1 - 10 Next
In response to:

On Balance, Was the Iraq War Worth It?

bccbc Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 11:30 PM
two words: not really. simplicity.
In response to:

On Balance, Was the Iraq War Worth It?

bccbc Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 11:22 PM
I concur. Bush did what he had to. If he hadnt sent the troops to Iraq, he probably wouldnt have gotten reelected.
In response to:

Hillary Clinton's Evolution on Gay Marriage

bccbc Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 9:13 PM
honestly, the issue of gay marriage means nothing because in 20 years when we have no country... that issue is really going to be the most important. she's just saying gay marriage is okay so she can get elected in 2016. not gonna happen.
In response to:

Hillary Clinton's Evolution on Gay Marriage

bccbc Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 9:12 PM
yeah, the bad half
They want our guns so when the revolution happens, they can take us out easy.
In response to:

Let’s Have That Conversation About Guns

bccbc Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:30 PM
The fact of the matter is the Constitution of this great country I was born and raised in. Will any law banning guns interfere with my 2nd Amendment rights? Yes, indeed. This needs to be understood, no one will ever take my guns from me. Besides the violence that will ensue in taking guns from law abiding American citizens, the other issue is their rights. Why would the government take our guns anyway? The Sandy Hook Shootings people say. Aurora. VT. Columbine. The list goes on. No, these are not the reasons for gun control. The reason for gun control is fear: Fear of the American people. Apparently we got too big for our britches, fellas. Stop cutting mental health funds, and stop making people with health issues think it's bad to get help
In response to:

Women in Combat

bccbc Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 3:23 PM
I apologize that my comments could not fit into one. Sorry about that.
In response to:

Women in Combat

bccbc Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 3:19 PM
One more thing to point out as our current foreign affairs, we are fighting a force (Taliban and Al-Qaida) and race that despises the equality of women to men. On paper, this means that women are MORE of a target. The fact of the matter is that having them in combat, not in the actual military, is illogical and irrational.
In response to:

Women in Combat

bccbc Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 3:18 PM
With the data stated by Walter Williams on their physical capabilities, it is obvious that they cannot uphold the same requirements as the male trainees. Why put someone (physically) inferior into combat to fight when they will be a drawback? Based off purely data, this makes completely no sense whatsoever. This is my opinion and I am not a congressman or elected official, so I have no actual weight or say in the matter legally. However, as my right as an American, I use my freedom of expression to ask the question “Why?”
In response to:

Women in Combat

bccbc Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 3:18 PM
Since the beginning of time, men have cared for women in the patriarchal manner. This means that they assume the basic, natural role as protectors of women. “What’s this have to do with war?” you might ask. This means that all male military personnel, in wartimes and combat, will be compelled to put their own lives at risk (more than they already are) for the women they are fighting along side. Now I ask, why would the U.S. government allow such a weakness to be had when it is not necessary?
1 - 10 Next