RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms

RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi So maybe you can tell me exactly what was wrong with his post? Which words did he misspell? It should have been "women are not that dumb". The special irony comes in someone male describing how another gender are brighter, while proving the point themselves beyond all redemption, in just 5 words. I realise that any joke you have to explain is by default never going to be funny to anyone else, but I could see exactly what lazarus was driving at :) You are correct. I missed the "e". Well that was certainly worth calling him out on. I am sure you and lazarus have never made a typo before, maybe one day PA can be as perfect as you two are. I think it was worth it considering the twenty insane posts a day we have to endure. By the way, it's hard to make a typo when the other letter is on a different line of the keyboard.

lazarus1983 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Maybe it would be better if you specified exactly what is wrong with that sentence. Then rather than just being insulting, you could actually teach him something. You can start with which word is misspelled? Then maybe you could reword it so it is grammatically correct. Unless of course there was nothing actually wrong with his post and you were just taking the opportunity to be a snarky little git. While agreeing with you in principle, I would point out that trying to educate people is often wasted effort, and only causes others to become sarcastic themselves. In PA's case, it's also completely wasted effort; he's batshit crazy, trolls for fun, and even repeated thumping of him with a clue-by-four isn't going to do it. And it was a splendidly ironic fuck-up/typo :) So maybe you can tell me exactly what was wrong with his post? Which words did he misspell? What part of the sentence was grammatically wrong? Now I have seen PA post some pretty strange shit that looked like it was proofread by a 3rd grader, but I don't understand why lazarus picked that particular post to comment on. Unless like I said before, he couldn't resist the chance to take a shot at PA. Believe it or not, some posters actually get some kind of twisted satisfaction out of belittling others. I suppose it makes them feel smarter in comparison. But enough of the hijack. I wouldn't want to get mod spanked. So you get all up in arms about me 'attacking' pa by pointing out his hilarious typo. After which you promptly state that pa has written stuff before that was so bad it looked like it was 'proofread by a 3rd grader'. I guess you get some kind of twisted satisfaction out of belittling pa like that.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:15:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 So you get all up in arms about me 'attacking' pa by pointing out his hilarious typo. After which you promptly state that pa has written stuff before that was so bad it looked like it was 'proofread by a 3rd grader'. I guess you get some kind of twisted satisfaction out of belittling pa like that. Rules Of Net Posting, Number 107: any post which mentions a typo, spelling or grammatical* error has a 95% chance of itself containing one ;) *I didn't spell this word correctly the first time I wrote this post :)

lazarus1983 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 So you get all up in arms about me 'attacking' pa by pointing out his hilarious typo. After which you promptly state that pa has written stuff before that was so bad it looked like it was 'proofread by a 3rd grader'. I guess you get some kind of twisted satisfaction out of belittling pa like that. Rules Of Net Posting, Number 107: any post which mentions a typo, spelling or grammatical* error has a 95% chance of itself containing one ;) *I didn't spell this word correctly the first time I wrote this post :) Damn, you caught me before I edited it! Well that's what I get for using a tiny cell phone keyboard with my oversize hands.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:27:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lazarus1983 Damn, you caught me before I edited it! lol - sorry! :) Seriously though, I've proof-read such posts 10 times before now, and still made a mistake - I think there's some sort of fundamental* law at work :) *In my dictionary, this is what you do when you give PA 10 bucks ;)

pahunkboy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:30:27 AM)
Oh well. I am sure it will bloe over.

TexasRogue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 8:48:51 AM)
Women would probably do well in Armor units. Tanks are cramped quarters and women are, as a rule, smaller than men. For the same reason, they are at a decided disadvantage for the Infantry. As a former Forward Observer, I know exactly what kind of back-breaking labor is involved in being light Infantry. I typically carried between 100 and 150 lbs of gear when I climbed the mountains of Afghanistan. That's simply not something most women would be able to do. Hell, most men can't, w/out strenuous training. Admittedly, there are some women who could. My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that.

hlen5 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 9:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Oh well. I am sure it will bloe over. [sm=goodpost.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=lol.gif]

tazzygirl -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 9:56:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Oh well. I am sure it will bloe over. Still waiting on that appology you racist fucking pig.

DomKen -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 10:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee This would be sweet. Watching the government trying and failing to fill 48.7% of front-line positions with women because most of them are too...what's that word? Oh yes, COWARDLY to fight. When force must be applied, you don't run to Mummy's coat-tail's. You go straight to the Daddy. I have a friend who teaches a woman's self defence course, would you be willing to serve as a target for an evening? Personally I think it would be hilarious but then again I wouldn't be the one being beat down for 4 hours. Although maybe that is your thing.

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 12:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There's prolly quite a few Dommes on this site who would delight in disputing your silly claim with you personally Jaybee [:D] And I them. Few things in life sexier than breaking a 'strong' woman to my will. Form an orderly queue, girls. [:D]

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 12:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife By the way, it's hard to make a typo when the other letter is on a different line of the keyboard. It aint as difficult as one would think....... To the OP....When I was in the Army, the main reason stated for women not being in direct combat roles was men would stop to help them, due to their teachings before Uncle Sam got ahold of them. Even though that was a couple of decades ago, I think it probably holds true still in many ways. Fuck, nearly three decades.............htf did that happen?

Jaybeee -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 12:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee This would be sweet. Watching the government trying and failing to fill 48.7% of front-line positions with women because most of them are too...what's that word? Oh yes, COWARDLY to fight. When force must be applied, you don't run to Mummy's coat-tail's. You go straight to the Daddy. I have a friend who teaches a woman's self defence course, would you be willing to serve as a target for an evening? Personally I think it would be hilarious but then again I wouldn't be the one being beat down for 4 hours. Although maybe that is your thing. As clever a businessman as he is for charging eye-candy top dollar for throwing their pretty lithe asses around, I don't think he could afford MY rates.

Sting360 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:08:33 PM)
Hey Texas, I kind of agree with you as far as the Armor Unit support, but then again from an equality perspective its about time females shared the burden of serving in the Armed Forces in numbers equal to men. From a MRA standpoint we need to get rid of the notion that men are expendible. We need to open the selective service (aka the Draft) to women as well. Right now only men are obligated by law to sign-up in for the selective service. Why is such a law still on the books in this age of enlightenment and equality for all? I served in the Marines along side WM's and from my experience not all of them pulled their weight. I mean we are all the same right ? You need to get the job done. If you cant do it for whatever reason, you are out. I'd help any Marine on the battlefield, but why give special treatment to an individual just because she has a vagina? We are all the same arent we? Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, etc...

pahunkboy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:28:39 PM)
If we are nuked tho- all the rules will be tossed out the window.

Charles6682 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:35:58 PM)
I have met some very tough girls.Girls that have easily beat up men.Girls that look just like your everyday neighbor.I wouldnt underestimate anyone!

flcouple2009 -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee When force must be applied, you don't run to Mummy's coat-tail's. You go straight to the Daddy. Dude, you never met my Mom. She once put a rifle slug about chest high in the middle of the front door when someone was trying to pick the lock. When she heard a huge thump she called the police and told them she had just shot someone breaking into her house. Seems he jumped when she shot and knocked over a huge potted plant. The cops thought he was lucky to not be standing when she shot. Trust me she would kick your ass.

pahunkboy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:42:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 I have met some very tough girls.Girls that have easily beat up men.Girls that look just like your everyday neighbor.I wouldnt underestimate anyone! Dont they have to be in shape to be in the service?

pahunkboy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:47:17 PM)
Ponder this. Being that they drug up the males- I wonder how they will drug up the ladies?

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 1:47:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue For the same reason, they are at a decided disadvantage for the Infantry. As a former Forward Observer, I know exactly what kind of back-breaking labor is involved in being light Infantry. I typically carried between 100 and 150 lbs of gear when I climbed the mountains of Afghanistan. That's simply not something most women would be able to do. Hell, most men can't, w/out strenuous training. My biggest concern about women in combat units has nothing to do with their abilities, though. It's that there is frequently NO privacy. Your buddy guards your back while you take a dump on the side of a mountain. When we're piled together for warmth and someone sports wood in their sleep, as all men do, we just nudge the bastard off of us and call him gay good-naturedly...knowing we'll get the next nudge. What happens in that pile of bodies when one of them is a woman? We, as a society, are so litigious that I'm wary of women in combat for just that. So what we're after here is a group of very fit warrior-sluts? Onerous as the duty is, I'm prepared to do the research :)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875