homosexuals? How about men like Alvin Greene?

          These aren’t arguments in favor of women in the military.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 14, 2012 at 4:14 am

          To dear Janitor- Vaginal infections ?

          I remember Vietnam. I lived in a R & R hotspot . Though I was very young I knew that the military on leave had STDs galore. They brought some exotic strains. It created havoc not just amongst the prostitutes.

          The UN peacekeepers brought AIDS to Cambodia.

          Sheesh.

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          Janitor, so let me see if I understand correctly: Women have no place in the military, but men like Alvin Greene are good, because they are “strong, and have upper body strength.” Homosexuals are ok too, because they are still “strong.” You forgot to mention that homosexuals are the most susceptible to HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis B,C. But because those darn women are susceptible to “vaginal infections,” they must be excluded??

          And those 3 scenarios you gave, I answered what would happen, and yes it would happen just the same for men.

The “like” button is broke again.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm

A conservative, a moderate, & a liberal walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “Hi, Mitt!”

I am more than a bit disappointed that McDonnell threw in with Mitt so early in the process. I believe McDonnell is a reasonable conservative but it appears that there has been some serious efforts to co-op him by the GOP establishment. Who knows if he has the backbone to stand up to the establishment and reject the TEA Party who largely put him in the Governor’s mansion.

I’m not writing him off just yet but I am watching him closely over the next year. I don’t implicitly trust any politician any longer and I suggest the same approach to everyone here…

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm

Not withstanding the attitudinal differences in men and women (hunter gather/nurturer) there are few women who can compete with men on upper body strength. That is unless you want to shoot women up with steriods like the Russians once did to create “super” women. There is a reason there are no female SEALs or Special Forces. G.I. Jane was a movie, not real life. It is the reason that standards for women had to be lowered in order for them to test out at Fire academies. They can’t to the same physical requirements as men. i.e. lack of upper body strength.And while I understand that the liberals would like to make all Americans gender “neutral”, nature has different ideas.
____________________________________________________

again I don’t see what the big objection to what I proposed is then, holding women to the same testing standards as men. Sink or swim.

    There is a reason there are no women in Special Forces just like there are no women who play for the San Antonio Spurs or the Chicago Cubs. The simple fact of physical differences cannot be ignored. If you want women to have to test equally to men, there will be no women in the military, period.

    And it is not discrimination to set standards for jobs that depend on physical ability. So don’t even go there with that feminazi crap.

      Dittos!

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm

      There is a reason there are no women in Special Forces just like there are no women who play for the San Antonio Spurs or the Chicago Cubs. The simple fact of physical differences cannot be ignored. If you want women to have to test equally to men, there will be no women in the military, period.
      And it is not discrimination to set standards for jobs that depend on physical ability. So don’t even go there with that feminazi crap.
      ___________________________________________________

      Are you kidding me? Are you really going to twist what I said? When did I say standards should not be set for jobs? Show me where I said that.
      I SAID in all my previous posts that women should not get special treatment. I said women should be held to the same testing standard as men.

      I’m not a feminazi, far from it. So don’t twist what I say.

        Calm down Raquel….rather than using the word ‘feminazi’ perhaps another one better suits your reasoning…..

        naive:
        1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless, ingenuous
        2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Joy. | February 14, 2012 at 12:17 am

          I don’t know why you believe I am naive. When special privileges and affirmative action is prevalent in today’s military.

        Your focus here has been on combat duty on the ground that has proven to be a less than stellar experiment in other places such as Israel…..I don’t disagree with your argument that women should be given an opportunity to serve in the military but logic says that we women do not have to compete with men but rather work together as a unit doing what we each do best.

        Women serve many important functions in the military, not the least of which is the fact that we have several incredible fighter pilots, but I have to agree with others who say we really don’t belong in a boots-on-the-ground situation.

          janitor in reply to Joy. | February 14, 2012 at 1:55 am

          Women serve extremely few functions in the military in which being a woman is an asset and the job couldn’t be done as well or better by a man. The women in Afghanistan are the equivalent of armed social workers or police officers. Not soldiers. The media has hugely overblown their roles — while covering up myriad problems.

          Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Joy. | February 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm

          Janitor is basically arguing that woman have no place in the military.

          Joy in reply to Joy. | February 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm

          “Janitor is basically arguing that woman have no place in the military” and you are arguing that they can do anything a man can do….his arguments are sexist and yours are still naive.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm

      Yes all of the elite forces are almost impossible for men .

      However I am convinced some women could do some things better.

      For instance if they had just thrown Hillary Clinton dressed in her 08 coronation ORANGE PANTZUIT over that wall -or dropped her from a heli -she would have frightened Osama to death.

      Susan Rice & little Huma could have kicked the women & children to death.

      That would be a mission accomplished.

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to retire05. | February 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm

      To be clear, I didn’t say I support a quota system to put women in the Special Forces. I simply said that if a woman earns her way there, than fine, if not fine.

      I don’t see what is so objectionable about what I said.

      wodiej in reply to retire05. | February 14, 2012 at 6:52 am

      feminazi? can’t think of anything of substance to say, so start the name calling.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Because you can’t tell in advance to find three women in a thousand might be on a par with a mediocre male. That means that the training, recruiting, accommodating and “opportunity” costs are exorbitant for no gain to the military. Moreover, this ignores the problem that no matter how much training, under actual conditions, you still can’t tell. A herculean effort and unwarranted expense to find exceptional women who are as good as run-of-the mill guys.
________________________________________

So the alternative is to discriminate against all women?

    Yes. Just like the military discriminates against people who are too short, too tall, too fat, or mentally or physically disabled.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2012 at 11:18 pm

      Janitor . Military action is broad & no longer confined to the battlefield & battlefields are now so broad as to be any town village or refugee camp or emergency operation or mass civilian evacuation.

      Do you not think some women might be handy as part of these operations? Or can males only deal with the female muslim villagers for example in Afghanistan ?

      Thanks in advance for your reply.

        It can be. Are you saying that your plan, then, would be to have a military that could not function well except under certain future conditions that we simply cannot predict?

        Regarding the dealing with Afghanistan females. I strongly suspect that the “need” for armed female social workers has been overblown in the PC media. Also bearing in mind that these women Marines and soldiers sleep in real beds every night.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to janitor. | February 14, 2012 at 12:14 am

          You are saying there should be no women. I am stating that contemporary army operations are just as much in towns & dealing with civilians post insurgent /rebel activity. It is not social work eg searching for weapons.

          I don’t like to give anyone else’s personal situation but I do know a young female officer. I have seen her wearing full semi combat gear -minus the stored weapons which would make it full combat. She is trained to kill.

          BTw she is also trained to save lives. In a war /Peace Keeping zone she must save comrade enemy & civilian lives if possible.

          Being female is the least of a complex situation.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | February 14, 2012 at 1:42 am

          Guardian, we sometimes use our military for peace-keeping or police-work type functions, as well as rescue and humanitarian missions. But that’s not its primary purpose.

          Those women touted in Afghanistan are guarded by men. There are no all-women units. They have been tried, and found unable to function. Sure, women can shoot weapons. Women can wear combat gear. There are too many problems, however, to post in this kind of forum. We would do well with a substantial re-think of the areas open to women and reduction of women in the armed forces if we want to build and keep the strongest military possible (and also not waste money).

          I refer you to Kingsley Browne’s book. Prior to reading it and digging into some of the research he cites, my position was much more along the lines of yours and Joy’s. What is allowed out to the public from the higher echelons of the military ranks is quite slanted and colored by political machinations. We’ve also been trained to think of the military as we think of civilian job life, to stifle our doubts and — misguidedly — to apply similar reasoning.

          Re “We would do well with a substantial re-think of the areas open to women”

          @janitor….ergo the reason for my comment at 12:45 am

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2012 at 11:30 pm

      I don’t if you are aware of what happens at SJ MEPS, but there have been waivers granted for all the things you mentioned, with the exception being obviously mental/physically disabled.

      But there are people who are close to mentally disabled scoring 30 on the entrance exam, other learning disabilities, not speaking a word of english getting waivers.

    Yes. Tough toenails.

Hormone therapy to treat ovarian cysts and endometriosis is medicine, not “birth control” or contraceptive. The contraceptive effect would then be a side effect.

Antibiotics interfere with oral contraceptives. I know more than one woman who became a mom because of that effect.

Planned Parenthood is offering a false promise: sex without the risk of children. When that fails, they make money on the abortion.

I just learned today that being the father or mother of the child of born out of wedlock helps qualify one for college financial aid. There is a web site dedicated to college students who want to be “married” for four years, while they are in college, for assistance with financial aid. Once college is over, they dissolve the marriage. Another scam.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 13, 2012 at 11:33 pm

You are missing the costs involved, pointlessly, to find women who can do it. Recruiters are not able to pick these women out. You are missing the training costs. And the morale costs. And the attrition costs. And that these recruited women then will have to be put somewhere — and recruiting them displaces potential male recruits, and also means less capable men now have to move into infantry and other combat positions — because these women have to work “somewhere. That it lowers the military readiness and capabilities overall. You are missing that even when those 3/1000 women, they are still not going to be better than a below-average guy.

There is no “should” or “deserve” about it. The military’s purpose is to protect the country. There are no rights. Men still register for a possible draft. They can be ordered in effect to die. The military does not exist to give job opportunities. If a person is disabled, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t meet height or weight necessaries for a certain function, no affirmative action. If a person doesn’t speak English well, no affirmative action. No accommodation.

And gay guys can still be big, strong, and able to spend five straight days sleeping on wet ground without changing their clothes and not have to change a tampon or get a vaginal infection that knocks them out of commission
______________________________________________________

Except affirmative action is very prevalent in today’s military. Minorities benefit from a lot of affirmative action programs. At MEPS, in San Jose, CA, there were minorities scoring below the minimum score on and getting waivers.

Among other things waivers for asthma, weak knees, and other medical conditions are routinely given. There are people who can barely speak English that are accepted. Even criminal record waivers.

And gays cause a lot more problems to unit morale than women. Especially now with the Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Why should gays be accepted while women get discriminated against. Homosexuality is a perversion that has no place in the military. One of the biggest traitors in Military history was a gay male.

I don’t see the problem in holding women to the same standard as men.

(I should note that I am considered a “minority” as I am Cuban, classified as “Hispanic”

    Except affirmative action is very prevalent in today’s military.

    Yes it is. Are you saying that you think this is a good thing, so let’s do more?

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to janitor. | February 14, 2012 at 12:14 am

      Yes it is. Are you saying that you think this is a good thing, so let’s do more?
      __________________________________________________

      Obviously, I would prefer there be NO affirmative action.
      I’m just stating a fact.

      You’re problem is with women, you seem to not care about the other affirmative action, and stuff that men benefit from.

BannedbytheGuardian | February 14, 2012 at 12:20 am

Just for Santorum Retire05 & dear Janitor.

A youtube vid of hot military gals from across the globe.

You can find it.

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 14, 2012 at 12:20 am

Okay, then. I concede, conditioned on hearing your ideas on how we hold can women to the same standards as men. I have many questions; here are just a few:

What is your plan to deploy the pregnant 20-year-old woman? Abortion? Or a prophylactic sterilization upon commitment so that she can be held to the “same standards” as a man?

What is your plan to deploy the 25-year-old single mother of two toddlers who joined as a childless clueless 18-year-old tough girl (the age when females are strongest, compared with 30-35 for males) and now doesn’t want to leave her children?

What is your plan for women infantry”persons” and grunts who will have to go into the field when they have their periods? Or forget that. Just the ubiquitous bladder infection from trudging through that swamp water for hours and then not changing clothes for days? Or forget that. Just the non-private bathroom facilities. Okay with you?
______________________________________________________–

Fair enough.

The 20 year old pregnant female- Pre-deployment discharge.
Scenario 2: Dishonorable discharge.

Scenario 3: So what you are saying is that when women on their period we can’t do our jobs?

So men are immune to infections and illness right?

So let me ask you this:

How about men that are accepted that have asthma, or are dumb as a box of rocks or can barely speak english or read?

How about non-private bathrooms with homosexuals?

How about men like Alvin Greene? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene who because of political correctness and God knows what else slides by for 13 years?

Basically the military accepts men who can barely write their own name see Alvin Greene, yet you’re worried about a woman’s period?

BannedbytheGuardian | February 14, 2012 at 1:53 am

Janitor does not know that periods are biologically completely unnecessary unless conception is wanted.

It is very easy not to menstruate.

Cut body fat down to under 15%.

Have a continual contraceptive injection or 28 day oral ie -leave the coloured sugar pills in the foil & begin the next pack.

Athletes do it all the time.

If you NEVER want periods -it can be done without risk & with the overall drop in oestragen production it may reduce hormone cancers eg breast & Ovarian in later life.

Contraception: Does Obama not want more black children born or is this about more children being born into Catholic families?
As I see it a Pro-choice platform is a devious form of racism and population control.

ITS FREE!!!: Obama and the DNC want the women of the US to believe that they vouchsafe women their rights. BUT, these rights women already inherently own and control: “Just say No.”

Based on this thread you’d think the worst thing in the world would be for a woman to want to serve and protect her homeland. More likely the problem is men like to join the military to stroke their ego, and show people how tough they are. If the people they want to show off to are standing side by side w them being tough as well, the illusion is broken. LOL…

World-wide income tax, eh? Maybe Newt was onto something with building a big base on the moon. If the global income tax was 10%, and you could escape it by going to the moon (not to mention the health benefits of lower gravity when you’re older), even a $1M one-time ride to the moon would pay for itself in a single year, if you earned $10M/year.

I hear the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. 🙂

Regarding women in military – I’m all for it. The physical-strength issues are less and less of an issue each year, and more and more it’s brains, leadership, ability to work together. I’d far rather have my son (or daughter) fighting for/with a competent woman than a less-competent man. Also – take a look at stamina statistics on women – while I’ve never been in the military, if you have to do a long day, stamina is going to count for as much (or more) as the brute strength you have at the start of the day.

As far as pregnancy goes: I used to live by Camp Pendleton – plenty of new Marines would go off and buy Ninja motorcycles, then immediately crash them (it was called “Ninjacide”). It always was the *guys* doing it – never heard of any women doing it. So everybody can choose to do things that make them unable to deploy – women have one more option available to them – get pregnant – but that’s the only one, and its out of an infinite list of things.

There must be statistics out there on % availability for deployment of troops by sex, and by cause. Anybody?

One last point: from a political perspective – I suspect that having men report to women officers in Muslim countries (and the local women seeing it) was probably one of the more subversive and corrosive things we were doing (without realizing it). The key to defeating Islam is women’s rights – once women there see that a different way is possible (and works), then all kinds of mental doors open. The ‘Reformation’ of Islam is not going to come from outside – it will have to come from within Islam, and it will be driven by the disenfranchised (women). So even if women were not used in all jobs, it would be very, very important strategically to have them in lots of jobs, especially leadership jobs where the locals see it.

This is a long-term war of minds, and we need to be planting ideas today that will flower in 20 years.

Also – take a look at stamina statistics on women – while I’ve never been in the military, if you have to do a long day, stamina is going to count for as much (or more) as the brute strength you have at the start of the day.

Men have more stamina. They also have higher pain thresholds. They also are less subject to injury. And that risk-taking behavior you note above has been shown by the research to translate directly into higher willingness to take heroic risks in combat notwithstanding possible injury to themselves. For citations to the research on both sides, please see Kingsley Browne’s book that I referenced above. I can’t hope to reiterate it all here.

There must be statistics out there on % availability for deployment of troops by sex, and by cause.

Yes, there is. There have been huge problems with female deployment readiness compared with the men. See the research.

The key to defeating Islam is women’s rights

Kind of like saying that the way to cure disease is to give people good health.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend