cowh logic?.......

othershoe1030 wrote:Reality strikes again. In the types of wars we are fighting now enemy lines are non-existent. The truth is that many women have for years actually been in combat and have died in combat zones so this ruling is just catching up with reality on the ground.

Tammy Duckworth, the double amputee was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. I think most people would consider this job to be on the front line. The change, as I understand it was to acknowledge what was really going on and to allow women officers to progress up through the ranks, basically getting credit on paper for what they are already doing.

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

newswatcher wrote: Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

newswatcher wrote: As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote: Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

Ah. Well then perhaps you can elaborate? When you said...

newswatcher wrote: As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

...if you weren't saying that is is hypocritical for the president to state that he does not want his kid to play football, while at the same time watching women be allowed to serve along with other troops - if you weren't suggesting that that is hypocritical due to the associated danger with each activity - what was your point then?

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote: Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

Ah. Well then perhaps you can elaborate? When you said...

newswatcher wrote: As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

...if you weren't saying that is is hypocritical for the president to state that he does not want his kid to play football, while at the same time watching women be allowed to serve along with other troops - if you weren't suggesting that that is hypocritical due to the associated danger with each activity - what was your point then?

Well if football is too dangerous for his child....that was exactly my point he said it (football statement) because it is now a politically correct issue to support in light of recent tragedies and injuries associated...BUT...after making such a statement and again for political correctness he (administration) lifts restrictions on women on the front lines: and most important women have been on the frontlines/in danger/harms way for every conflict while their primary purpose may not have been combat related they like any other service members have sacrificed... Is there a shortage/need to now expand a more combat role to women? Lastly, IMO...hate to see the military used as social experimentation and social/political agendas....

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

*******************************************

Liberal logic, conservative logic has begun to wear thin . . . . . endless back and forth. You don't have the decency, as an American citizen to cease your worn out use of COWH, how utterly sophomoric. You do not like your President, I get that but he is the President and your disdain diminishes the value of your commentary.

newswatcher wrote: Not true....cowh is a whole lot better than have heard previous president's called and for your information it was requested through the cowh's campaign and the media that using the name of or disagreeing with the cowh was based in 'racism'....

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

*******************************************

Liberal logic, conservative logic has begun to wear thin . . . . . endless back and forth. You don't have the decency, as an American citizen to cease your worn out use of COWH, how utterly sophomoric. You do not like your President, I get that but he is the President and your disdain diminishes the value of your commentary.

newswatcher wrote:

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

*******************************************

Liberal logic, conservative logic has begun to wear thin . . . . . endless back and forth. You don't have the decency, as an American citizen to cease your worn out use of COWH, how utterly sophomoric. You do not like your President, I get that but he is the President and your disdain diminishes the value of your commentary.

Not true....cowh is a whole lot better than have heard previous president's called and for your information it was requested through the cowh's campaign and the media that using the name of or disagreeing with the cowh was based in 'racism'....

newswatcher wrote: As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

*******************************************

Liberal logic, conservative logic has begun to wear thin . . . . . endless back and forth. You don't have the decency, as an American citizen to cease your worn out use of COWH, how utterly sophomoric. You do not like your President, I get that but he is the President and your disdain diminishes the value of your commentary.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

knothead wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote:As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

Conservative logic: Comparing the cost and benefit of taking part in a recreational sport for entertainment and the cost and benefit of electing to defend ones county in an act of war is like comparing apples to apples.

Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

*******************************************

Liberal logic, conservative logic has begun to wear thin . . . . . endless back and forth. You don't have the decency, as an American citizen to cease your worn out use of COWH, how utterly sophomoric. You do not like your President, I get that but he is the President and your disdain diminishes the value of your commentary.

At least he now types "cowh" in lower case.... Perhaps this is his admission that the R's were overwhelmingly defeated last November. I agree that it is a completely sophomoric expression, to say the least.

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

newswatcher wrote: Better stick with the lack of liberal logic before attempting to explain anything else...the sport reference was only a small portion of the comparasion but nice attempt to do as some do...deflect....

Ah. Well then perhaps you can elaborate? When you said...

newswatcher wrote: As a parent the cowh would find it difficult to make the decision for his son to participate in football because it's too dangerous...

As a parent/commander-in-chief...the cowh has decided/agreed that women should be sent into the front lines of battle...along with other troops...good thing that's not too dangerous...

...if you weren't saying that is is hypocritical for the president to state that he does not want his kid to play football, while at the same time watching women be allowed to serve along with other troops - if you weren't suggesting that that is hypocritical due to the associated danger with each activity - what was your point then?

Well if football is too dangerous for his child....that was exactly my point he said it (football statement) because it is now a politically correct issue to support in light of recent tragedies and injuries associated...BUT...after making such a statement and again for political correctness he (administration) lifts restrictions on women on the front lines: and most important women have been on the frontlines/in danger/harms way for every conflict while their primary purpose may not have been combat related they like any other service members have sacrificed... Is there a shortage/need to now expand a more combat role to women? Lastly, IMO...hate to see the military used as social experimentation and social/political agendas....

othershoe1030 wrote:Reality strikes again. In the types of wars we are fighting now enemy lines are non-existent. The truth is that many women have for years actually been in combat and have died in combat zones so this ruling is just catching up with reality on the ground.

Tammy Duckworth, the double amputee was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. I think most people would consider this job to be on the front line. The change, as I understand it was to acknowledge what was really going on and to allow women officers to progress up through the ranks, basically getting credit on paper for what they are already doing.

Ironsights wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Reality strikes again. In the types of wars we are fighting now enemy lines are non-existent. The truth is that many women have for years actually been in combat and have died in combat zones so this ruling is just catching up with reality on the ground.

Tammy Duckworth, the double amputee was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. I think most people would consider this job to be on the front line. The change, as I understand it was to acknowledge what was really going on and to allow women officers to progress up through the ranks, basically getting credit on paper for what they are already doing.

I understand i am diverging from the argument over someone using the cowh acronym still but back to this point. Actually it is something very different women have been getting credit for this and being let into the services such as pilots and being in combat zones, that is not what Obama's appointee changed. He said basically lets ignore the standards that we have set for our military Infantry and our Special Forces Teams and lower them so that a woman can enter them. If they don't want to lower them so women can enter them then they have to explain to the sec of def why not. (which by the way the Marine core is doing). The fact of the matter is unlike flying which is another issue entirely.

Whether you want to believe it or not there are still combat infantry zones. These ppl have to quickly with all of their gear get from point A to point B in order to save not only their own lives but the lives of their fellow soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Seaman, whatever the case may be. For many, many years we have looked at the question of allowing women in the infantry units but never, never have they been able to meet the same requirements as males. Not going to touch whether they do that in other fields or not because that is another hot button issue. But in infantry no amount of equipment could possibly compensate for the physical requirements that they have to be meet to save lives.

And lowering our standards for special forces is an even greater mistake that will get many more civilians killed as well.

knothead wrote:

Ironsights wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Reality strikes again. In the types of wars we are fighting now enemy lines are non-existent. The truth is that many women have for years actually been in combat and have died in combat zones so this ruling is just catching up with reality on the ground.

Tammy Duckworth, the double amputee was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. I think most people would consider this job to be on the front line. The change, as I understand it was to acknowledge what was really going on and to allow women officers to progress up through the ranks, basically getting credit on paper for what they are already doing.

I understand i am diverging from the argument over someone using the cowh acronym still but back to this point. Actually it is something very different women have been getting credit for this and being let into the services such as pilots and being in combat zones, that is not what Obama's appointee changed. He said basically lets ignore the standards that we have set for our military Infantry and our Special Forces Teams and lower them so that a woman can enter them. If they don't want to lower them so women can enter them then they have to explain to the sec of def why not. (which by the way the Marine core is doing). The fact of the matter is unlike flying which is another issue entirely.

Whether you want to believe it or not there are still combat infantry zones. These ppl have to quickly with all of their gear get from point A to point B in order to save not only their own lives but the lives of their fellow soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Seaman, whatever the case may be. For many, many years we have looked at the question of allowing women in the infantry units but never, never have they been able to meet the same requirements as males. Not going to touch whether they do that in other fields or not because that is another hot button issue. But in infantry no amount of equipment could possibly compensate for the physical requirements that they have to be meet to save lives.

And lowering our standards for special forces is an even greater mistake that will get many more civilians killed as well.

**************************************************

I could be wrong but after listening and reading the 'standards' for physical prowess have not been lowered. The change simply allows females who can cut it will be allowed to be in infantry for example but they must be able to meet the current standards.

knothead wrote:

Ironsights wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Reality strikes again. In the types of wars we are fighting now enemy lines are non-existent. The truth is that many women have for years actually been in combat and have died in combat zones so this ruling is just catching up with reality on the ground.

Tammy Duckworth, the double amputee was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. I think most people would consider this job to be on the front line. The change, as I understand it was to acknowledge what was really going on and to allow women officers to progress up through the ranks, basically getting credit on paper for what they are already doing.

I understand i am diverging from the argument over someone using the cowh acronym still but back to this point. Actually it is something very different women have been getting credit for this and being let into the services such as pilots and being in combat zones, that is not what Obama's appointee changed. He said basically lets ignore the standards that we have set for our military Infantry and our Special Forces Teams and lower them so that a woman can enter them. If they don't want to lower them so women can enter them then they have to explain to the sec of def why not. (which by the way the Marine core is doing). The fact of the matter is unlike flying which is another issue entirely.

Whether you want to believe it or not there are still combat infantry zones. These ppl have to quickly with all of their gear get from point A to point B in order to save not only their own lives but the lives of their fellow soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Seaman, whatever the case may be. For many, many years we have looked at the question of allowing women in the infantry units but never, never have they been able to meet the same requirements as males. Not going to touch whether they do that in other fields or not because that is another hot button issue. But in infantry no amount of equipment could possibly compensate for the physical requirements that they have to be meet to save lives.

And lowering our standards for special forces is an even greater mistake that will get many more civilians killed as well.

**************************************************

I could be wrong but after listening and reading the 'standards' for physical prowess have not been lowered. The change simply allows females who can cut it will be allowed to be in infantry for example but they must be able to meet the current standards.

knothead wrote:
**************************************************

I could be wrong but after listening and reading the 'standards' for physical prowess have not been lowered. The change simply allows females who can cut it will be allowed to be in infantry for example but they must be able to meet the current standards.

Ironsights wrote:

knothead wrote:
**************************************************

I could be wrong but after listening and reading the 'standards' for physical prowess have not been lowered. The change simply allows females who can cut it will be allowed to be in infantry for example but they must be able to meet the current standards.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/marine-corps-women-combat/1873753/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260123802564276.html
Under the new rules, the services must establish the gender-neutral standards for all military specialties by September 2015. In his memo, Gen. Dempsey also ordered U.S. Special Operations Command, along with the military services, to examine a "responsible way to assign women to currently closed" military specialties.

tell me that isn't going to lower standards to allow women to serve