U.S. politics isolation tank

[teknight]

Oh, the guy what deployed with the SEALs - one of the guy on the fireteam he was with was gay and didn't hide it. Nobody on the teams gave a shit.

Who would have the guts to give a SEAL crap about being gay? Seriously, that's just plain dumb and potentially suicidal. Mind you, I'm just making an observation, not perverting your argument, or trying to use it against the point I've previously made.

 

[Netzach]

Where I have a problem with women in combat roles is over physical requirements. Let's ignore the military for a moment, and look at something less charged - firefighters. A friend of mine went through fire school locally and was telling me that the women had less stringent physical requirements than the men. This boggled me. A fire is not going to be nice to a woman because she is female. And I am not going to be lighter is I pass out from smoke and need to be carried out. If the standard for a man is a ladder carry with a 185# dummy, it should be the same for a woman.

The same concept goes for combat. Your battle buddy is not going to be lighter to carry out of harm's way if he gets wounded. I have no problems whatsoever with women in combat teams so long as they have the same basic physical requirements as the men. And I in no way consider this a de facto ban on women in combat units. I know more than a few buff chicks that could outperform me all day long, and more than a few that I would gladly have at my back if things got ugly. I just don't think that physical requirements should be less.

The bottom line for me is that combat is combat regardless of gender. The requirements of the job should determine the qualifications of the person performing said job. And, really, it is not a matter of raising the bar to unrealistic levels for women. It is a matter of just setting the bar, and allowing those who wish to go there to train for it. Run times, push-ups, sit-ups etc are all entirely possible for a motivated woman to train for.

I agree with this. I don't think that there'll ever be equal numbers of women in combat here, but that's not the issue. A fair shot at being stronger than the average bear is reasonable.

Also recognition that the situations in modern combat are blurred between "the line" and not when it comes to injuries, firefights, bombs and that women aren't just safely tucked away typing when it comes time to seeing service.

 

[Netzach]

Uhh...out here? Are you in Rossiya, cheloveka?

Minnesota. I know that sounded really Mother Country but really - I've talked to people who look like my mom and her friends and they picked rocks birthed cows and drove lots of tractor. Often in a cute bikini with the last of the three.

Scandinavians and Germans by extraction- there's a complete ethic of expectation around girls and physical stuff - it's amazing. We did not have this in NYC.

 

[teknight]

Minnesota. I know that sounded really Mother Country but really - I've talked to people who look like my mom and her friends and they picked rocks birthed cows and drove lots of tractor. Often in a cute bikini with the last of the three.

Thanks for the clarification.
The emboldened part is what sets the US apart from Russia- in the expectations of women aspect.

 

[WriterDom]

I'd rather see the French and German MEN fighting before we send in our women but that will never happen. Last I heard the 3500 French were already packing in their wine ready to go home.

"The Russians, with 130,000 men, couldn't hold Afghanistan," the French diplomat said. "Do you really think 1,000 or 2,000 more troops today would make a difference?"

Oui, oui, points for honesty anyway.

 

[teknight]

As an exercise in political lit power, I say we start a campaign to get the admins to change WriterDom's username to "Cliche" or some variant thereof. I'll print the posters and the campaign buttons. Who wants to contact Fox News?

 

[Netzach]

I'd rather see the French and German MEN fighting before we send in our women but that will never happen. Last I heard the 3500 French were already packing in their wine ready to go home.

"The Russians, with 130,000 men, couldn't hold Afghanistan," the French diplomat said. "Do you really think 1,000 or 2,000 more troops today would make a difference?"

Oui, oui, points for honesty anyway.

And brains. You said the same thing yourself, unless I'm mistaken.

If the Russians, with a very ho hum concern for their human rights record in their favor, invading them couldn't do it, I really don't think we are going to do it trying to turn hearts and minds.

Smartest thing we could threaten would be to invite Russia back as our kinda sorta friends on this one.

 

[JMohegan]

As an exercise in political lit power, I say we start a campaign to get the admins to change WriterDom's username to "Cliche" or some variant thereof. I'll print the posters and the campaign buttons. Who wants to contact Fox News?

He's a Petulant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105342.html

No name change necessary. Everyone just knows.

 

[teknight]

NO FUCKIN' WAY!
START is less important than Christmas?!

 

[Homburg]

Who would have the guts to give a SEAL crap about being gay? Seriously, that's just plain dumb and potentially suicidal. Mind you, I'm just making an observation, not perverting your argument, or trying to use it against the point I've previously made.

Um, other SEALs, if they cared. The guy in question wasn't a lone SEAL in a boat full of squids. He was a front-line SPECWAR guy in an organisation full of other guys just like him.

And I didn't mention it, but the one actual SEAL that I know is bi, looks great in a set of pumps, and loves nothing more than to be pegged up the ass by his Mistress. Somehow I doubt he'd give a shit about gays in the military either.

--

I agree with this. I don't think that there'll ever be equal numbers of women in combat here, but that's not the issue. A fair shot at being stronger than the average bear is reasonable.

Also recognition that the situations in modern combat are blurred between "the line" and not when it comes to injuries, firefights, bombs and that women aren't just safely tucked away typing when it comes time to seeing service.

Absolutely, and the latter part is one of the big reasons why I am tired of the pointless distinction between genders in combat roles. Truck drivers are getting into firefights. Clerks are, cooks, surgeons, etc. You never know when combat is going to pop up when pitched battles are off the menu. One of my oldest friends is a very high-end surgeon in the army and he has had vehicles blown out from underneath him and been involved in firefights.

The lines have all but been wiped clean out by these conflicts, and I doubt they will ever be the same. The likelihood of pitched battles in the modern world is just not all that meaningful.

 

[JMohegan]

NO FUCKIN' WAY!
START is less important than Christmas?!

What's important is defeating President Obama. Anywhere, any time, in a way that they possibly can.

They don't give a fuck about what's best for the country. It's about being anti-Obama. Obsessively. No matter what.

 

[WriterDom]

What's important is defeating President Obama. Anywhere, any time, in a way that they possibly can.

They don't give a fuck about what's best for the country. It's about being anti-Obama. Obsessively. No matter what.

It's about beating back the Obama agenda and forcing him in to more centralist positions. The election was a good start but just the beginning.

One could say that Obama's goal is to get reelected. Anywhere, any time, in a way that he possibly can.

See, we are both hacks. The difference is I don't whine about MSNBC and NPR everyday like you and MWY harp on Fox news and conservative radio like they were both fucking invented in 2010.

Yep, a most excellent lame dick session but the party is over. Sixty-five House democrats or so will be forced into higher paying lobbyist jobs and Nancy will be flying Delta. Obama won't have 5 trillion dollars to spend over the next two years. Holder might have to actually come to the Hill and testify. You know, pesky oversight things. New sheriff in town and all.

 

[JMohegan]

It's about beating back the Obama agenda and forcing him in to more centralist positions.

AHAHAHAHA!!

He was elected on a centralist platform, and has been governing from the center since Day 1.

But I do so appreciate you proving my point, WD. You don't give a fuck about the issues. It's all about HIM.

 

[WriterDom]

AHAHAHAHA!!

He was elected on a centralist platform, and has been governing from the center since Day 1.

But I do so appreciate you proving my point, WD. You don't give a fuck about the issues. It's all about HIM.

It's you with your head in the sand. Want to know why the dems took the worst beating in 72 years? Of course you don't so why should I bother even explaining it.

Now as far as the "war that must not be named" then yes, he's no different than the last guy we had in office. And now we get a fist up the ass from TSA because they are so reactive it's silly. What we need to do is hire medical staff so every flying male could get a free prostrate check. At least that would make it worthwhile.

 

[ImOnIt]

It's you with your head in the sand. Want to know why the dems took the worst beating in 72 years? Of course you don't so why should I bother even explaining it.

Now as far as the "war that must not be named" then yes, he's no different than the last guy we had in office. And now we get a fist up the ass from TSA because they are so reactive it's silly. What we need to do is hire medical staff so every flying male could get a free prostrate check. At least that would make it worthwhile.

Rhetoric and not an argument in sight.

 

[JMohegan]

It's you with your head in the sand. Want to know why the dems took the worst beating in 72 years? Of course you don't so why should I bother even explaining it.

Why? Normal mid-term correction + the economy. Mostly the latter, because it well & truly sucks. Any other explanation is pure bagger spin.

You have a right to disagree with me, WD, but you don't get to pretend that I'm not here. I know what Left is, and the first two years of the Obama administration are not it.

Let's take a specific example.

"Leftist" is not the health care plan that was signed into law this year. That's not a government takeover of healthcare; it's mostly a jumble of rehashed policies proposed by various REPUBLICANS in prior years.

What the left wants was never even put on the table by Obama's crew. Universal single payer health care, at a minimum. That's what I'm talking about here. Something like this. I bet you've never even heard of that bill.

Now let's look at a social issue.

In February, 75% of Americans said they supported openly gay folks serving in the U.S. military. Fighting for the repeal was therefore NOT the equivalent of pushing some gay liberal agenda. It was simply doing what the overwhelming majority of Americans thought should be done.

As I said. President Obama has been governing as a centrist from Day 1.

 

[intothewoods]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/79345

Any questions?

 

[WriterDom]

Why? Normal mid-term correction + the economy. Mostly the latter, because it well & truly sucks. Any other explanation is pure bagger spin.

You have a right to disagree with me, WD, but you don't get to pretend that I'm not here. I know what Left is, and the first two years of the Obama administration are not it.

Let's take a specific example.

"Leftist" is not the health care plan that was signed into law this year. That's not a government takeover of healthcare; it's mostly a jumble of rehashed policies proposed by various REPUBLICANS in prior years.

What the left wants was never even put on the table by Obama's crew. Universal single payer health care, at a minimum. That's what I'm talking about here. Something like this. I bet you've never even heard of that bill.

Now let's look at a social issue.

In February, 75% of Americans said they supported openly gay folks serving in the U.S. military. Fighting for the repeal was therefore NOT the equivalent of pushing some gay liberal agenda. It was simply doing what the overwhelming majority of Americans thought should be done.

As I said. President Obama has been governing as a centrist from Day 1.

I'm glad you hate the republican healthcare bill that no republican voted or had input on because the first order of the House is going to be to repeal it. So write your senator, because we're going to need a few democrats to cross over in the senate. And I expect you to squeal like a stuck pig if Obama vetoes it.

23 liberal senators up in 2012. A target rich environment. I'd almost be willing to put up with Obama for another four years if we could take eight or so of those seats. But your right. The lazy and/or ignorant stay home during the midterms. Guess that's means millions more tea baggers voting next time around. Stupid white people on medicare. I wish they'd all fucking die.

I miss the Reagan years. When we had Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have No Cash and No Hope. But at least Gitmo is closed.

 

[JMohegan]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/79345

Any questions?

How is that even a question?

 

[JMohegan]

I'm glad you hate the republican healthcare bill that no republican voted or had input on because the first order of the House is going to be to repeal it. So write your senator, because we're going to need a few democrats to cross over in the senate. And I expect you to squeal like a stuck pig if Obama vetoes it.

23 liberal senators up in 2012. A target rich environment. I'd almost be willing to put up with Obama for another four years if we could take eight or so of those seats. But your right. The lazy and/or ignorant stay home during the midterms. Guess that's means millions more tea baggers voting next time around. Stupid white people on medicare. I wish they'd all fucking die.

I miss the Reagan years. When we had Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have No Cash and No Hope. But at least Gitmo is closed.

Gosh, you're a clever one, WD.

 

[WriterDom]

The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.”

If the opinions of Reserve and National Guard troops are similar to those of active-duty personnel surveyed in the Military Times Poll, and if the poll’s findings approximate the number of military people who would leave or consider leaving if the 1993 law is repealed, combined losses (including Guard and Reserve forces) would be huge.

A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active-duty Marine Corps (200,000).
If an additional 14% decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active-duty Army (more than 545,000).
Estimates of losses in active-duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10%) and 323,000 (23%).

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=

Eh, I don't know about this. I say call their bluff. Well, I guess we just did.

 

[Netzach]

Gosh, you're a clever one, WD.

Roseanne Cash liked it too.

 

[Netzach]

The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.”

If the opinions of Reserve and National Guard troops are similar to those of active-duty personnel surveyed in the Military Times Poll, and if the poll’s findings approximate the number of military people who would leave or consider leaving if the 1993 law is repealed, combined losses (including Guard and Reserve forces) would be huge.

A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active-duty Marine Corps (200,000).
If an additional 14% decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active-duty Army (more than 545,000).
Estimates of losses in active-duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10%) and 323,000 (23%).

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=

Eh, I don't know about this. I say call their bluff. Well, I guess we just did.

And there would be no net influx of people who might finally be able to enlist without worrying about being witchhunted into dishonorable discharge. None. No net benefit from the stop losses of linguists. None.

 

[teknight]

The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.”

If the opinions of Reserve and National Guard troops are similar to those of active-duty personnel surveyed in the Military Times Poll, and if the poll’s findings approximate the number of military people who would leave or consider leaving if the 1993 law is repealed, combined losses (including Guard and Reserve forces) would be huge.

A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active-duty Marine Corps (200,000).
If an additional 14% decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active-duty Army (more than 545,000).
Estimates of losses in active-duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10%) and 323,000 (23%).

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE=

Eh, I don't know about this. I say call their bluff. Well, I guess we just did.

As a poll it's biased, dude. Only those with strong feelings about it will answer. Jeeze!
And, yes, let's focus on the 10% that won't reenlist. Forget the rest.

 

[WriterDom]

I heard, and this was on Faux News so it has to be true, that around 85% of the discharges of gays were due to the gay purposefully coming out in order to leave the military. Wonder if anyone has any real data on this?

Klinger would be fucked now with the whole dress bit.

We had a guy sleepwalk on the ship and it worked to get his ass home. But I don't think he was faking. Damn good actor if he was.