Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Janie, Get Your GunFollow

#1 Jan 23 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So this is news to me that this was even being seriously discussed...
Washington Post/Associated Press wrote:
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.

Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jan 23 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
INB4 Almas concerns of Women checking him out.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#3 Jan 23 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,942 posts
Does this also mean women need to sign up for the draft?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#4 Jan 23 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,786 posts
Time to push for mandatory selective service signups for women as well...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5 Jan 23 2013 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Quote:
“I support it,” Levin said. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”


What he said.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Jan 23 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jan 23 2013 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
http://www.army.mil/article/85606/

Because 38 years of service is fast tracking it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#8 Jan 23 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,809 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

How are their advancement tracks easier?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#9 Jan 23 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,258 posts
Woah, wait a minute. You guys don't allow women to fight in your military? You're joking right?
#10 Jan 23 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Aren't you Canadian? You don't even let your men fight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Jan 23 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Woah, wait a minute. You guys don't allow women to fight in your military? You're joking right?


Define fight... Smiley: rolleyes

They've not been allowed into traditionally front line combat roles, basically everything else was open.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Jan 23 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,235 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
They've not been allowed into traditionally front line combat roles, basically everything else was open.


Especially KP Duty.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Jan 23 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,538 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

How are their advancement tracks easier?


Because their current restrictions from direct combat roles is "balanced" (in theory) by not placing such a requirement on mid/high tier advancement. It's much easier for a female officer to obtain the rank of Major or Colonel by following a non-combat track than a male officer, for example. Obviously, part of that also comes from the fact that there are far fewer women in the military as a whole and there's a push (again mostly in non-combat, but high profile/political positions) for more visibility of female officers. If you don't think there are aspects of affirmative action going on in the military (especially at the Pentagon), you are terribly deluded.

I'm not claiming that those women who hold those ranks are not qualified for them or do not deserve them. What I am saying is that there is less direct competition for those positions and ranks if you are a woman than if you are a man. Put another way, an extremely capable female officer is likely to be one of only a few such extremely capable female officers in consideration for a given position (with presumed good advancement potential), while an equally capable male officer might be one of several hundred similarly capable male officers in consideration for an equivalent position with equivalent advancement potential.

Right now the one advantage men do have is that combat experience tends to open up tracks of advancement (and some high rank positions) that are not available via a non-combat track. This is why I applaud this idea (and have for as long as I've posted here certainly). By eliminating this restriction, then we can eliminate the current messed up imbalanced system and allow both sexes to compete and work together as equals. But at the same time, we have to eliminate even the hint or suggestion that some favoritism may go on (in either direction). I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.

So a step in the right direction, one can hope.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 23 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.
Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Jan 23 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
'Bout time.

And I agree with gbaji that everything else needs to be the same as well, though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
#16 Jan 23 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


It's gbaji. I'm pretty sure you, like the rest of us, know exactly how likely it is to be accurate.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#17 Jan 23 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Jan 23 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,786 posts
I really do see Selective Service applying to women in the future. I hesitate to say near future because I'm sure neither side wants to be accused of another "war on women" by the other side in 2014... but I think it will happen. Considering both the DoD opinion and the Supreme Court decision cite women not being allowed in combat positions as a reason.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Jan 23 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.
Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.


What's this "board" you speak of? I kid, I kid...

Belkira wrote:
'Bout time.

And I agree with gbaji that everything else needs to be the same as well, though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


I agree with the lift only IF the woman has the option to serve in the said position. The lift would cause more harm than good if women are forced into certain combat arms with no say in the factor.

lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe



I believe sit ups are the same. Other than that, a man's "180" is a woman's "300" on the APFT.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#20 Jan 23 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Jan 23 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.


I would have to agree with LolGaxe with enlisted promotions, at least up to E6. If the people on the board like you, you're in. Favoritism is rapid in the Army. From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#22 Jan 23 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why don't we just keep a set number of each rank and if you want to become a Corporal, for instance, you have to kill one of the existing Corporals in arena combat?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jan 23 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Then we'd be short people to clean the toilets at the end of the day.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 Jan 23 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,753 posts
I don't really have a problem with women serving on Subs and the like. I also don't have any issue with them being in combat areas for certain roles. Call me chauvenistic, but I shudder at the thought of them actually doing strict combat duty. It's not that I don't think that they can do it, because some of them certainly can. I had met a few women in the course of my service that were flat out more manly than me. Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk. I think men are naturally protective of women, and might put themselves at risk to the detriment of the mission to protect them. I know that any combat soldier would go out of their way to save a fellow soldier in most cases, but I think it might go even more so in these circumstances. But maybe I'm just old fashioned and out of touch with the young people joining today.


Almalieque wrote:
From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.


This is certainly true to an extent. You get a certain amount of points for everything from medals awarded, types of service (short tours, overseas tours, etc) time in service, time in rank, etc. There are points for passing the Phys Fitness aspects, and knowledge of the UCMJ and AF history, but it's a relatively small percentage of the overall score. The largest factor in promotions is the test they have to take for their particular career field.

That's how I recall it anyway. From talking to others in the Army, Navy, and Marines it seems physical fitness scores are much more relevant to their promotions than for AF. I'm not saying that the AF "does it right" but they stress other factors. Then again physical fitness isn't generally as important as it is for the other branches either.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#25 Jan 23 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why don't we just keep a set number of each rank and if you want to become a Corporal, for instance, you have to kill one of the existing Corporals in arena combat?


Corporals imply leadership, aka losing the "sham shield".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#26 Jan 23 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Kakar wrote:
Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk.
Meh, it's not even the combat. I'll tell the women the same thing I tell men now when they say they want to be Infantry: "How fast do you think you can dig a hole in the desert, drop trow, and **** wearing fifteen pounds of gear (not counting weapon and rucksack) with at least thirty other people walking around? How attached to showers are you?"

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#27 Jan 23 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dig a hole? Fuck that, it's the desert. Let a scorpion eat my shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jan 23 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,776 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe


The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.
#29 Jan 23 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,776 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe


The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.
#30 Jan 23 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Thumbelyna wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe


The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.


From what I hear from my female counterparts is that they are mandated special treatment (i.e. showers, etc.) while in the field. I have no problem with the adaptation of women, but it often gets very financially wasteful.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#31 Jan 23 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Quote:
though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


It's gbaji. I'm pretty sure you, like the rest of us, know exactly how likely it is to be accurate.
Jeez, Red; I thought you were sharing cemetary space with Rurode.

Nice to see you.Smiley: tongue
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#32 Jan 23 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
******
43,618 posts
Thumbelyna wrote:
The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this.
About what I said? Because it's shameful that I'm right or he disagrees? I mean, I'm just relating based on what I see so the Navy could be very well different. And yeah, females on the Army side sham as well with the same tactics, though my last go-'round we did get replacements. The lower requirements on the PT side are only really annoying when the same girls start complaining about equality. Anytime else it's pretty much a nonissue, since like I said all that test does is get you to the table. The difference between 180 and 350 is the shape of the numbers. I wish the military was a lot less like Whose Line Is it Anyway, but at this point I'm just relieved that we're finally barring PT Failures from re-enlistment. Anyway, I still think I'm right but any clarification would be appreciated. Even with the shamming, if she's friendly enough with the board she'll still get the same promotion like it didn't even happen. It's a joke. At least up to the 7 mark the board has been a relative joke. It's a little hard to even pretend there is going to be impartiality when you're sitting across from a guy who is there to decide whether or not you're qualified enough to get the promotion when the night before you went to a bar with him and got hammered. But meh, like I said, I'll take my small victory for now. I'd mention weapon qualifications, but the reality is you don't leave a range until you qualify so you can be there ten, twenty times a day for three days. Means the same as me going 40+/40.

I don't really care if women want to be on the front lines, and as far as combat prowess is concerned I don't feel it's an issue either. Frankly, I think women are much more aggressive anyway. And it isn't like men don't sham either so I don't believe that's a good enough reason to bar them. My issue is the every day activities in between combat. The only way they're getting showers during a day long march on the front line is if they build them. Of course, they can get the guys to do it for them, but I can't really say that'll last. Latrines are the same. At least when I was still doing the Infantry thing there certainly weren't any on our march routes. Maybe Afghanistan changed since then? Changing pads or tampons and whatever is going to be a pretty **** big issue, too.

I don't know. I think I'm just too tired of the system to even shake my head at how broken it is.

That, and the wife and kid are at the inlaws and I'm bored.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Jan 23 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
The NVA dames seemed to do ok.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#34 Jan 23 2013 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
Quote:
The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.


I used to see that a fair amount as well. When I was in a mobility unit, we did a lot of TDY. As a computer maintenance shop we only had 3 women in our section, during my time I saw 2 of the 3 use those types of excuses. Both also used marital problems as excuses not to go too, though in fairness I suppose the married guys could have done the same. I think it would have been less effective somehow though.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#35 Jan 23 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kakar wrote:
Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk.
Meh, it's not even the combat. I'll tell the women the same thing I tell men now when they say they want to be Infantry: "How fast do you think you can dig a hole in the desert, drop trow, and **** wearing fifteen pounds of gear (not counting weapon and rucksack) with at least thirty other people walking around? How attached to showers are you?"

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe


Smiley: lol Fair point as well.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#36 Jan 23 2013 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,874 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why don't we just keep a set number of each rank and if you want to become a Corporal, for instance, you have to kill one of the existing Corporals in arena combat?


The romans tried that for a while. Marcus Brutus kept spawn camping the emperor though, so they had to switch to a system of election by silliest hat.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#37 Jan 23 2013 at 11:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,920 posts
Females have in the past been portrayed as highly capable soldiers.

"Hey Vasquez, has anybody ever mistaken you for a man?"
"No. Has anybody ever mistaken you for a man?"
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#38 Jan 23 2013 at 11:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, that Red Sonja. She was pretty capable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Jan 24 2013 at 1:24 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Quote:
though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


It's gbaji. I'm pretty sure you, like the rest of us, know exactly how likely it is to be accurate.


Hey, Red.

Did you go through with the Norway plan in the end? I'm thinking about jumping ship after graduation.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#40 Jan 24 2013 at 3:36 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
I think this is fine in theory. I also think the news cyclone around the first straight white woman to die in a recently allowed combat role will break records for fake outrage from the right.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Jan 24 2013 at 5:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,679 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Aren't you Canadian? You don't even let your men fight.
We don't need to. We can send in the french and the enemy just gives up in fear of being groped.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Jan 24 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
I can see that working. You know how much paperwork there would be when dealing with people surrendering en masse like that?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Jan 24 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,279 posts
Curious suddenly why women on front lines of combat aren't on the Depo shots or implana or whatever the current "no periods for 90 days" thing is. I do that with my daily pills now, but there's other once-every-three-months options that don't require daily effort.

I mean, why the fudge bother with all that grody when you don't have to? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#44 Jan 24 2013 at 10:27 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,920 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I think this is fine in theory. I also think the news cyclone around the first straight white woman to die in a recently allowed combat role will break records for fake outrage from the right.

And pretty, and blonde.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#45 Jan 24 2013 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
catwho wrote:
I mean, why the fudge bother with all that grody when you don't have to? Smiley: dubious


Ah yes, all that grody. 50ml of blood, surely those who we put at the front lines of combat would swoon at the thought.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 10:32am by Guenny
#46 Jan 24 2013 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,618 posts
Guenny wrote:
Ah yes, all that grody. 50ml of blood, surely those who we put at the front lines of combat would swoon at the thought.
Walking around in **** drawers for twelve hours in blistering heat sure sounds like a delight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Jan 24 2013 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Oh yes, I forgot, war is just so delightful.

Really, I was on board with Catwho's post with the depo shots, in theory. I mean, the government forces soldiers to take all sorts of crazy drugs, I don't think it's too extreme to ask a woman to not menstruate for several months to a year. Obviously it would be preferable for many reasons. Regardless, tampons are an invention of the last 50 years, if we can't find a way to rise above all the silly stereotypes and "ew" mentality of the female menstrual cycle during times of warfare, I really lose a lot of faith in our soldiers on the front line.
#48 Jan 24 2013 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Kavekk wrote:
Did you go through with the Norway plan in the end? I'm thinking about jumping ship after graduation.


Why would you want to do that? Graduates get to work for poundland for free, we're about to leave the EU,the whole country is being run by Serco, hamburgers are made of horsemeat, and the only real concern of the media is that our favourite **** prince likes to play videos games. How could it be better anywhere else?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#49gbaji, Posted: Jan 24 2013 at 2:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A news cyclone would almost certainly derive from the left, given their control of the news. I'm sure you're correct, however, in that hundreds of liberal journalists will rush off to shove microphones in conservative politicians faces to ask them what they think, then make hay out of the answers. Assumption leading the day, of course.
#50 Jan 24 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But... but... FOX News is the most popular news EVER!! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Jan 24 2013 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
It sure is disturbing the way the liberals control Fox News.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT