tvashtarkatena

popping a couple of shitzus as they bound out of their van-full-of-asians might bump the campsite availability up a bit.

Meh. No worse than Big Wall climbing.

Sniping SS officers. How fun is that? I killed a tadpole once and felt bad about it but holy shit, I'd make an acception for those guys.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, constitutional scholars pretty much agree on one thing: it is the most poorly written Amendment. They may have outsourced its authorship to some retarded inebriate to cut costs, in any case, it's been the idiot bastard child of the Bill of Rights ever since. One thing our own history teaches us is that lots and lots of guns leads to lots and lots of shootings - not exactly good for Promoting the General Welfare - one of the Constitution's primary aims. So the government has broad powers to regulate fire arms as it sees fit. Banning certain weapons, background checks, waiting periods, licensing, weapons tracking, heavy taxation of weapons - none even come close to a 2nd Amendment challenge. But conservatives are bouyed by bullshit, their moniker isn't even real, so any attempt at proper regulation to fulfill the Constitutions highest purpose is framed as an attempt to end freedom as we know it. The idea that guns protect us, of course, isn't supported by the data. Mostly, guns get us in trouble and put us in danger. WWII was a rare and notable exception, although we weren't really directly threatened by invasion by any of the Axis powers. It was in our best interests to kick fascism as a competing system in the nuts. Most of the democracies created in this century did not involve violence. Tunisia's non violent revolution provides a stark contrast to Syria's no holds bar bloodbath. Its a way better formula. Civil wars leave deep scars that produce conflict for centuries afterwards. They tear societies apart. Peaceful revolutions do not. And peaceful revolutions work. Not every time - but more often than violent revolutions. They produce a more stable society and fewer reasons for a round two. Our freedoms are protected by our behavior towards each other and the land, and by the actions of our institutions and associations, and our rule of law. The military is really very small, and usually unnecessary, part of that protection. More often a large offensive military like ours causes a significant erosion of human rights. Torture, atrocities, occupation, collateral damage, surveillance, the draft, the militarization of our police...the list is long.

actually, no one I know considers the ACLU a liberal organization, except in the classical sense of a liberal democracy, which is what the founders intended from day 1. By any modern definition it's a conservative organization that strives to hold the government accountable to the Bill of Rights, which isn't exactly anything new, novel, or radical. Now, there is a new definition of conservatism that is actually a code word for religious fundamentalism, which is about as radical a departure from our constitution as you can get. These 'conservatives' are against gay marriage, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause. Very radical, and a violation of the Separation of Church and State, also very radical. The only thing novel about the birth of America is that it was the first secular, government in modern times without royalty. That was pretty much the whole point of the project. The rest had all been done before.

Packing a bowl, maybe.

This is probably the least path of resistance to that end. national popular vote No need to abolish the electoral college, which would require a change to the constitution - a practically impossible thing to do in the current political climate, or any climate, for that matter.

I'm not sure anyone works at Fox anymore. I think its an app that shuffles the same 10 words and pictures around, coupled with a sprinkling of National Enquirer feeds and Viagra ads. FOX's view/readership is down 30% since the election. They must be freaking fucking out, cuz that circle jerk seems to be kinda over. What amazes me is the other 70% - other than me, of course. Guess they have nowhere else to go, being at the bottom already. I see Mygyn Kylly jumping ship in the near future. The rest are Fox-only worthless. Is the Revolution really here? Che? Is Che in the house?

I'd rather he not vote, so thas coo. I'll just vote for him, cuz mine does matter.

Fox just announced that we have a new war - the War on Guns. To War, My Fine Soldiers, To War!

Increases fear to politically engage? And all this time I thought Bone was Leading the Revolution. I think he suffers from a larger fear of making any sense whatsoever, however.

Could marksmanship be genetic? If so, I see Nastia shooting a ladder of holds from the base for us in our future. In the civil rights business, there are those who focus on what can or has gone wrong as a justification for continued discrimination, and others who are inspired by the exceptional. It's a choice driven by one's attitude. You tend to find what you look for.

I'd like to present one more idea - the basic role of the military in society. It's not just for defense (or offense). It plays many other roles. It's a jobs program. It can, and often does, expand civil rights. It socializes disparate people around a common purpose. These roles are no less valuable than defense. After all, if we don't put our money where our constitutional mouth is, what are we protecting? Our way of life is more than a 2 ounces of pot in every chicken or someone else's nativity scene on your lawn. It's about the ability to make the most out of one's time here on earth. Historically, most barriers to that have been largely artificial - someone outsider's narrow, assumed, and uninformed view of what you are capable of. There are millions of folks here looking for reasons why other folks they'll never meet can't do things. The road to true greatness is to remove those barriers to see what's possible.

Oh yes. I know. Practically speaking, however, you have to lighten up on the women for things like pullups in one size fits all requirements in order to siphon off the talented snipers, pilots, and other specialties that a non-pullup doing individual may excel at. The physiological difference are what they are. Which matters most to combat effectiveness in the end? This is not to say your 98 lb PT star should need help performing basic duties - that ain't right. The Navy is different than infantry, of course. Coffee sipping, button pushing, and the willingness to jump a long way into the water when it all goes wrong are more valued skills than carrying heavy loads (although the boiler techs assigned to dump WP over the side in 55 gallon drums at a full run may take exception to this characterization), but the complaints about the double standard were the same then as now. At USNA, Brasso and shirt tucking were particularly valued skills which I unfortunately never really mastered. I was great at getting off base undetected, however, using a wonderful labyrinth of utility tunnels that connected with several manhole covers downtown. We eventually figured out which one had the least car traffic through trail and error. Like any prison, concealment, of weed, booze, and yourself, served as a conduit to softening what could otherwise be an austere existence. In any case, those non pullup doing women went on to be talented pilots and sailors, every bit as valuable and effective as their male counterparts. Lifting the ban will likely produce what change often does - reform in the areas that have needed it for a long time. The military will do what it always does: take way to long too make that happen. This is the same army that witnessed the destruction of every single one of its tanks within 30 minutes of their first encounter with the Germans in North Africa. The army eventually figured enough out to beat back that psychopathy. Figuring stuff out is what an army does. In the end, though, women like Maj. Hegar will finally be recognized and compensated for what they've been doing for years now. That doesn't necessarily require watering down military effectiveness, but it will change the nature of the bond between combat soldiers, as did racial integration.

Lifting the ban might accelerate the drafting of such a standard. Politicians don't make those standards, anyway, no? I think the military itself handles those details.

Roughly speaking, that's true. There is some skewing toward rural areas and geography - the South being one area. The enlisted ranks include more high school graduates but fewer college than average. Household income - its centered on the middle class - not skewed towards the low income end, as is often assumed.

Sounds like a fixable problem to me. Tailor the reqs for the job. I was 36th out of 1200 in the USNA fitness test. Way above hundreds of talented college level athletes (I was on the sailing team cuz I love to party). Yeah, I was in OK shape but it didn't reflect even a remote reality when it came to measuring true athletic excellence, which I clearly did not possess in any discipline. I also scored the highest in my class as a pistol shot. Beginners luck + a good instructor. Now THAT is a fucking LOL.

Nothing impresses the Taliban more than hitting the deck and snapping out a round of pushups. Or maybe its your 50 cal. Hell, I don't know.

Seems like a chick that can do 50 pushups can fuck up a machine gun nest pretty good, no? Or fly a fighter, or....

Perhaps you can lecture Maj. Hegar, who was awarded the Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross during her 3 tours of duty in Afghanistan, on proper birth control and conservative dress so as not to attract male attention, KKK. Can I film that exchange? And OF COURSE the pentagon is doing nothing about unplanned pregnancies and sexual assault as a direct result of lifting the ban, cuz they can only do one thing at a time. LULZ

Sexual assault is a problem in the military. Obviously, banning women is the solution - cuz the bitches practically beg for it. Pregnancy is on the rise because the % women in the military is on a very steep rise. Duh. Not enough of a problem to continue to shit on women who serve, however, in the Pentagon's estimation. And both are problems that can be greatly mitigated with the right leadership, policies, and discipline. One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU's suite was a national guard pilot who was shot down, returned fire, and was lucky enough to survive and be rescued. Sorry, no combat ribbon for you, Missy!

I also might add that the NAZI's made the same arguments against employing German women in the war effort. Pregnancy, "time of the month", weaker sex, blah blah. They didn't. The Allies? We did. Turns out that women can build bombers and tanks, too. Who knew? It's an old, tired song. Conservatives of limited imagination telling others what they are or are not capable of. I say, let people aspire to accomplish what they will. I think that's called freedom or something.

Google it. It's not hard. Um...no need to Google. It's all over the front page of every newspaper right now. Apparently, both Congress and the White House were kind of surprised by the Pentagon's change in policy, so it was pretty much all them.

"Here's the way I want to enter the gates of Heaven. I want to come skidding in there on all fours. I want to be slipping and sliding and I want to hit the gates of heaven with a bang. And when I stand up and I stand before Christ, I want there to be blood on my knees and my elbows. I want to be covered with mud. And I want to be standing there with a ragged breast plate of righteousness. And a spear in my hand. And I want to say, "Look at me, Jesus. I've been in the battle. I've been fighting for you." Ladies and gentlemen, put your armor on and get into battle. God bless you" - General Jerry Boykin You just can't make this stuff up.

But the leadership of a conservative Christian group, the Family Research Council, immediately weighed in with its opposition, sending out a statement from Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general with a long career in Special Operations Forces. General Boykin said that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” He especially criticized the concept of placing women into Special Forces units where “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” No climbing either, ladies!