How is banning women from the military a liberty stance

[ceakins]

For you people voting for Chuck Baldwin answer these questions:

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?

Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?

[nodope0695]

For you people voting for Chuck Baldwin answer these questions:

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?

Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?

I'm not voting for him....

[angelatc]

The President can't do all those things.

[TonySutton]

There comes a time when we must make decisions based on what is 'most important' rather than looking at the whole picture. It is rare that someone picks a candidate because their views line up 100% with a particular candidates.

In all honesty it does not matter which candidate for president you vote as long as it is an informed decision. Hopefully 3rd party!

*Disclaimer: I am voting 3rd party, honestly not sure who yet.

[TurtleBurger]

For you people voting for Chuck Baldwin answer these questions:

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?

Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?

There is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. The military already rejects a lot of people (e.g., elderly, disabled, criminals). The question of who serves and who doesn't is a prudential decision, not a liberty-based one. I haven't heard Baldwin supporting gambling bans and I am quite sure he opposes the federal war on drugs.

[kojirodensetsu]

I would like a source for your information. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to make sure you aren't scewing something in some way. I remember when people used to say that "Ron Paul wants to federally ban abortion" because of this bill he wrote (and he was not banning abortions on federal level).

In this election we really only have 2 candidates (I don't think people should write in Ron Paul personally since the votes might not count at all). Those 2 are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. As far as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) Bob Barr doesn't have a very good record. Also he is kind of an ass.

Either way we're not getting an ideal candidate.

[ceakins]

There is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. The military already rejects a lot of people (e.g., elderly, disabled, criminals). The question of who serves and who doesn't is a prudential decision, not a liberty-based one. I haven't heard Baldwin supporting gambling bans and I am quite sure he opposes the federal war on drugs.

Then you've done absolutely no research.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55352

[ceakins]

I would like a source for your information. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to make sure you aren't scewing something in some way. I remember when people used to say that "Ron Paul wants to federally ban abortion" because of this bill he wrote (and he was not banning abortions on federal level).

In this election we really only have 2 candidates (I don't think people should write in Ron Paul personally since the votes might not count at all). Those 2 are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. As far as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) Bob Barr doesn't have a very good record. Also he is kind of an ass.

Either way we're not getting an ideal candidate.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/06/poker-players-alliance-posts-more-anti-gambling-quotes-from-baldwin/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/351

http://www.dailybaldwin.com/flyers/BaldwinCastleWTC.pdf

[Truth Warrior]

Well it would free one gender from serving in the statist empire armed forces.<IMHO> ;) :)

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I checked one article for those positions, and only found this:

"the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."

So maybe you should quote the actual passages for us since we're bound to read the parts you don't want us to read.

[Ozwest]

Perfect...

The great society.

Sacrifice your women-folk.

It keeps getting better...

[Ozwest]

I'm old-fashioned.

Doesn't work for me.

[ceakins]

I checked one article for those positions, and only found this:

"the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."

So maybe you should quote the actual passages for us since we're bound to read the parts you don't want us to read.

How about you use google, I'm tired of posting and reposting the quotes. I've done it numerous times, but hey people are fucking sheeple and stupid. Ask yourself this, what does the Moral Majority think about the drug war?

How about his party?

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse

"Drug Abuse

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved."

[ceakins]

Perfect...

The great society.

Sacrifice your women-folk.

It keeps getting better...

You think women are inferior then?

[Ozwest]

You think women are inferior then?

You are a confused puppy.

I cherish women.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

My point was, you appear to be entirely misrepresenting Mr Baldwin. Now that I know that, I can move on.

[ceakins]

You are a confused puppy.

I cherish women.

Then why wouldn't you let them make their own decision to serve or not serve?

[ceakins]

My point was, you appear to be entirely misrepresenting Mr Baldwin. Now that I know that, I can move on.

Really? How am I mis-representing him? I fucking sent a link directly to one of his own goddamn fliers.

[Ozwest]

Then why wouldn't you let them make their own decision to serve or not serve?

Cause I am a protector.

You can blur the lines.

[ceakins]

Cause I am a protector.

You can blur the lines.

So you want to impose your protection on women, like the US imposes it's protection of the world.

[Ozwest]

No woman sheds blood. That's a blokes job.

[berrybunches]

You are a confused puppy.

I cherish women.

Because as a women I can not make a voluntary choice on whether joining the military is a good idea for me or not..so glad you cherish me enough to want to prevent me from making my own choices.

[Ozwest]

As a woman, feel free...

Don't ask me to be a pussy.

[garyallen59]

now they all start crying

[berrybunches]

now they all start crying

Not crying just pointing out the hypocrisy and collectivism and protectionism.

[Ozwest]

Find some piss-ants.

I'll back the boys.

[gls]

Baldwin wants to ban women from the military, Barr wants to ban Wicca. I wish there was a candidate who wants to abolish it.

[Shotdown1027]

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?


Baldwin is not for a ban on gambling, despite the fact that his pary is. Neither Baldwin nor the CP are for the War on Drugs. The CP wants to let states and localities decide on it, altohugh they do want to keep drugs from crossing our national borders (which fits in with their protectionism, so it isnt an EXTRA notch against them, just a consistent one).

As for women in the military--that isnt an anti-liberty stance. The eldery, flat-footed, etc cannot serve in the military. It is a question of prudence, not liberty.

[RP4EVER]

This country won wars with only male armed forces.

That said let me go on to say; if a woman can handle the same physical requirements as a man in the armed forces she should be able to enlist.

But alot of women have joined that cant handle the physical requirements already in place and wish for them to be changed and that weakens the stamina of our military; thus in that light I think women joining the armed forces is bad; and I stand by what I said before

[Shotdown1027]

"Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?"

Paul endorsed and wanted to vote for Chuck Baldwin. You don't think he vetted Baldwin on the issues?

[Ozwest]

Women should achieve their goals.

Don't push it.

Unless...

You want Mommies boys.

Happiness?

[Knightskye]

The President can't do all those things.

So you'd vote for Barack Obama?

[Knightskye]

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to repost. Forgot about my other comment.


I checked one article for those positions, and only found this:

"the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."

So maybe you should quote the actual passages for us since we're bound to read the parts you don't want us to read.

Scribbler, try this one:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55352

Read it. It has all the claims he made in the original post.

[Ozwest]

Women are confusing.

[berrybunches]

There are no women in combat in the military becuase none choose to do so due mostly to not being able to pass physical requirements.
If they want to do it then they should have the same standards, no special privileges. If they can, and want to, why not let them.
edit: sure it might be tough for the men to look at them while in combat - we all know how many disease you bring back from prostitutes overseas due to the fact you can not control your sexual urges. disgusting.

And sorry Ozwest but if it gets physical again on our soil you bad boys are not going to be as many as you were in 1776 and I sure as hell am not going to hide out in a basement waiting to be raped and pillage due to lack of man forces and your masculine insecurities.

[berrybunches]

Chuck Baldwin does not believe in gays in the military AT ALL. Read this disgustingly collectivist article he wrote on the subject of the homosexual agenda
"booga booga booga gays are gonna get ya!"

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin112.htm

BUSH PROMOTING HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: DO CONSERVATIVES CARE?

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

May 22, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

Christian conservatives regard President George W. Bush as a committed Christian and staunch conservative. This is very perplexing as Bush's track record on numerous key conservative issues is less than stellar, to put it mildly.

For example, when one looks at Bush's record regarding favored treatment for the homosexual agenda, he discovers that Bush is every bit the pro-homosexual president that Bill Clinton was. Maybe more so.

Consider that President Bush and the entire Republican leadership left Senator Santorum to virtually fend for himself in the face of blistering attacks when he verbalized his support for Texas' (Bush's home state) law against sodomy. However, this is just the latest example of Bush's propensity to curry favor with radical homosexuals.

In 2000, Bush attempted to rid the Republican platform of planks against homosexual marriage and homosexuals in the military. He also lobbied to grant special civil rights for sodomites.

President Bush has kept in place a 1998 Clinton executive order prohibiting discrimination against sodomites in the federal workforce.

Bush ordered the military to stop expelling homosexuals after the "war on terrorism" began.

Bush and the GOP Congress passed legislation extending family health benefits to Washington, D.C., employee's "partners" and also gave adoption rights to D.C. homosexual couples.

Bush has appointed numerous open homosexuals to high office within his government. He even authorized tax dollars to pay for travel and housing of all homosexual "partners" of American diplomats.

Bush has increased funding for homosexual propaganda campaigns under the guise of "health education" programs.

The list of Bush's pro-homosexual policies and decisions would literally fill a book. In fact, the GOP's habit of promoting the homosexual agenda has become so redundant that even staunch Republicans such as Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Ken Connor recently expressed their disappointment and concern.

However, instead of merely expressing disappointment and concern, Christian conservatives need to wake up to the reality that at the national level the GOP is not their friend. It has no intention of promoting their beliefs and only uses them to garner votes.

Furthermore, conservatives need to get over their sophomoric infatuation with G. W. Bush and start telling the truth about his dismal record regarding the homosexual agenda.

[Ozwest]

There are no women in combat in the military becuase none choose to do so due mostly to not being able to pass physical requirements.
If they want to do it then they should have the same standards, no special privileges. If they can, and want to, why not let them.

And sorry Ozwest but if it gets physical again on our soil you bad boys are not going to be as many as you were in 1776 and I sure as hell am not going to hide out in a basement waiting to be raped and pillage due to lack of man forces and your masculine insecurities.

Why may a sexist statement, when I can refine it for you?

There are many examples or female courage,

But...

Women and children first.

[Ozwest]

That's it. End of story.

[berrybunches]

That's it. End of story.

But who are you as an sovereign individual to dictate that to another sovereign individual?

[ceakins]

Not crying just pointing out the hypocrisy and collectivism and protectionism.

That's the Baldwin Bunch for you.

[Ozwest]

But who are you as an sovereign individual to dictate that to another sovereign individual?

Fuck off.

Passion wins!

[ceakins]

Baldwin wants to ban women from the military, Barr wants to ban Wicca. I wish there was a candidate who wants to abolish it.

The difference is that Baldwin's Stance is recent history, Barr's is 10 years old.

[Original_Intent]

So you want to impose your protection on women, like the US imposes it's protection of the world.

You're an idiot.

Let me rephrase that.

You are a fucking idiot, and I really reserve the f-bomb for special occasions.

You do not engage in honest debate of issues, you are a fucking lawyer (whether that is your actual occupation or not) and you only care about winning, even if that means completely misrepresenting what your "opponent" said.

Having established that, I have no interest whatever in anything further you have to say, so flame away.

[ceakins]

Chuck Baldwin does not believe in gays in the military AT ALL. Read this disgustingly collectivist article he wrote on the subject of the homosexual agenda
"booga booga booga gays are gonna get ya!"

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin112.htm

Oh look something else that flys in the face of what Ron Paul has said.

[berrybunches]

Fuck off.

Passion wins!

LOL
I concede

:D

[ceakins]

You're an idiot.

Let me rephrase that.

You are a fucking idiot, and I really reserve the f-bomb for special occasions.

You do not engage in honest debate of issues, you are a fucking lawyer (whether that is your actual occupation or not) and you only care about winning, even if that means completely misrepresenting what your "opponent" said.

Having established that, I have no interest whatever in anything further you have to say, so flame away.


Oh my god a moron calls me an idiot what is the world coming to. Obviously you had an interest moron, or you wouldn't have replied. Irony is lost on morons like you.

[Ozwest]

But who are you as an sovereign individual to dictate that to another sovereign individual?

Are you a person without soul?

[Ozwest]

LOL
I concede

:D

Smiles all around.

[Brassmouth]

so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Bingo.

[Original_Intent]

Oh my god a moron calls me an idiot what is the world coming to. Obviously you had an interest moron, or you wouldn't have replied. Irony is lost on morons like you.

I had an interest in the topic and the discussion. It's obvious that whatever reasonable response was made to you, all you could do was twist their words, playing mister lawyer-man.

Worthless piece of shit. Yeah, let's get them women in the draft an on the front lines!

What a worthless excuse of a man.

Since I haven't realy addressed the issue let me lay it out for you and we will see how you can twist my words.

If women WANT to enlist, let them. But return the standards to what they were before the military had to lower the standards for women to make the grade.

No I am not saying women are inferior. I am saying they tend to be physically weaker, and again if a woman can MEET the standards and WANTS to join, then that is fine by me - not sure how OZ feels about that - but that's my position.

WOMEN being DRAFTED in the name of "equality" on the other hand, and fighting on the front lines, any man that would stand by and let that happen is no man at all, he needs to get a skirt, or go home to his mommy.

P.S. I said "having established that I have no interest in anything further you have to say" You do understand English, right? Let me break it down for you and I will use small words: I had an interest, I saw what a worthless puke you were, and the tactics you use to "debate", and determined that anything you had to say going FORWARD was not worth reading. But here I am responding to your FURTHER arguments so yeah I guess you got me. You win. Go tell your mommy what a bright boy you are.

[ceakins]

I had an interest in the topic and the discussion. It's obvious that whatever reasonable response was made to you, all you could do was twist their words, playing mister lawyer-man.

Worthless piece of shit. Yeah, let's get them women in the draft an on the front lines!

What a worthless excuse of a man.

Since I haven't realy addressed the issue let me lay it out for you and we will see how you can twist my words.

If women WANT to enlist, let them. But return the standards to what they were before the military had to lower the standards for women to make the grade.

No I am not saying women are inferior. I am saying they tend to be physically weaker, and again if a woman can MEET the standards and WANTS to join, then that is fine by me - not sure how OZ feels about that - but that's my position.

WOMEN being DRAFTED in the name of "equality" on the other hand, and fighting on the front lines, any man that would stand by and let that happen is no man at all, he needs to get a skirt, or go home to his mommy.

Now who's twisting words asshat? Point to anywhere on this thread I have said women should be drafted? I actually agree with you on equal standards, but that's not what baldwin wants.

As far as being worthless, Ron Paul seemed to have loved my money, and the worthless comment means you're just another collectivist asshole.

[Ozwest]

Visit Australia or New Zealand.

Libertarians invited.

But, the hunting and fishing is WILD.

[enjerth]

There's no such thing as RIGHTS when it comes to particular employment.

Join a militia.

Discrimination is a libertarian right.

[Ozwest]

There's no such thing as RIGHTS when it comes to particular employment.

Join a militia.

Discrimination is a libertarian right.

Bullshit!

Respect your employees and reward them.

[klamath]

For you people voting for Chuck Baldwin answer these questions:

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?

Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?

Or maybe RP looked at the two candidates. One he agrees with 100% the other only 80%. Now assume he knows and has worked with the candidate that he agrees with 100% and found that the 100% one cannot be trusted to stand by what they say they are for and in the end do what ever the hell serves them the best. Now the 80% candidate he has worked with and he knows that person will standby and do everthing they say. Who would you support? I know I would support the man I could trust to do what he says even if I didn't agree with him on all the issues.

And by the way I wrote in RP.

[Ozwest]

Run a business, and make some money.

Try it!

[ceakins]

Or maybe RP looked at the two candidates. One he agrees with 100% the other only 80%. Now assume he knows and has worked with the candidate that he agrees with 100% and found that the 100% one cannot be trusted to stand by what they say they are for and in the end do what ever the hell serves them the best. Now the 80% candidate he has worked with and he knows that person will standby and do everthing they say. Who would you support? I know I would support the man I could trust to do what he says even if I didn't agree with him on all the issues.

And by the way I wrote in RP.

Then it would have been better to have not endorsed anyone, rather than cause a large split like this has done.

[Original_Intent]

Now who's twisting words asshat? Point to anywhere on this thread I have said women should be drafted? I actually agree with you on equal standards, but that's not what baldwin wants.

As far as being worthless, Ron Paul seemed to have loved my money, and the worthless comment means you're just another collectivist asshole.

If you read my posts I never implied that you were for women being drafted. I was laying out my position of allowing women in the military, but was against them being in the draft. Nowhere did I EVER state that was your position. I never implied it. I said that anyone who had that position should just turn their balls in since they weren't using them.

So it seems like even sticking with small words you got confused. I'm sorry.

Actually, I AM sorry I went after you so aggressively. If you read my couple thousand posts that is really not my style. It really pisses me off when people try to play at being politicians (twisting peoples words in order to win the argument) rather than just being straightforward and debating the merits of the case. It appeared to me that is what you were doing and if I was mistaken, I apologize for my rude comments.

[nbhadja]

Women should have the right to join the military. Of course they should be given the same standards as men, and almost all women could not pass those standards. So they would basically have non combat jobs.

[Original_Intent]

Or maybe RP looked at the two candidates. One he agrees with 100% the other only 80%. Now assume he knows and has worked with the candidate that he agrees with 100% and found that the 100% one cannot be trusted to stand by what they say they are for and in the end do what ever the hell serves them the best. Now the 80% candidate he has worked with and he knows that person will standby and do everthing they say. Who would you support? I know I would support the man I could trust to do what he says even if I didn't agree with him on all the issues.

And by the way I wrote in RP.

This is 99% of how I feel. Bottom line with Barr he is untrustworthy, at least to me. Baldwin is not the perfect candidate that Ron Paul was, and I do feel that a lot of people are going overboard on the theocrat nonsense, but I do trust the man.

[enjerth]

Bullshit!

Respect your employees and reward them.

Bullshit!

Apparently you don't understand the difference between rights and being a good employer. I said it's a RIGHT. The law should not interfere with my own judgment to do with my own property in any manner that pleases me.

[Ozwest]

Bullshit!

Apparently you don't understand the difference between rights and being a good employer. I said it's a RIGHT. The law should not interfere with my own judgment to do with my own property in any manner that pleases me.

You are a dill-wadd.

I have 15 years of a successful business as my pride and joy.

Guess you believe in paper trails...

Time to roll up your sleeves.

[FrankRep]

For you people voting for Chuck Baldwin answer these questions:

How is banning women from the military a liberty stance?

How is continued banning of gambling on the internet a liberty stance?

How is continuing the war on drugs a liberty stance?

Do you think Ron Paul would vote for things like this? I don't think he would, so I can only conclude his endorsement was out of spite rather than principle.

Which begs the question, why would you vote for an anti-liberty candidate?

Chuck Baldwin will stay within the lines of the Constitution. He's allowed to have opinions.

[Ozwest]

You would shit yourself if you attempted my work-load.

Chump!

[klamath]

Then it would have been better to have not endorsed anyone, rather than cause a large split like this has done.

Well that is your opinion, not his. I didn't follow what RP said to do but I do not fault him for endorsing a candidate he felt was best. RP did not create the split. It has been there since he dropped out of the race.

[ceakins]

If you read my posts I never implied that you were for women being drafted. I was laying out my position of allowing women in the military, but was against them being in the draft. Nowhere did I EVER state that was your position. I never implied it. I said that anyone who had that position should just turn their balls in since they weren't using them.

So it seems like even sticking with small words you got confused. I'm sorry.

Actually, I AM sorry I went after you so aggressively. If you read my couple thousand posts that is really not my style. It really pisses me off when people try to play at being politicians (twisting peoples words in order to win the argument) rather than just being straightforward and debating the merits of the case. It appeared to me that is what you were doing and if I was mistaken, I apologize for my rude comments.

How can I twist his own words, this comes straight out of his own campaign flyer:

http://www.dailybaldwin.com/flyers/BaldwinCastleWTC.pdf


Political involvement
In 1980 and 1984, Baldwin worked in the Florida
Moral Majority to carry the state for the Reagan-
Bush electors. He claims to have played a major
part in the registration of some fifty thousand
Christian conservative voters. In 2000, however, he
vacated the Republican Party on grounds that the
Bush-Cheney ticket was too liberal.
In the 2004 presidential election, Baldwin was
Michael Peroutka's running mate and candidate for
Vice President of the United States on the
Constitution Party ticket. The two ran on a
platform of "God, Family, and the Republic." The
Peroutka/Baldwin campaign publicly spoke out
against abortion,[4] women in the military,[5] and
the Iraq War.[6]

[ceakins]

Well that is your opinion, not his. I didn't follow what RP said to do but I do not fault him for endorsing a candidate he felt was best. RP did not create the split. It has been there since he dropped out of the race.

He is the leader of it, and yes he caused the split, how exactly are you supposed to attract more people to the movement if your endorsing someone that is going to cause people to say WTF?

[dannno]

The President can't do all those things.

The President can't provide pardons to all non-violent drug offenders and legitimate online gambling companies?


As far as women in the military, all he has to do is simply not institute a draft and not take us into unconstitutional wars and we're good.

[brandon]

Women shouldn't be in combat. (really no one should be, but for the sake of argument....)

Only a very small percentage of women can handle the physical demands. I know they are out there. I definitely see some bodybuilder chicks at my gym that could kick my ass. But most women aren't like this.

That said, the small percentage of women that can handle the physical demands still should not be in combat because they will distract the men.

[enjerth]

You are a dill-wadd.

I have 15 years of a successful business as my pride and joy.

Guess you believe in paper trails...

Time to roll up your sleeves.

We're talking RIGHTS. This has nothing to do with successful business.

[Ozwest]

We're talking RIGHTS. This has nothing to do with successful business.

Leave it to the Chinese.

[gls]

Why does Bob Barr refuse to support timelines for troop withdrawels from Iraq? Why did he praise Bush in an AJC op-ed less than a year ago, writing that the surge "is working"?

If you're pro-premeptive war, by all means vote for Barr. Personally I support a non-interventionist foreign policy.

[Brassmouth]

Why does Bob Barr refuse to support timelines for troop withdrawels from Iraq? Why did he praise Bush in an AJC op-ed less than a year ago, writing that the surge "is working"?

If you're pro-premeptive war, by all means vote for Barr. Personally I support a non-interventionist foreign policy.

He just stated in a CSPAN interview YESTERDAY that he'd bring the troops home immediately and end the American empire.

What did Baldwin say in his last televised interview?

Oh wait, he can't even get on TV, can he?


Women shouldn't be in combat. (really no one should be, but for the sake of argument....)

Only a very small percentage of women can handle the physical demands. I know they are out there. I definitely see some bodybuilder chicks at my gym that could kick my ass. But most women aren't like this.

That said, the small percentage of women that can handle the physical demands still should not be in combat because they will distract the men.

This has to be one of the most sexist statements I've ever read. Who the fuck are you, that you think you have the authority to tell women what is best for them?

[klamath]

He is the leader of it, and yes he caused the split, how exactly are you supposed to attract more people to the movement if your endorsing someone that is going to cause people to say WTF?

Someone will always say WTF no matter what he did.

[brandon]

This has to be one of the most sexist statements I've ever read. Who the fuck are you, that you think you have the authority to tell women what is best for them?

Where did I mention what was best for women? Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about telling women what is best for them.

My post is about considering what is best for the military. When building a military you build it for effectiveness. You don't build it to accommodate everyones PC dream of equality.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

(where the fuck do I get the authority to tell you what to do :D )

[ceakins]

Where did I ever mention what was best for women? Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about telling women what is best for them.

The whole point of my post was what is best for the military. When building a military you build it for effectiveness. You don't build it to accommodate everyones PC dream of equality.

No you set a standard and everyone needs to meet that standard equally. Not all jobs in the military are combat related, so I would assume you would have different qualifications for each job, like in the real world.

[brandon]

No you set a standard and everyone needs to meet that standard equally. Not all jobs in the military are combat related, so I would assume you would have different qualifications for each job, like in the real world.

It's more then just a standard of minimum qualifications though.

Can you understand how a group of 20 year old guys trapped in the desert for a year straight might be slightly distracted, and perform their job less effectively, if there is a woman or two with them?

Many men are like Ozwest. They consider themselves protectors of women. You can't deny this, and you can't change this. If a woman is serving among their ranks they may feel compelled to protect her before protecting the general welfare of the squad.