PDA

View Full Version : BREAKING: Panetta opens combat roles to women



txradioguy
01-23-2013, 04:45 PM
Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/

Bailey
01-23-2013, 04:58 PM
oh boy this ought to be fun....

Rockntractor
01-23-2013, 04:59 PM
oh boy this ought to be fun....

I have had all the giggles I can stand from this administration.

Bailey
01-23-2013, 05:01 PM
I have had all the giggles I can stand from this administration.

Well if the truth be told they have been in many combat roles for some time but now its more official. I wonder how many women 11 bravo's will get knocked up just to get off the front line?

Rockntractor
01-23-2013, 05:08 PM
Well if the truth be told they have been in many combat roles for some time but now its more official. I wonder how many women 11 bravo's will get knocked up just to get off the front line?

I don't know the details but I'm guessing they will have less of a choice now. You would have to be crazy to join the military today because you would have no idea what the rules will be tomorrow.

txradioguy
01-23-2013, 05:10 PM
oh boy this ought to be fun....

Definitely gonna make me rethink going beyond 20 years.

txradioguy
01-23-2013, 05:11 PM
Well if the truth be told they have been in many combat roles for some time but now its more official. I wonder how many women 11 bravo's will get knocked up just to get off the front line?

This is opening up Armor Infantry and Artillery.

Get ready for Female Rangers and Green Berets.

Bailey
01-23-2013, 05:19 PM
This is opening up Armor Infantry and Artillery.

Get ready for Female Rangers and Green Berets.

No way in hell could a woman handle the training, most men can't handle it, that is if they don't easy the physical requirements for the job.

txradioguy
01-23-2013, 05:22 PM
No way in hell could a woman handle the training, most men can't handle it, that is if they don't easy the physical requirements for the job.

That's exactly what they will do Bailey. They will dumb down the standards...just like they've done every other place where they've done this.

Adam Wood
01-23-2013, 05:44 PM
This is opening up Armor Infantry and Artillery.

Get ready for Female Rangers and Green Berets.I don't care, so long as they can carry and fire that mortar, scale that cliff, lug that heavy-ass bi-pod machine gun, and do all the other stuff that combat soldiers need to do in the course of combat. I don't care if you're Black, white, or pink with purple polka-dots so long as you're combat-effective when you need to be.



The problem is, women CAN'T do all of that stuff as well as their male counterparts. It's simple physiology. Sure, there are lots of women out there who can bulk up and toughen up and they can be just as steely as the next guy down the line, but the simple facts of physiology are that with very little exception, women, no matter how physically fit they are, simply will not be as effective, will not be able to move as well with an 80-lb. ruck on, will not be able to manipulate or maneuver a machine gun with 50 lbs. of ammunition as a man will be able to.

Newsflash for the Obama administration and the Left: women and men are different. Stop trying to pretend this isn't the case.




The inevitable result of this will be lowered standards to meet a quota of women in combat roles, thus ultimately reducing the quality of the American combat soldier all-around. Bad idea.

txradioguy
01-23-2013, 05:59 PM
Ok so does this mean they will now be required to fill out a SSS FORM 2 Selective Service card now just like I had to?

Adam Wood
01-23-2013, 06:21 PM
Ok so does this mean they will now be required to fill out a SSS FORM 2 Selective Service card now just like I had to?Heh! Good point!

OK, ladies! March your butts right on down to the Post Office and fill out your Selective Service cards.

Elspeth
01-23-2013, 07:47 PM
Ok so does this mean they will now be required to fill out a SSS FORM 2 Selective Service card now just like I had to?

This was exactly what occurred to me when I heard the news.

There was also an article on military rape this morning on Yahoo. Now American girls will be required to sign up for a situation in which there is a high probability that they will be raped.

txradioguy
01-24-2013, 02:55 AM
This was exactly what occurred to me when I heard the news.

There was also an article on military rape this morning on Yahoo. Now American girls will be required to sign up for a situation in which there is a high probability that they will be raped.

And somehow all the "smart" people in the Pentagon haven't connected the dots to the fact that sexual assaults and harassment has shot up in the military the closer they push females to the front lines and allow them into traditional combat roles.

RobJohnson
01-24-2013, 04:02 AM
Ok so does this mean they will now be required to fill out a SSS FORM 2 Selective Service card now just like I had to?

I am sure the administration will find a way to make sure females can wiggle out of this.

Bailey
01-24-2013, 06:29 AM
And somehow all the "smart" people in the Pentagon haven't connected the dots to the fact that sexual assaults and harassment has shot up in the military the closer they push females to the front lines and allow them into traditional combat roles.

Not to mention the fact if they become POW's what that will do to the countries morale when the enemy will parade them out in front of the Samara

Janice
01-24-2013, 09:16 AM
Great. We're back to social engineering again. First BJClinton with dont ask, dont tell. Now this.

And little to no discussion by the lefts cheer leaders, the so called news media. How charming. Im sure the institutions of higher indoctrination will 'do their part' too.

First we fill the GOP's top tier with a bunch of cowards so there is virtually no opposition to the lefts agenda, now we put women in combat positions on the front lines and this is supposed to help make ours the toughest military our enemies encounter on the face of the earth? Or is this supposed to "equalize" our engagements in combat?

And what do you suppose the enemy is going to do to our daughters after theyve captured them? And what happens if/when they have to re-introduce the draft? Do you think the majority of Americans are going to want their daughters on the front lines like this?

The far left is destroying the very fabric of our society. And damn proud of it.

Odysseus
01-24-2013, 09:45 AM
This is opening up Armor Infantry and Artillery.

Get ready for Female Rangers and Green Berets.

And lower standards for Ranger school and SFQC.


I don't care, so long as they can carry and fire that mortar, scale that cliff, lug that heavy-ass bi-pod machine gun, and do all the other stuff that combat soldiers need to do in the course of combat. I don't care if you're Black, white, or pink with purple polka-dots so long as you're combat-effective when you need to be.



The problem is, women CAN'T do all of that stuff as well as their male counterparts. It's simple physiology. Sure, there are lots of women out there who can bulk up and toughen up and they can be just as steely as the next guy down the line, but the simple facts of physiology are that with very little exception, women, no matter how physically fit they are, simply will not be as effective, will not be able to move as well with an 80-lb. ruck on, will not be able to manipulate or maneuver a machine gun with 50 lbs. of ammunition as a man will be able to.

Newsflash for the Obama administration and the Left: women and men are different. Stop trying to pretend this isn't the case.




The inevitable result of this will be lowered standards to meet a quota of women in combat roles, thus ultimately reducing the quality of the American combat soldier all-around. Bad idea.

The vast majority of women cannot meet the physical standards of infantry and armor, but there is another issue. My basic branch was armor, and while the physical standards are greater than people think (loaders have to be able to extract a 40-50 lb round from the ready rack, rotate it 180 degrees and load it into the breech in a space that is roughly the size of a phone booth, in under six seconds, and don't get me started on the weight of the track links), the real issue is that a tank crew is four people. If one of those Soldiers is down due to pregnancy or other medical issues, then the crew is down by 25%. Now, a tank can run with three crewmembers, if the TC does double duty as the loader, but that's one less crew member to do security, maintenance and all of the other details that come with combat. One of the dirty little secrets of women in the military is that they have much higher rates of injury and downtime, even those who meet the male physical standards, because pushing their bodies that hard has consequences. Infantry units tend to have even more issues. A combat ruck can weigh 80 lbs, and with body armor and the rest of the load, a female trooper may end up carrying her own body-weight in equipment. I know infantrymen who are getting knee replacements at 45 (and younger), and women will end up with a far greater rate of injury. Throw in the 25-mile graduation march for Infantry AIT and you're going to lose massive numbers of women during IET, and those women are not going to want to reclassify to another MOS.

Now, throw in the corrosive effects of sexual misconduct and not only do you have Soldiers who physically impact readiness, but whose very presence creates emotional stresses within the unit.

noonwitch
01-24-2013, 10:41 AM
Ok so does this mean they will now be required to fill out a SSS FORM 2 Selective Service card now just like I had to?


I would be all for this had ERA passed in the 70s.

DumbAss Tanker
01-24-2013, 01:24 PM
Most of the impetus for this is coming from female officers who feel that their professional chances are hampered by not being allowed to command combat arms units and get that in their resume. I don't have the sense that there are a lot of enlisted women dying to break track on an Abrams or hump mortar tubes and M240Bs on extended dismounts. God forbid something like military utility stand between a West Point woman and her shot at CofS.

I foresee the unintended consequences of this will be a reluctance to put any non-SOCOM boots on the ground anywhere in the world to the point that it'll make Clinton look like Tojo by comparison, and our opposition wasn't too slow-witted in getting an extremely accurate intelligence appreciation of him on that, which led directly to some pretty ugly results.

Elspeth
01-24-2013, 02:50 PM
I would be all for this had ERA passed in the 70s.

Interesting that women in combat was the major issue that tanked ERA. Now, despite the fact that ERA was shelved, we have women in combat anyway. Joke is on the feminists, I guess.

noonwitch
01-24-2013, 03:23 PM
Interesting that women in combat was the major issue that tanked ERA. Now, despite the fact that ERA was shelved, we have women in combat anyway. Joke is on the feminists, I guess.


Yeah, the joke is on feminists like me, I guess. The world has changed since then, though.


As far as today is concerned, we are also talking about an all-voluntary military, not a draft. The SS cards are to register for a potential draft, in a national emergency. I don't think women should have to register for a potential draft unless they have their equal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.


I have a friend who is convinced that she registered for the draft in 1982, when she turned 18. I told her, no, women are not required to do so, but she is convinced that she did. She also believes that Bob Fosse played Joe Gideon in All That Jazz, not Roy Scheider-no matter what I showed her, movie rosters, the case to the video, she could not accept the facts. She further believes that Kwame Kilpatrick is innocent of all crimes, but that Mike Illitch (owner of Little Caesar's, the Tigers and the Red Wings) pays hit men to kill old people who own property around downtown Detroit. Please pray for her.

Elspeth
01-24-2013, 03:26 PM
As far as today is concerned, we are also talking about an all-voluntary military, not a draft. The SS cards are to register for a potential draft, in a national emergency. I don't think women should have to register for a potential draft unless they have their equal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.


You're going to have a hard time selling that one. People won't understand the difference. America is also much more dumbed down since the late seventies.

Adam Wood
01-24-2013, 04:31 PM
As far as today is concerned, we are also talking about an all-voluntary military, not a draft. The SS cards are to register for a potential draft, in a national emergency. I don't think women should have to register for a potential draft unless they have their equal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.Women already have equal rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Has been that way since 1868. What you want is equal outcome guaranteed in the Constitution, which ain't gonna happen.


Whether it's a "potential" draft or not, it is a blatant double-standard to not require women to register for the draft when men are required to register. Men who are drafted don't get to decide whether they're in a support role or they're on point with a rifle; why should women get that choice if men don't?



You asked for equality. Now you have to deal with the consequences of that.

Odysseus
01-24-2013, 05:24 PM
Most of the impetus for this is coming from female officers who feel that their professional chances are hampered by not being allowed to command combat arms units and get that in their resume. I don't have the sense that there are a lot of enlisted women dying to break track on an Abrams or hump mortar tubes and M240Bs on extended dismounts. God forbid something like military utility stand between a West Point woman and her shot at CofS.

I foresee the unintended consequences of this will be a reluctance to put any non-SOCOM boots on the ground anywhere in the world to the point that it'll make Clinton look like Tojo by comparison, and our opposition wasn't too slow-witted in getting an extremely accurate intelligence appreciation of him on that, which led directly to some pretty ugly results.

As long as the media doesn't report the ugly results, it won't register to anyone until St Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan is converted into a Mosque and the Chinese territorial claims on California go unanswered.


Yeah, the joke is on feminists like me, I guess. The world has changed since then, though.

Yeah, now you get to be treated like disposable chattel by what passes for men in the post-feminist era, while being expected to support yourself and any offspring that might result from the random couplings that substitute for love, family and life. You've come a long way, baby.



As far as today is concerned, we are also talking about an all-voluntary military, not a draft. The SS cards are to register for a potential draft, in a national emergency. I don't think women should have to register for a potential draft unless they have their equal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Yeah, it must suck not to be able to vote, own property, keep and bear arms, speak your mind freely, practice your religion, petition the government, answer questions under duress during trials that don't include a jury of your peers...



I have a friend who is convinced that she registered for the draft in 1982, when she turned 18. I told her, no, women are not required to do so, but she is convinced that she did. She also believes that Bob Fosse played Joe Gideon in All That Jazz, not Roy Scheider-no matter what I showed her, movie rosters, the case to the video, she could not accept the facts. She further believes that Kwame Kilpatrick is innocent of all crimes, but that Mike Illitch (owner of Little Caesar's, the Tigers and the Red Wings) pays hit men to kill old people who own property around downtown Detroit. Please pray for her.

What's her DU name?

noonwitch
01-24-2013, 05:25 PM
Women already have equal rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Has been that way since 1868. What you want is equal outcome guaranteed in the Constitution, which ain't gonna happen.


Whether it's a "potential" draft or not, it is a blatant double-standard to not require women to register for the draft when men are required to register. Men who are drafted don't get to decide whether they're in a support role or they're on point with a rifle; why should women get that choice if men don't?



You asked for equality. Now you have to deal with the consequences of that.


How can women have had equal rights under the Constitution since 1868 when they weren't even allowed to vote until 1920?

Bailey
01-24-2013, 05:42 PM
How can women have had equal rights under the Constitution since 1868 when they weren't even allowed to vote until 1920?

Well now you have all the same rights and you don't want to take the same risks as men.

Hawkgirl
01-24-2013, 07:46 PM
The media is lapping this all up in anticipation of the Conservative response to this.

Anderson Cooper's exact words the other day were "Is Obama planning to annihilate the Republican party?" His guest answered "he's succeeding."


I can't say I agree.

Elspeth
01-24-2013, 09:05 PM
Yeah, now you get to be treated like disposable chattel by what passes for men in the post-feminist era, while being expected to support yourself and any offspring that might result from the random couplings that substitute for love, family and life. You've come a long way, baby.


Wait til the draft. Now, young women won't have the option of avoiding a situation that has a higher probability of rape than anything stateside (outside of gang neighborhoods).

txradioguy
01-25-2013, 05:17 AM
And somehow all the "smart" people in the Pentagon haven't connected the dots to the fact that sexual assaults and harassment has shot up in the military the closer they push females to the front lines and allow them into traditional combat roles.

After all of the training we've gotten on this stuff over the last 20 years...you'd think the incidents would be way down. Instead they continue to climb.

Only one reason I can see for that.

txradioguy
01-25-2013, 06:39 AM
There is also the "hygiene" issue. Right now regulations state that women are required to come in from the field every three days for female hygiene. Is that going to change as well? Again it will be impossible to build unit cohesion...especially when your'e in a hostile area when one or more members of the team are deserting you every three days to get a shower and clean up when you're still stuck in a fox hole smelling like the local goat herd freezing your backside off.

Bailey
01-25-2013, 08:47 AM
There is also the "hygiene" issue. Right now regulations state that women are required to come in from the field every three days for female hygiene. Is that going to change as well? Again it will be impossible to build unit cohesion...especially when your'e in a hostile area when one or more members of the team are deserting you every three days to get a shower and clean up when you're still stuck in a fox hole smelling like the local goat herd freezing your backside off.

I wish I could have a dollar for every so called charge of sexual harassment and rape(90% will be false so they can get out of combat/service) that will come down the pipe, then i could retire a rich man.

Odysseus
01-25-2013, 01:21 PM
The media is lapping this all up in anticipation of the Conservative response to this.

Anderson Cooper's exact words the other day were "Is Obama planning to annihilate the Republican party?" His guest answered "he's succeeding."


I can't say I agree.

One would think that a president who rules by executive order and appears to be consolidating his power for one-party rule would be of more concern to the media.


Wait til the draft. Now, young women won't have the option of avoiding a situation that has a higher probability of rape than anything stateside (outside of gang neighborhoods).

Rape is only bad when Republicans talk about it. When we point out that sexual assault stats in the armed forces are resisting everything that we do to prevent them, we're told that we must find a way, but the obvious way, separation of the sexes, isn't permissible, and those who suggest or practice it (like the Marines) are denigrated as extremists.


There is also the "hygiene" issue. Right now regulations state that women are required to come in from the field every three days for female hygiene. Is that going to change as well? Again it will be impossible to build unit cohesion...especially when your'e in a hostile area when one or more members of the team are deserting you every three days to get a shower and clean up when you're still stuck in a fox hole smelling like the local goat herd freezing your backside off.

They'll just rotate the whole unit back. After all, the war isn't going anywhere, is it? And we practice relief-in-place operations, so why not do it more often? The increased costs in lives, materiale, time and everything else is negligible next to the rights of women, especially that one career officer who may make it up to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What's losing a war or two if it gains us that?

RobJohnson
01-25-2013, 01:37 PM
They'll just rotate the whole unit back. After all, the war isn't going anywhere, is it? And we practice relief-in-place operations, so why not do it more often? The increased costs in lives, materiale, time and everything else is negligible next to the rights of women, especially that one career officer who may make it up to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What's losing a war or two if it gains us that?

:bravo:

txradioguy
01-25-2013, 02:34 PM
They'll just rotate the whole unit back. After all, the war isn't going anywhere, is it? And we practice relief-in-place operations, so why not do it more often? The increased costs in lives, materiale, time and everything else is negligible next to the rights of women, especially that one career officer who may make it up to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What's losing a war or two if it gains us that?

At which point the Liberals will have what they want. A military that can barely protect it's own borders...incapable of projecting power aroundthe globe much less around the block.

DumbAss Tanker
01-25-2013, 02:47 PM
They'll just rotate the whole unit back. After all, the war isn't going anywhere, is it? And we practice relief-in-place operations, so why not do it more often? The increased costs in lives, materiel, time and everything else is negligible next to the rights of women, especially that one career officer who may make it up to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What's losing a war or two if it gains us that?

Having been through a couple of unit GWOT rotations from different perspectives, I often wondered if there was a more expensive, logistic-intensive, fraud-laden, and generally wasteful way of deploying military units just for the single 'Advantage' of as many different units as humanly possible getting combat patches and a shot at unit citations. Congratulations, I think you may have found one.

Odysseus
01-25-2013, 05:35 PM
At which point the Liberals will have what they want. A military that can barely protect it's own borders...incapable of projecting power aroundthe globe much less around the block.

I'm sure that Rome had people who felt the same way about the legions, right up to the Visigoth invasion, when they demanded to know who was going to protect them.


Having been through a couple of unit GWOT rotations from different perspectives, I often wondered if there was a more expensive, logistic-intensive, fraud-laden, and generally wasteful way of deploying military units just for the single 'Advantage' of as many different units as humanly possible getting combat patches and a shot at unit citations. Congratulations, I think you may have found one.

Then my time in the Pentagon has not been in vain. :evil-grin:

Generation Why?
01-29-2013, 01:53 PM
So long as they are held to the same physical standards, not a reduced standard, and can complete the mission I have no problem with this. But we will have to see a little bit of this in motion before a decision can be made permanent. And I don't see sexual harrasment, rape, or "pregnancy to avoid service" rising. Some of you are just ignorant, sexist, assholes.

Now, if it fails, then it fails and we know what our limits are as a military. It really isn't the worst thing in the world.

txradioguy
01-29-2013, 04:09 PM
So long as they are held to the same physical standards, not a reduced standard, and can complete the mission I have no problem with this. But we will have to see a little bit of this in motion before a decision can be made permanent. And I don't see sexual harrasment, rape, or "pregnancy to avoid service" rising. Some of you are just ignorant, sexist, assholes.

Now, if it fails, then it fails and we know what our limits are as a military. It really isn't the worst thing in the world.

Go look at the current scoring chart for the APFT...do you honestly think the standards are going to remain the same or in any way "fair"?

Not trying to be mean or snarky...just telling to to think about what you know about the military and how things work and then ask yourself that question.

Rockntractor
01-29-2013, 04:34 PM
Go look at the current scoring chart for the APFT...do you honestly think the standards are going to remain the same or in any way "fair"?

Not trying to be mean or snarky...just telling to to think about what you know about the military and how things work and then ask yourself that question.

Many Libertarians like liberals want to see the dismantling of the military, unlike most liberals they won't tell you that that is their intent.

Generation Why?
01-30-2013, 11:23 AM
Go look at the current scoring chart for the APFT...do you honestly think the standards are going to remain the same or in any way "fair"?

Not trying to be mean or snarky...just telling to to think about what you know about the military and how things work and then ask yourself that question.


I honestly do think they would change the standards but not to the extent that they should.

I don't want to soften the APFT standards. If a woman wants to go the 11A/B route, I think she should have to meet the same existing criteria for the men. I don't want a middle-man compromise. I think the standards for women in combat roles would increase but not to the current standard men have. Which I don't like.

Generation Why?
01-30-2013, 11:25 AM
Many Libertarians like liberals want to see the dismantling of the military, unlike most liberals they won't tell you that that is their intent.

I want to fight declared wars. I want responsible defense spending. How is that dismantling the military? I don't want to cut one job from the military because I know if we are responsible with our money we don't have to.

Lastly, rock, why would I want to dismantle the military? I am in the military...

Rockntractor
01-30-2013, 11:50 AM
Lastly, rock, why would I want to dismantle the military? I am in the military...

Liberals are notorious for sawing off the limb they are sitting on, it is almost expected of them at some point.

txradioguy
01-30-2013, 02:56 PM
I honestly do think they would change the standards but not to the extent that they should.

I don't want to soften the APFT standards. If a woman wants to go the 11A/B route, I think she should have to meet the same existing criteria for the men. I don't want a middle-man compromise. I think the standards for women in combat roles would increase but not to the current standard men have. Which I don't like.

But that's not gonna happen. It's already been proven when they let women fly fighter jets.

They have to lower the physical standards so the women can pass and those people that use us as a social engineering ant farm don't end up looking foolish.

Women are on the front lines right now anyway. So this is not about letting them into the fight.

Generation Why?
01-30-2013, 03:31 PM
Liberals are notorious for sawing off the limb they are sitting on, it is almost expected of them at some point.

It's astonishing that you have over 35,000 posts with almost no substances. Just a bunch of non-sensical one-liners. And your reply has nothing to do with me or my views.

Generation Why?
01-30-2013, 03:34 PM
But that's not gonna happen. It's already been proven when they let women fly fighter jets.

They have to lower the physical standards so the women can pass and those people that use us as a social engineering ant farm don't end up looking foolish.

Women are on the front lines right now anyway. So this is not about letting them into the fight.

We are in agreement, tx. We both know that if there is any change in standards, it won't be to better our military. I think the female standards should be increased as it is just based on the females that I work with. They have no trouble passing their APFTs and usually score in the 250s on the men's scale. Granted it is a small sample size.

Retread
01-30-2013, 09:08 PM
It's astonishing that you have over 35,000 posts with almost no substances. Just a bunch of non-sensical one-liners. And your reply has nothing to do with me or my views.

Take him to the dome rock!!!!! If anyone ever posted with no substance it is gw.

Rockntractor
01-30-2013, 09:13 PM
Take him to the dome rock!!!!! If anyone ever posted with no substance it is gw.

He is just a mouthy kid, no one will ever convince him of anything.

txradioguy
01-31-2013, 03:31 AM
They have no trouble passing their APFTs and usually score in the 250s on the men's scale. Granted it is a small sample size.

But could any of them pick you up in fireman's carry when you're in full kit and get you out of the kill zone if you were woulded in a fire fight? Or even drag you by the strap on the back of your IOTV?

Bailey
01-31-2013, 07:44 AM
But could any of them pick you up in fireman's carry when you're in full kit and get you out of the kill zone if you were woulded in a fire fight? Or even drag you by the strap on the back of your IOTV?

i doubt it

Generation Why?
01-31-2013, 10:55 AM
But could any of them pick you up in fireman's carry when you're in full kit and get you out of the kill zone if you were woulded in a fire fight? Or even drag you by the strap on the back of your IOTV?

Most likely no. We are not necessarily at a disagreement here. Like I said, if they can meet the physical requirements, obviously things like the fireman carry being a part of that, then I see no problem.

Generation Why?
01-31-2013, 10:57 AM
Take him to the dome rock!!!!! If anyone ever posted with no substance it is gw.

Disagreement does not mean a lack of substance. Talking about liberals sawing off limbs they are sitting on is a lack of substance. Seeing as it has no business being in this discussion.

Rockntractor
01-31-2013, 11:29 AM
Disagreement does not mean a lack of substance. Talking about liberals sawing off limbs they are sitting on is a lack of substance. Seeing as it has no business being in this discussion.

Almost all you have ever posted here has been shot down here by someone, no facts have ever swayed you, you are a fine one to talk of lack of substance, if you were half as brilliant as you think you are your reputation would at least reflect a little of that brilliance.

Generation Why?
01-31-2013, 11:33 AM
Almost all you have ever posted here has been shot down here by someone, no facts have ever swayed you, you are a fine one to talk of lack of substance, if you were half as brilliant as you think you are your reputation would at least reflect a little of that brilliance.

My reputation reflects the fact that Republicans and Libertarians disagree on plenty of things. And you have never shot down a damn thing I have said. When something I say does get shot down, I re-evaluate my viewpoint, find more information and re-present my case. You just come up with pointless posts about how I am stupid, with no proof or evidence. Just that you disagree with what I say/think/believe, and you leave it at that. I at least try to explain my side of the discussion.

AmPat
01-31-2013, 07:40 PM
My reputation reflects the fact that Republicans and Libertarians disagree on plenty of things. And you have never shot down a damn thing I have said. When something I say does get shot down, I re-evaluate my viewpoint, find more information and re-present my case. You just come up with pointless posts about how I am stupid, with no proof or evidence. Just that you disagree with what I say/think/believe, and you leave it at that. I at least try to explain my side of the discussion.
Examples please???

Generation Why?
02-01-2013, 02:24 PM
Examples please???

Examples of what? I touched on a couple different things.

AmPat
02-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Examples of what? I touched on a couple different things.
If responses to your posts have driven you to research and rethink your position, give examples. If not, give examples of how you quibbled around the logic presented and still hold to your original idea. You know, examples?