1 - 5
See my response above from someone who actually had to lead said men and women in the military for just under 30 years. There were problems then and there are big problems now that women are going to be allowed into the combat arms. The problems I faced are miniscule compared to putting women into positions where they may have to lift a lot of weight and have to do it right now, quickly, in the heat of combat with now time to think about how I can do it easier. I am glad I'm not back there having to deal with it on the ground in those Infantry, Armor and Artillery outfits.
EssEffArr: Women have had different physical standards in the Army for a long time and it worked so long as women were not part of the Combat Arms meaning the Infantry, Armor and Artillery. Now the Army is looking at what are the proper standards for women who want to be part of the Combat Arms units. It's fine if a female armed with a taser and 9mm sidearm works as an MP, but can she pick up 90 lb. HP 155mm artillery rounds? Should she have to? There are a lot of questions about women in the combat arts that are not answered yet, but I'm sure a few law suits will all sort things out, while it gets a lot more of our service men and women killed in the process of being politically and gender correct.
In response to:

Obama in Kansas

JBob Wrote: Sep 22, 2013 10:14 AM
You think it's offensive to Missourians? It's more offensive to Kansans who don't want their state connected of Obama in any fashion. But you are right that it is totally disgusting that a website like Townhall can't figure out that LIBERTY, MISSOURI is actually in MISSOURI for God's sake. Do these headline writers read any of the story at all?
Marriage should have never become part of the issue. The major mistake was when certain Conservatives wanted to refuse same sex couples from receiving the same treatment on taxes, etc. as traditionally married couples. Had the Republicans at that time said, "Sure, they should be treated equally in that regard", we would have taken the primary issue of mistreatment away from the gay community. Marriage is between a man and a woman and there is no reason government shouldn't sanction it as that. It is in the best interest of the nation overall to do so. So give same sex couples the same "rights" to civil unions and the benefits of being united by civil union, but protect marriage for what it has been both traditionally and religiously.
In response to:

Pharisees and Sadducees of the GOP

JBob Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:46 PM
The comments from Akin and others that you allude to were those of people who could only be classified as idiots. I don't care to have an idiot from any party serving in a national office, thank you. When are candidates going to be smart enough to view the landscape and be prepared to answer the "gotcha" questions that they know are going to come their way? Conservatives are not going to win elections on social issues. If asked, we can state our position that "based on my religious beliefs, abortion is wrong". They need to further state that they understand that the social issue in question cannot be decided by legislation, but the candidate will support judges who will judge using the Constitution as written as their guide.
1 - 5