Santorum Steps In It: Women Shouldn't be in Combat Because of 'Other Types of Emotions'
Hat tip WaPo.
John King asks if the easing of roles for women in combat is a good thing. And Santorum answers with: "“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” he added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
"Other types of emotions?" That must be his Low T talking. Those old guys get so cranky when it's "that time of life."
In Santorum's 2005 book, "It Takes a Family" he famously came out against women working outside of the home. He wrote, "It provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." Yes, he blamed radical feminism. And he quickly lost his senate seat by 17 points.
So, keep talking Rick. You're sure to win the primary against Herbert Hoover who's looking more progressive and forward thinking every time you open your mouth.
I guess Santorum wants to get rid of the women in military memorial. I'm sure my mother will be happy to know her service is not appreciated. No, happy might be the wrong word.
Is Frothy concerned that women handling long, hard, hot rifle barrels ejaculating potent seeds of destruction will get all hot and bothered, thus, forgetting the mission while they're in a state of hyper-arousal? Ricky seems to have kinky sex on his mind A LOT!!
My impression of him is that he'd rather see the mens handling the equipment. All them sweaty mens...
on the today show. The same question was asked. He thinks men and women soldiers will start banging each other standing post in a slit trench. He wouldn't say it , he kept talking about "other emtions" in combat. Jeebus ricky, you never heard of a quickie? I'm sure it's happened in front line areas in wars past
How about we end the perpetual war?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
These people are looking at it from the wrong perspective!
the question becomes, how immoral is it to even want to be in the military? the way we use our armed forces? as in my post below, this is not academic to me, and i have brought this up with my offspring, her decision, i wouldn't stop her if i could. one must be very careful when dealing with matters of conscience.
This site is mainly about the stupid things that Republicans say, and there is never a shortage there.
Too bad you don't recognize how corrupt and morally bankrupt the Democrats are.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
For example, I've seen nothing here, except in the comments, about the WaPo/ABC poll showing that the majority of so-called liberals, like the president himself, have done a complete about-face on core issues like Guantanamo and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
we are excoriated as "trolls" and "teabaggers"
standing by progressive ideals is simply not tolerated if it gets in the way of the lesser of two evils winning, winning, winning! never mind that we all lose
sites that lean right or are flatout right to see what they are up to. I don't bother commenting because you can't fix ignorance.
The good life is a day at the beach.
Guantanamo is still open because the Republicans wouldn't let him bring the prisoners here because the party that is so good at bargaining with fear to the sheeple. The suspension of Habeus Corpus has to be voted on. How successful do you think that will be with the fear mongers and obstructionists. You have a bad case of projection.
The good life is a day at the beach.
You seem obsessed with rhetoric.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Did you read the WaPo article? The question isn't whether or not Republicans blocked the closure of Guantanamo, the question is whether or not Democrats think it should remain open.
So the opinions of so-called liberals have actually changed to match their partisanship, rather than their principles. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that if Romney becomes president, these people's opinions will magically revert to where they had been during the Cheney regime.
Question for you, genius: What was your opinion of Guantanamo back in, say, 2005? What is it now? Are you part of the majority referred to in the poll?
We started two unprovoked wars, provide programs for the unemployed, the hungry. A Dem President created Social Security to the elderly didn't have to live in poverty and a Dem President created Medicare and Medicaid so people wouldn't lose their homes and life saving to be left in poverty our illness. The Republicans have been trying since their inception to eliminate all these programs. So who is morally bankrupt and adheres least to the teachings of Christ? Keep creating the special reality of yours. I will continue to live in the fact-based world.
The good life is a day at the beach.
there is no inverse ratio between republican virtue and democratic virtue
yes, most republicans are more "corrupt and morally bankrupt" than most democrats, but that does not mean that democrats are not corrupt and morally bankrupt
by all means, "keep creating the special reality of yours", but all the berating in the world will not make those of us who see the corruption and moral bankruptcy of democrats (gasp!) as well as republicans declare that the emperor wears a fine, new set of clothes
As regards your fact based world.
The Democrats and Republicans have morphed multiple times in history.
The Republican Teddy Roosevelt was considered a progressive. After leaving office and thus the Presidency to Taft he was unhappy with the results. He decided to run again but was too late to challenge Taft as a Republican. We formed his own party and ended 2nd to Wilson of the Jim Crow Democrats.
The Wilson Democrats won again 1916 with the pledge to stay out of the war but then with Creel Commission started a propaganda campaign to turn the anti-war public into rabidly anti-Germans.
Afterwards came the first Red Scare and Palmer raids held by the Democrats.
Do you think going back one hundred years vindicates or vilifies either party unfairly. Facts are facts.
FDR started off in the Great Depression started in a moderate and unsuccessful way.
It was socialist candidacy of Upton Sinclair for governor of California that really moved the Democrats to the left. They have been shifting back every since.
In 1933they passed Glass-Steagall, in 1935 Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, the WPA and the Wagner Act which brought the US into the modern age of labor law.
But then came WWII. The WPA was disbanded. After the war Truman was slow to deal with the great employment downdraft and the Republicans took the Congress in 1948.
They passed the National Security Act which established the MICC as a jobs program, Truman signed it.
They passed the Taft Hartley Act which repealed part of the Wagner act and allowed so called right to work state laws. Truman vetoed it, he was overridden.
The Dems have talked about but never done anything about Taft Hartley.
In the 60's The Dems passed the Civil Rights act, Medicare and Medicaid and funded the Vietnam War.
They held the Congress during Watergate but Ford's pardon ended the rule of law.
The Church Committee in response to revealed CIA abuses established the FISA court.
So I could go on but let's jump to the 90s and Bill Clinton's DLC Democrats, because with the DLC they lost their soul.
Clinton ends Welfare.
In 1999 he repealed Glass Steagall setting the stage for recent collapse.
In 2000 he overturns the State Bucket shop laws of 1907.
His FBI has Canivore project which was the precursor to Bush's massive surveillance program. Obama said he would fight the FISA revamp and retroactive immunity, when the fight came he folded and went with the passage.
The Dems fell in line for the Patriot Act, for the AUMF, for the FISA scandal. For the Bank bailouts, for the renewal of the Bush now Obama tax cuts and for the NDAA. The last which authorized indefinite detention.
And of course Obama has claimed the authority to assassinate even American citizens. Something that he has already done.
He is conducting a drone war which is killing innocent people.
So my point is, from my fact filled world, what positive things in history vindicate the current moral bankruptcy of both parties.
Nothing.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Frothy has some deep seeded issues about women, gays and sex. Is this really what we want for a dog catcher?
....The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.--P.J. O'ROURKE, Holidays in Hell
If youth is wasted on the young, then money is definitely wasted on the rich.
Fabulous new name for Rick Santorum. The Dog Catcher. Perfect.
knows about the emotions of women, or men for that matter on the front lines....did he ever serve in a front line unit? Oh wait....did he serve at all?
But we all know that the frothy man was too good to be a Government Issue. He sure can talk a lot of shit though.
Has he even been in a bar fight?
that he has a Speaker of the House in his party that weeps at the drop of a hat? Have him take a look at Tammy Duckworth and then tell me to vote for deadbeat dad Joe Walsh instead. Yeah, right.
The good life is a day at the beach.
Oh for heavens sake! Mr. Santorum is living in a world we all left behind a long time ago and we did it for very good reasons. What the hell does he think women are going to do in combat, get in a cat fight and shoot each other?
Does he think they are going to forget to shoot the enemy because they have a crush on one of their fellow soldiers? He should get together with Newt and talk about what happens to women in a foxhole while the men are out hunting giraffes.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
What the hell does he think women are going to do in combat, get in a cat fight and shoot each other?
Next on the SPIKE network!
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
A new meaning to the term Fox-Hole :)
but the saudis and the taliban haven't
like them, ricky isn't so much concerned about what women will do mid-combat, but what the men fighting with them will do ... like, maybe they won't be able to shoot straight with a hard-on
perhaps if the military can come up with some camouflage burkas, he'll be okay with women on the battlefield
ask the Germans what they think of women in combat. Some of the most feared combat units that the Russians threw against the Germans in WW2 were all women units.
Also, if Santorum had ever served he would know that it only takes about 3oz of pressure to squeeze the trigger on most military weapons.
The Stupid is really strong in this nutter.
diamondmc
Guess he never got that foot-in-mouth disease cleared up.
"other emotions" right up his ass next to his oversized dimbulb head. My mother is more woman than he'll ever have, and more man than the stupid bastard will ever be.
FB
99%
This asshole is killing Willard, making Paul and Newt even more irrelevant.
Frothy is Obama's bitch.
When he finds out the Game Show Host accepted donations from the owner of Penthouse and other pr0n sites:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02...
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Maybe I should email him to inform him. I don't think Ricky "The Dog Catcher" reads The Daily Beast.
Ahhhh shit. I Googled Santorun to find his email address. Ohhhh god. Ahhh shit. Don't do it.
After cleaning everything up I found a place to send him a message and let him know about the Game Show Host's involvement with p0rn.
here is a true-blue Repub urging a pre-empt attack on Iran, which contidicts the Catholic teachinf regarding justified war
the same way he reads his copy of the Constitution--selectively and with self-service in mind.
The good life is a day at the beach.
OK, so now Ricky has the women-who-wear-Little-House-On-The-Prarie-dresses vote sewed up. On to Warshington!
Thanks for the chuckle
the islamic fundamentalist vote!
The man is a walking attack ad...on himself.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
The only time my "other emotions" are a problem is when Rick's saying shit like this but again he might not be talking about white-hot seething rage. How is it that his wife and daughters don't just kick him in the balls? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question. I know some women inexplicably support this point of view.
He is speaking live right now at CPAC. His wife is behind him on one side and one of his daughters is behind him on the other side. Every time he says something outrageous both of them smile and nod. They look to be two female bobble heads. I think he has them snowed with his bullshit.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
the wife who knowingly lived for 5 years with an abortionist 40 years her senior before she met wonderful Ricky who she allowed to turn her into a baby-making machine. Sheesh
The good life is a day at the beach.
Based on his own experience, The Frothster apparently doesn't think men named Rick Santorum should be in the military either, let alone in combat.
Does this loon ever think about anything that doesn't have to do with sex—particularly gay sex? I'll bet there were guys who spent every night in bathhouses who weren't as obsessed with man-on-man action as Santorum is.
As for his other fantasies, I hope to hell he doesn't have a dog.
I haven't figured out frothy yet. I mean, does he really believe that most people agree with him? Or is he just so stuck in his own little world he can't understand why some people may not agree with him? Is it a "I'm right, you're wrong, so you have to do what I say" kind of thing? Or am I wrong in assuming he even believes half the crap he says? I don't understand why he thinks he looks good in a sweater vest. They're very unflattering on him. Makes his belly stick out. Does he put one on in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Man I look good!" I don't know why but every time I look at him I think of that elf that wanted to be a dentist.. He confuses me. Maybe, I'm just over analysing and he really is just a simpleton with delusions of grandeur.
He's throwing so much red meat to CPAC right now in his speech, he must have stopped by the slaughter house on the way over.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Is there a Liberal hate fest that can compare to one of the many Right Wing hates fests that seem to pop up every month? I just can't seem to remember any liberal hate convention where politicians show up to spew their hatred along with lying bloggers like the Right wing have.
That is why I get so mad at the media and their equivalency argument that "both sides do it" on every issue and circumstance geared not to inform us but to maintain their "access" to the same people who behave badly and do more do bring down our country with the things they say about our President than any foreign government could do. They say things about him that Iran and Syria would say about him. It is an organized smear campaign right down to Cal Thomas saying at one of their workshops yesterday that Rachel Maddow's parents should have used contraceptives because he wished she and everyone else at MSNBC had not been born. These people claim to love their country but certainly hate their fellow Americans. It is pathological an ugly. If they think their kind of talk will attract independents, they are wrong.
The good life is a day at the beach.
That bullet headed cop in the background is wistfully thinking about beating somebody helpless to death.
I couldn't quite make out what uniform he is wearing, but unless he is a Nazi re-enactor, wearing the uniform of a federal, state, county or local municipal government employee to a partisan political rally is strictly verbotten.
but i'm troubled by this, not because i consider women inferior, far from it, but just because of the physical requirements, there are some things biology just dictates. there have been great women military leaders,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudicea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_wome...
and we know that women can be just as heartless as men, just look at margaret thatcher, however, as the wiki says,
"Women's bones break more easily than men's bones. Women aren't as strong as men, on average, although some women do possess the physical attributes suitable to become combat soldiers.[3] There has been debate over whether women pilots can handle g-forces as well as men."
so, santorum is living in the past, yes he is; but one should be careful what one wishes for, if women are cleared for combat roles? then they may be assigned to combat whether they want it or not. i suspect that one of the reasons we don't see a draft is that the gummamint knows full well that they are not going to get away with drafting only men if they were to start it up again.
this is personal for me as one of my daughters is thinking about joining the coast guard, what i told her was that if she finds herself behind the twin 50's was to shoot first and ask questions later, other thing is i recommended was to get in with the toughest hombres around and to get that weapons training, could come in handy. this is not an academic exercise for me, very real. and my daughter? she's got the stuff to handle it. i'm still troubled by this women in combat thing, how gallant.
hardest to imagine a combat situation which wouldn't be "compromising" for anyone's humanity.
that
People were once "troubled" by women voting and becoming doctors and lawyers, too.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
the law must be applied universally, the problem with universal solutions. i know what i have said compromises equal treatment for all citizens, i acknowledge that, still...............
i knew years ago this was coming, once combat is cleared for women it will be katie bar the door, they will be subject to the draft and everything, they should already be subject to it, why should males be required to register and not women?
as far as doctors and lawyers go? got a sister who is a doctor and one who lawyers, and one who served her time in the army, doesn't trouble me one bit, i prefer women doctors, but............ military requirements will soon be universal, just hide and watch.
others in the 20th Century saw past stereotypes and just plain stupidity and opened the door for women to become something other than a housewife, teacher, or nurse.
Combat isn't just about brute force. Sure, there are physical requirements. That is true for many jobs. But a guy that can bench press 800 pounds can just as easily get his unit killed with a bad decision. I'm sure some of the people that shot Pat Tillman were fine physical specimens with very strong bones. Some might even argue more women might be conducive to a better cerebral process instead of just trying to overpower the enemy with force in a particular situation.
Meh, keep 'em in the kitchen heating up the beans and baking bread.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
How about we end the Empire?
The MICC and perpetual war?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I fought against women in Vietnam who maybe weighed 90lbs soaking wet hump 60lb ruck sacks and fire a AK as good as any man. Women have been going into space for years and handle G-forces as good as men. Women skydive, rock climb, race motorcycles and race cars, they are into extreme sports just like men, they have climbed Mt. Everest, I can't think of anything we men do that women can't.
Women have fought in wars threw out the ages, and some of the most feared units in combat have been women. The argument against women in combat is nothing but a sexist straw man argument.
diamondmc
i will give up on this argument as it seems this is not the forum for thoughtful discussion, hence the charges of "sexism". as is usual the argument turns to individual attributes and not the collective repercussions.
the decision on women in combat will rebound onto generations yet to come. sure there are some women who do all the things you describe, some women, but this decision will affect all women, if women are cleared for voluntary combat roles, then they may be assigned whether they like it or not, that's the way these things work, you were in the service, you know that.
there are always ramifications beyond the individual with decisions like this.
has rebounded for generations, given that they are assigned to combat roles "whether they like it or not"
if anyone, man or woman, does not feel that they are capable of serving in the field, then they shouldn't enlist ... but all women should not be denied the right to serve in the field just because one of your daughters is thinking about joining the coastguard
i give up, feel free to force facts beyond our control such as the physical differences between men and women to fit your political philosophy.
-- diamondmc
you are free to cling to your stereotypes, and insult those of us who refuse to go along with you, but please don't imagine that you are taking either the moral or intellectual high ground
What you say about "some women" is true, but you can make the same statement about men. Not all men are suited for combat roles either, but we don't say men shouldn't be in combat do we? Why does this argument then hold for women? That's what makes this argument sexist.
diamondmc
never mind that i acknowledged the contradictions in my own point of view.
"i know what i have said compromises equal treatment for all citizens, i acknowledge that, still..............."
so therefore, since this "troubles" me, i must be sexist, i give up. have a nice day.
Some women may be assigned combat roles, whether they wanted them or not. But just like men, they will have to meet certain standards to qualify for those roles. Chance are more men will qualify for the more physical standards of certain roles, but so what? In a few years it won't matter, it will be our drones, robots, and cyborgs versus the enemies, and the sex of who is pushing the buttons won't matter one whit.
I can't think of anything we men do that women can't.
Women can even pee standing up.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
Can they think with their penis?
but we can do it if we try ... living in a world shaped by thinking penises certainly helps
the real question is, can you think with your vagina?
having a penis or boy muscles doesn't protect anyone on today's battlefield, and your imagining that it might is not a rationale for denying women the right to serve fully and equally
and, fyi, the reason we don't have a draft, is that the chickenhawks in washington know that, this time, little rich kids won't be given educational deferments
not really, but that is not the point, the point is that americans are trained to look at things from a personal perspective, not the collective.
you segue into making generalizations about americans?
i am an american, and i was never "trained to look at things from a personal perspective" ... actually, quite the opposite, having been "trained" to look at the common good
but, given your rationalization, are you okay with members of congress looking at things from their own personal perspective? how about ceo's and board members? screw constituents and shareholders' interests, eh?
i will make one last try at this, it's not the role of women that bothers me, it is the tendency to flatten every last thing out, the tendency to arrange reality to conform to our intellectual imaginings. my worry is that we are creating,
"A culture of the desublimation of ap-
pearances: everything is materialized in accord with the most
objective categories. A pornographic culture par excellence; one
that pursues the workings of the real at all times and in all places.
A pornographic culture with its ideology of the concrete, of
facticity and use, and its concern with the preeminence of use
value, the material infrastructure of things, and the body as the
material infrastructure of desire. A one-dimensional culture that
exalts everything in the "concreteness of production" or of
pleasure"
of course i quote my favorite social theorist.
oh, okay ... i understand now ... we'll all concede to your subjective judgements about what woman are capable of ... and while we are at it, some people subjectively believe that blacks are dirty ... let's keep them out of public accommodations
expecting a government institution to treat its citizens equally and without deference to irrational prejudices is not "flattening every last thing out" ... it is the just expectation of all persons born with certain unalienable rights, whether or not bigots subjectively see some classes of us as lesser ... if that flattens your world, tough titty
of course i want government to treat citizens equally, what i am questioning is the assumptions that lead to exactly the type of prejudice we both object to, the objectification of people in general. i don't see anyone as "subjectively" different.
here is the issue, once combat for women is approved it will be applied generally, it won't be me making the generalizations, it will be the government. these regs will be applied across the board, that's a fact.
sure, some women are bigger and stronger, but not generally.
http://www.warandgender.com/wggendif.htm
large institutions generalize, there are things called "general orders", that's the way they function, numbers, statistics and so on. mark my word, i think you are right, if there is ever a draft it won't be sex specific, i see it coming, i am just looking at it from all sides. i have long thought it was unfair that women were not drafted, that and the college deferment. notice that i acknowledged my own contradictions, i still have trouble with putting another half of the population at risk, especially the fairer sex, sorry that i am not pc on this subject, i just don't think that my view is from "irrational prejudice". once more, this will quickly morph from volunteer to assigned roles, it always does.
individual women will no more be assigned to duties of which they are not capable than men currently are
and if they were, why not? speaking as a woman and the mother of a young, fighting-aged woman, i do not think that we should be excepted from any of the hazards of full citizenship on the basis of our sex ... i say this as someone who is virulently anti-war and who would hope that, if drafted, any daughter or son of mine would choose prison, if necessary, over killing her or his fellow man
the actual facts are that many women are capable of even the most grueling military duties, and most women are capable of most modern military duties ... and if we wish to focus with our magnifying glasses upon their physical differences from men, they are more capable of most modern military duties, because they are, as a class, better at endurance and stress management, not to mention less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol
we are not the "fairer" sex, except from some perspectives, perspectives that should play no role in the formulation of governmental or military policy
i guess rick santorum believes in the "fairer sex" theory of military decision making, too, since he clarifies:
now i'm wondering if we should just keep men who can't get past their "fairer sex" ideas out of combat, if they are just going to screw up the mission
and raise them alone, they can talk to me about who is strongest and most able to face danger and pain. Until then, they should STFU.
The good life is a day at the beach.
sure seem pretty badass.
on the front lines but not subject to combat.
The good life is a day at the beach.
And the circle jerk of idiots continue. A condom company in NY named a rubber after Mitt. Find the story and read the comments on it. You'll die laughing, it is funnnnnny. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
More popcorn, please.
Before you go hee hee...put our mitten on your peepee.
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
of COMMANDING troops, as in the 'Commander in Chief'"? Or would that be too taxing on a woman's emotions? I mean, obviously, if you can't trust a woman in a hole in the desert you certainly couldn't give her access to the button, right?
Effin' seriously?
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
sounds like what ricky is really concerned about is people getting frisky in the barracks.
despite my initial thought, i think 'other types of emotions that are involved' is referring to is wanton horniness. b/c we all know that a) men can't control themselves and b) women are haughty home-wrecking-temptresses
thus, rendering a military campaign into a scene from guccione's caligula
i can only assume this vision is what ricky thinks about when he blesses his little bishop
Just chattal.
The good life is a day at the beach.
That surely goes down with Newt's idiotic statement that "women can’t be in foxholes because they get infections once a month" as one of the stupidest and most misogynistic comments ever uttered by a presidential candidate!
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
looking into the future i think we will have less and less to worry about when it comes to actual american homo sapiens in the line of fire. drones, mercs and robots are the future of warfare, imo. (and that scares me)
Here's the thing: Ever seen Aliens, the movie?
Vazquez. Bad ass killer with as machinegun. It's the future and society has moved on beyond the silly question of whether women can fight.
Some women can and want to fight in combat roles. Let them. These conservatard men need to realize this does not threaten their egos. The vast majority of women will never carry a rifle, so chill.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
Couldn't help but find it ridiculous that in the first flick, Ridley goes from being a total badass, running the show and keeping the guys in line, to suddenly running around the ship in her undies and risking the entire extravaganza to rescue the f'in cat. What. The. Hell.
in a fox hole (in combat) surrounded by women soldiers...and see how fast he's hunting for a squeeze....or a 'mommy' to wipe his nose
Santorum once again demonstrates that he's one of the greatest minds of the 11th century.
would control their "moods". What a ape. Keep trying for the theocracy.
The good life is a day at the beach.
at the paid-for brother and the cop who looks like he's about to crap his pants.
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
that's she's married to such an asshole.
But then again, she was in agreement with taking their dead fetus home to their kids to say goodbye.
To ejaculate in his hand and show his kids a million of their brothers and sisters
Any woman that doesn't flee from this insane retoric that women are just a lower class and can't be rational under pressure, tells me that she then is the typical dumbed down, speak only when spoken to, ignorant Reslug women.
Again anybody that brings home his dead child to play with his other children and pass the corpse around to have a conversation with, doesn't have all his mental facilties. One really mentally sick man.
So tell us again Ricky --exactly how much "front line" combat experience do you have in order to make this stellar judgment? You think having women doing front line combat duty could lead to compromising situations that may not be in the interest of the mission? Is that what you really think? What the hell do you know about combat situations/missions? What are you afraid men and women in combat might do Ricky -- hug each other -- you know Ricky -- camaraderie! Are you afraid if a woman was wounded we men might have to see her naughty parts in order to bandage a shrapnel wound?
Tell you what Ricky -- we're having a meeting at the VFW this Saturday so why don't you come on down and bring all your other front-line combat Republican buddies on down. Hell, wear some of your decorations too. Let's see...bring McConnell, Gingrich, Boehner, Limbaugh, oh the list is too long. We'll sit around Ricky and tell war stories, talk about babes -- not the ones in combat though.
Geez, you flag-waving cowards make me sick. You're too chickens-hit to walk the walk but you're always ready to talk about it. Remember in November Ricky...it's high noon on Main Street and we liberals are locked and loaded. I'd tell you to bring your war face, but I know you don't have one.
That is all...carry on...
Tony Mack
Women can get closer to killing brown people en masse, just like the guys! What a proud moment for fightin' fem'nists everywhere.
god I weep for this fucking planet. We're sickening.
me-oww!
and warrantless wiretapping and prohibitions against same sex marriage and marijuana laws while we are at it!
personally, i don't think that any american, male or female, should be killing a single person, brown or otherwise, but i am not going to accept exclusion as a class from the duty to do so on the grounds that male soldiers cannot get past their urge to protect the fairer sex
I was saying that this country is fucked up to glorify military service like it does. It's fucking up the planet. It's fucking up peoples' lives. It's fomented by shitheads and assholes with no skin in the game. And you're sticking up for them!
These fucks make out like it's the only way to serve one's country, and that killing foreigners at the behest of an authoritarian asshole regime is to be honoured and revered. It's not, it's PR, indoctrination and bullshit aimed at people with next to nothing and expanding it is more sliding down the slippery slope of all war all the time, with the poorest men, and now women, masquerading as fodder.
They're including women now because they were running out of young men during the ChenyBush regime. Remember Stop-Loss?
me-oww!
or any other euphemism for lesser ability to do anything that women are in fact quite capable of doing, even if not doing the thing is far more desirable, is also a slippery slope
when did I refer to females as the fairer sex, or indicate I accepted that term? Quit making up bullshit about what I'm saying. You're an asshole for twisting my words. A total asshole and a war apologist.
me-oww!
by "fairer sex" i was referring to santorum's explanation for his comment ... you do know that this article is about him and not you, right?
anyway, i'd like to say "fuck you" for calling me a war apologist (despite my frequent and, just today, repeated disparagement of war and the mic), but i'll refrain ... you don't know me, and even if you did, i wouldn't give a crap what you thought
weird though to think that, unless i accept sexism, i must be a war apologist ... a little funny, too, how peoples' "minds" work
saying that i am a war apologist, i wouldn't complain ... as a vocal, public war opponent, i've maintained a "fuck you" policy with them for years (ever had an fbi van follow you around taking pictures or had your phone tapped .... good times!), but if you could yank their chains ...
.
me-oww!
substantively, without calling you an "asshole"
while your verbal assault gives me some inkling as to whether you are the one who is actually the asshole, i don't know you and will resist the temptation to come to a conclusion
We (in the outside world) know there are plenty of Americans who feel the same way so don't take it too personally.
I meet GIs over here. Sometimes I chat with them, or, more likely, overhear (OK eavesdrop) what they're saying. Lots of them aren't too bright (understatement) and lots are from very depressed areas of the USA and joined the army for a "job" to get out. There was nothing for them back home.
far left loon >.<
"We're sickening."
Yes, you are a sad puppy.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
He's right up there with ol' Newtie:
Judging from this, ol' Newt doesn't have a very high opinion of American men in service either.
Women can't handle the stress of combat? Let's take a look at the suicide/homeless/plain ol' fucked up statistics for returning male vets. When will we finally admit that war is not the answer and it fucks up everything and everybody, whether they actually fight or not.
Time to mount an offensive on the Xian Taliban on home turf.
The reason Sanitarium knows nothing about women is his taking them for granted. His Booble says they are "help mates" by which Sanitarium can treat his Christer womenfolk as if they were or ought to be Stepford Wives. They merely go through the process of moving through a day with a kind of second class citizenship. They are robots. Their men, including Sanitarium, don't want women to have reproductive freedom since it conflicts with church dogma and is a clever way to keep Adam's Ribs in their places and not making any of those threats to one's masculinity. Strong, independent women scare the Bejesus out of the Sanitarium's of this world. Sanitarium is a blatant and obvious misogynist.
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
It's because they don't have the strenght to pull a trigger. Women are known for having realy weak finger muscles. They always lose thumb wrestling because they are slow minded. It's a miracle they can even breath. They should all be dead, that's how incompetent they are. They are freaks of nature.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
It seems Rick is intent on insulting just about everybody in his drive for Commander and Chief.
xvet
The light at the end of the tunnel is a locomotive.
Comments are restricted to registered users only.
Login - Register