WWTBAM Bored

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:41 am

Speaking of lying, apparently the nominee needs to be more clear about whether or not he’s sexually assaulted anyone.

While sexual assault is apparently not disqualifying in the minds of the many here, given his anti-women comments, that might be enough to sink his terrible nomination

Spock wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:52 am

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:41 am

Speaking of lying, apparently the nominee needs to be more clear about whether or not he’s sexually assaulted anyone.

While sexual assault is apparently not disqualifying in the minds of the many here, given his anti-women comments, that might be enough to sink his terrible nomination

On sexual assault and so forth-right back at you with Tarah Reade and Biden.

Define "Anti-Women Comments."

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:58 am

https://19thnews.org/2024/11/women-vete ... th-combat/

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:36 pm

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:58 am

https://19thnews.org/2024/11/women-vete ... th-combat/

My opinion is that, as was the practice for a long time, specific measurable standards should be reinstated, put in place and adhered to for qualifying for duty in roles to which they are applied. And women that can meet those standards should be accepted.

The only other comment I have is that the phrase 'no evidence' is used once again as an excuse. The left likes to use this phrase. Which to them means: 'No evidence that I want to even consider because it is against my narrative'. This phrase has been used millions of times in the 2020 election debate. There are REAMS of indisputable evidence of widespread election fraud. But it is ignored and not to be considered because it conflicts with their accepted and protected narrative.

Flock, do you really trust the Left to hold women to objective physical training standards, especially if the preferred number of women are not passing the tests?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 18, 2024 6:15 am

Flock, do you really trust the Left to hold women to objective physical training standards, especially if the preferred number of women are not passing the tests?

Do you really have to ask that question? Or are you being rhetorical?

The left respects or honors no law that contradicts what their religion requires: political power.

Spock wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 17, 2024 10:14 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:36 pm

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2024 9:58 am

https://19thnews.org/2024/11/women-vete ... th-combat/

My opinion is that, as was the practice for a long time, specific measurable standards should be reinstated, put in place and adhered to for qualifying for duty in roles to which they are applied. And women that can meet those standards should be accepted.

The only other comment I have is that the phrase 'no evidence' is used once again as an excuse. The left likes to use this phrase. Which to them means: 'No evidence that I want to even consider because it is against my narrative'. This phrase has been used millions of times in the 2020 election debate. There are REAMS of indisputable evidence of widespread election fraud. But it is ignored and not to be considered because it conflicts with their accepted and protected narrative.

Flock, do you really trust the Left to hold women to objective physical training standards, especially if the preferred number of women are not passing the tests?

Personally, I think "Chesterton's Fence" applies to the whole Women in combat thing.

https://thoughtbot.com/blog/chestertons-fence

Other than in very special circumstances, for thousands of years combat has been a male domain. Maybe we needed to think a little bit more about why that was the case. It is not anti-woman to believe that women should not be humping packs in the Hindu Kush with the Green Beret, especially with the obvious (if you look for them) erosion of standards.

I believe that our unprecedented flirtation with women in combat is eventually going to cost us thousands and thousands of lives.

Hegseth's book "The War on Warriors" has a long chapter on women in combat detailing the erosion of physical standards.

Oh, and for Krox-he also has a chapter on Trangenders in the military. Question for Kox-How can the military guarantee a post-op transgender their daily meds if they are posted to a remote base in Mali (for example.)