Hillary as Pres.

[hvactech13]

I am just curious as to what standards a woman president would have to achieve. I was in the military when her hubby decided to allow women to fill the male dominated ranks of combatant units. The men were now forced to serve with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards, and rely on someone who didn't have to attain the same level of fitness to save their lives if something bad happened, i.e. missile hits, rocket attacks etc.
Men age 17-21 need to do 71 push-ups,78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 13:00 mins. to get a perfect score, but women age 17-21 only need 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 15:36 to achieve the same score. I believe that if you want to do the same job you need to meet the same criteria for the job, no excuses!
So what standards will Mrs. Clinton have to meet? Will she be allowed to make more mistakes? Pass a few more idiotic bills? What?

[Harleyrider]

Typical pug thinking

[hvactech13]

Not a Pug nor a Dem, just posing a question. I just want the best qualified person that would do the best for the country. Guess I hit a sore spot with you! :rolleyes:

[dna]

It doesn't matter cause she isn't getting in.

[HOT SHOT]

I am just curious as to what standards a woman president would have to achieve. I was in the military when her hubby decided to allow women to fill the male dominated ranks of combatant units. The men were now forced to serve with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards, and rely on someone who didn't have to attain the same level of fitness to save their lives if something bad happened, i.e. missile hits, rocket attacks etc.
Men age 17-21 need to do 71 push-ups,78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 13:00 mins. to get a perfect score, but women age 17-21 only need 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 15:36 to achieve the same score. I believe that if you want to do the same job you need to meet the same criteria for the job, no excuses!
So what standards will Mrs. Clinton have to meet? Will she be allowed to make more mistakes? Pass a few more idiotic bills? What?

That situation in the military is just as despicable as affermative action. Same type of B.S.

[tinknocker44]

I am just curious as to what standards a woman president would have to achieve. I was in the military when her hubby decided to allow women to fill the male dominated ranks of combatant units. The men were now forced to serve with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards, and rely on someone who didn't have to attain the same level of fitness to save their lives if something bad happened, i.e. missile hits, rocket attacks etc.
Men age 17-21 need to do 71 push-ups,78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 13:00 mins. to get a perfect score, but women age 17-21 only need 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 15:36 to achieve the same score. I believe that if you want to do the same job you need to meet the same criteria for the job, no excuses!
So what standards will Mrs. Clinton have to meet? Will she be allowed to make more mistakes? Pass a few more idiotic bills? What?


So when an American woman gets KIA it means less? Show me where Bill made the standards for the military.

[chillbilly]

I am just curious as to what standards a woman president would have to achieve. I was in the military when her hubby decided to allow women to fill the male dominated ranks of combatant units. The men were now forced to serve with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards, and rely on someone who didn't have to attain the same level of fitness to save their lives if something bad happened, i.e. missile hits, rocket attacks etc.
Men age 17-21 need to do 71 push-ups,78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 13:00 mins. to get a perfect score, but women age 17-21 only need 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 15:36 to achieve the same score. I believe that if you want to do the same job you need to meet the same criteria for the job, no excuses!
So what standards will Mrs. Clinton have to meet? Will she be allowed to make more mistakes? Pass a few more idiotic bills? What?

It's my understanding that those physical standards use male/female physiology to create tests that are compatible based on muscle mass, bone structure, etc.
It's going to be pysically impossible for the average woman to meet male standards because they have 40% less muscle mass, on average.

As for the second part, there is no scientific evidence availaible that suggests that a woman cannot meet or exceed male standards as it relates to mental capacity.

That noted, there is still good reason to believe that Hillary is not fit to be a Senator, much less the Chief Executive. :D :D :D

[James 3528]

I am just curious as to what standards a woman president would have to achieve. I was in the military when her hubby decided to allow women to fill the male dominated ranks of combatant units. The men were now forced to serve with someone who didn't have to meet the same standards, and rely on someone who didn't have to attain the same level of fitness to save their lives if something bad happened, i.e. missile hits, rocket attacks etc.
Men age 17-21 need to do 71 push-ups,78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 13:00 mins. to get a perfect score, but women age 17-21 only need 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 15:36 to achieve the same score. I believe that if you want to do the same job you need to meet the same criteria for the job, no excuses!
So what standards will Mrs. Clinton have to meet? Will she be allowed to make more mistakes? Pass a few more idiotic bills? What?
You are right and hundreds of pilots that cost millions to train left the military. Interesting some of the liberal responses here. Having actually been in the military such as yourself, they appear to know more about it than you. Bill Clinton hated the military and is on record as communicating as much. Made a social experiment of it.


Bill Clinton draft letter

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

Movie Director Geffen just recently called the Clinton's liars.


Hell, he just found that out?

[tinknocker44]

You are right and hundreds of pilots that cost millions to train left the military. Interesting some of the liberal responses here. Having actually been in the military such as yourself, they appear to know more about it than you. Bill Clinton hated the military and is on record as communicating as much. Made a social experiment of it.


Bill Clinton draft letter

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

Movie Director Geffen just recently called the Clinton's liars.


Hell, he just found that out?


No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.




Thanks jane you've finally posted something worth reading. How did we go from such a smart poetic President such as Bill Clinton to "fool me once uh um cant get fooled again"

[hvactech13]

So when an American woman gets KIA it means less? Show me where Bill made the standards for the military.

No it doesn't mean less, the loss of any military member is tragic. What I stated was the fact that the physiological defferences between men and women are a good reason women shouldn't be in these volatile situations that are encountered in combat. If a woman is capable of meeting the same standards as her male counterparts give her a gun and let her fight, if not let her stay away from the hostile areas. Would you rather climb a 30' ladder that meets all current safety tests and ratings or one that has had the standards lowered so it can make it onto the market?? That is the concern I, as well as many who left the military, have. As far as Bill making the standards he didn't, but he never ordered them to be put on "an even keel" to make it the same for both sexes. Therefore the fault lies equally between him and the military for not making it so!

[tinknocker44]

No it doesn't mean less, the loss of any military member is tragic. What I stated was the fact that the physiological defferences between men and women are a good reason women shouldn't be in these volatile situations that are encountered in combat. If a woman is capable of meeting the same standards as her male counterparts give her a gun and let her fight, if not let her stay away from the hostile areas. Would you rather climb a 30' ladder that meets all current safety tests and ratings or one that has had the standards lowered so it can make it onto the market?? That is the concern I, as well as many who left the military, have. As far as Bill making the standards he didn't, but he never ordered them to be put on "an even keel" to make it the same for both sexes. Therefore the fault lies equally between him and the military for not making it so!

So why doesnt the chimp fix it? If all the "chimp with a schick" wants to do is fight wars then why is he sending "weak women" into battle? does he want the men to die? :rolleyes:

[chillbilly]

hvac tech; This is what you have to endure when you deal with an idiot.
He doesn't understand how the 3 branches of government work, doesn't understand their constitutional powers, and doesn't understand how to conduct constructive debate.

Anywho,
My understanding of what you are posting is that since most women are physically inferior to men, they have no place in combat or in any role that would require them to meet physical standards they can't achieve.

Have women been proven to be a liability in combat roles?
If so, I would think the military would be able to remove them to lesser roles on a case by case basis without legislative intervention.

[ga-hvac-tech]

No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.



Tink, I hate to start an argument with you, but I really cannot let that statement pass. Who the H*ll do you think you are? And since when do the citizens (that have no idea what is going on because they do not have the intel the leaders have) run the country? Contrary to what you 'think', this is not a democracy, this is a republic. You elect someone to REPRESENT you, and you live with it.

I challenge you to make that statement of yours from a public podium in many different countries and see what response you get. I would wager that you would be laughed off the street.

The world is not a playpen where we get to do as we please, it is a place where the strong survive, and the weak are taken advantage of. Just the way it is. Many a generation has tried to change it, but the changes do NOT work. A wise person learns from history. A not so wise person is doomed to make the same mistakes.

Personally, I think the best thing for you would be to get mugged in a dark ally. They you would understand that the world is not a nice place, and that freedom is ONLY guaranteed by strength and the guts to use it.

In closing, I would refer you to the thread about a Dem, a Repub, and a Texan. Our country was built by folks with the Texan attitude. History shows that countries with your attitude do not last (they fall prey to power mongering dictators).

I for one am not going to let my country fail because a few of the citizens are not wise enough to 'support their country'.

No response is needed, as I will not debate this with you. You see Tink, I KNOW what I believe, and I have tested it with experience and time. The folks that understand will agree.

[hvactech13]

Any attempt on his part to rectify this problem would be shot down by the "do gooders" who would feel it is an attack on women.(Kinda like laws affecting child molesters/abusers. You know being unconstitutional and stomping on their rights etc.) Why try to fix what others won't let you fix, when things go bad those who didn't want it fixed will blame those who couldn't fix it because they didn't want it fixed. It is much easier to plan what you want to do and do it than it is to redesign it after it is built.

[tinknocker44]

Tink, I hate to start an argument with you, but I really cannot let that statement pass. Who the H*ll do you think you are? And since when do the citizens (that have no idea what is going on because they do not have the intel the leaders have) run the country? Contrary to what you 'think', this is not a democracy, this is a republic. You elect someone to REPRESENT you, and you live with it.

That statement was written by the greatest Pres. we've had in your lifetime, Bill Clinton. You dont read janes links much either huh?

I challenge you to make that statement of yours from a public podium in many different countries and see what response you get. I would wager that you would be laughed off the street.

I live in America and as hard as the Neocons are trying to prevent it I still have freedom of speech.

The world is not a playpen where we get to do as we please, it is a place where the strong survive, and the weak are taken advantage of. Just the way it is. Many a generation has tried to change it, but the changes do NOT work. A wise person learns from history. A not so wise person is doomed to make the same mistakes.

And if the pugs had learned anything we wouldnt be in a quagmire

Personally, I think the best thing for you would be to get mugged in a dark ally. They you would understand that the world is not a nice place, and that freedom is ONLY guaranteed by strength and the guts to use it.

Yes I could use a good muggin:rolleyes:

In closing, I would refer you to the thread about a Dem, a Repub, and a Texan. Our country was built by folks with the Texan attitude. History shows that countries with your attitude do not last (they fall prey to power mongering dictators).

Only 2 things in Texas, steers and queers, and I dont see any horns on you. I work with a "texan" he hates Dumbya, another theory shot

I for one am not going to let my country fail because a few of the citizens are not wise enough to 'support their country'.

I do support my country, just not the lying chimp

No response is needed, as I will not debate this with you. You see Tink, I KNOW what I believe, and I have tested it with experience and time. The folks that understand will agree.

Yes I'm sure the nuthuggers will agree. Just not the majority of Americans

[tinknocker44]

hvac tech; This is what you have to endure when you deal with an idiot.
He doesn't understand how the 3 branches of government work, doesn't understand their constitutional powers, and doesn't understand how to conduct constructive debate.

Anywho,
My understanding of what you are posting is that since most women are physically inferior to men, they have no place in combat or in any role that would require them to meet physical standards they can't achieve.

Have women been proven to be a liability in combat roles?
If so, I would think the military would be able to remove them to lesser roles on a case by case basis without legislative intervention.


Shut up. You're supposed to be ignoring me till jane says its ok.

[retired btc]

She might have to take care of these things first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/

[ga-hvac-tech]

Tink cannot read: He responded when I said I would not debate him. I think he has an inferiority complex and this forum is his therapy.

I think we should all give him the silent treatment, and he will go away.

[James 3528]

No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.




Thanks jane you've finally posted something worth reading. How did we go from such a smart poetic President such as Bill Clinton to "fool me once uh um cant get fooled again"

So the same guy that wrote that sent GI's to their death in Somali and did not reinforce them. Waged war on Waco Texas. Waged war on Kosovo also on the lies of mass graves and Muslims now slash and burn that country. Hypocrite? I think so. I can see why you worship him. You're a wuss just like him.

[ga-hvac-tech]

She might have to take care of these things first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/

Funny: Politicians (all of them; dem and pug, cons and lib) seem to forget these things until it is brought to light. Then they 'take care of it'. If we lived that way, the IRS would clean us out. Wonder why they do not have to play by the same rules we do?

Question: Do other posters think politicians should have a 'special' set of rules, or do they think politicians should be held accountable to the same rules we are held accountable to?

[tinknocker44]

Tink cannot read: He responded when I said I would not debate him. I think he has an inferiority complex and this forum is his therapy.

I think we should all give him the silent treatment, and he will go away.


You pugs just cant get nothing right.

[James 3528]

Tink cannot read: He responded when I said I would not debate him. I think he has an inferiority complex and this forum is his therapy.

I think we should all give him the silent treatment, and he will go away.:D :D :D :D :D Any idiot that says....I am a Liberals because...



is telling you something.

[tinknocker44]

:D :D :D :D :D Any idiot that says....I am a Liberals because...



is telling you something.


That'll be the next pug whine fest. I dont like tins signature........wah...........

[ga-hvac-tech]

:D :D :D :D :D Any idiot that says....I am a Liberals because...is telling you something.

You have a point there James.

BTW: I like your Avatar.

[hvactech13]

[B]No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.


The last time I checked there wasn't a draft currently in effect, so why divert the attention to one? As far as "making" citizens fight and kill in a war they may oppose, hmmm.. nope still no draft in effect! When an individual decides to enlist in the military they know (unless they are just stupid) that their duties are to follow orders, even if that means going to war to kill or possibly be killed. HELLO!!!! that is what the military does! They fight wars, it isn't a d#%n country club that you go to to earn money for college. If you join the military you may have to go to war.

[retired btc]

Oath of Enlistment for the Military


NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


So help me God


Juramento de Alistamiento


Yo, ___________________________________, juro solemnemente (o afirmo) que apoyaré y defenderé la Constitución de los Estados Unidos contra todos los enemigos, extranjeros y domésticos; que sostendré verdadera fe y lealtad a los Estados Unidos; y que obedeceré las órdenes del Presidente de los Estados Unidos y las órdenes de los oficiales designados como mis superiores, según los reglamentos y el Código Uniforme de Justicia Militar. Que Dios me ayude.


Hmmm can't see where it says we have the right not to fight if we don't feel like it and of course it is an Enlistment Contract not a Draft Notice so there is the choice of not signing as with any other contract.

[Milk man]

It doesn't matter cause she isn't getting in.

This is CORRECT. Not a chance boyz.

[chillbilly]

hvactech13; It is much easier to plan what you want to do and do it than it is to redesign it after it is built.

Yeah, that's a good point. I hate to think that our boys are dealing with women who are liabilities in combat.
That just sucks. I respect the opinions of those who have served in those conditions and I'm not about to reason that it's OK if guys who have been there tell me it isn't OK. I'll defer to the people with the experiences.
Thanks for the thread.

[James 3528]

I do hope she gets the nomination cause it will possible make the Clinton's go away she she is torn apart....but I fear she will not.

If she gets it she won't be elected. A lot of women hate her and men with balls do also.

[Harleyrider]

It doesn't matter cause she isn't getting in.

LOL........she has already hired a interior designer

[James 3528]

That 's good..more money she waste, the better.

[Harleyrider]

That'll be the next pug whine fest. I dont like tins signature........wah...........


That wont be a problem my friend.....that they would have to read it.............the avatar all the have to do is look at the picture......:D :D :D

[hvactech13]

Chillbilly
It really isn't the liability of females in combat. I have met women who could knock the s#!t out of most men, it is the ones who couldn't that are the problem. The knowlege that a 120lb woman who isn't as capable of rescuing you as the 120lb man standing next to her is. if she is going to be the one you have to rely on to pull you out of danger if you are hurt is the problem. It's a trust issue that you need in a hostile enviroment. If everyone was on the same level of fitness there would be no problem. Knowing you can rely on the person you work with is important, especially when your life is at stake. I'm not bashing women in the military, I just feel that equal treatment demands equal standards.

[chillbilly]

Chillbilly
It really isn't the liability of females in combat. I have met women who could knock the s#!t out of most men, it is the ones who couldn't that are the problem. The knowlege that a 120lb woman who isn't as capable of rescuing you as the 120lb man standing next to her is. if she is going to be the one you have to rely on to pull you out of danger if you are hurt is the problem. It's a trust issue that you need in a hostile enviroment. If everyone was on the same level of fitness there would be no problem. Knowing you can rely on the person you work with is important, especially when your life is at stake. I'm not bashing women in the military, I just feel that equal treatment demands equal standards.

I understand. It remains a liability though for the exact reasons you state.
If you cannot rely on someone to have your back, there is a problem.
I'm not referring to the women who are exceptions, but rather the rule.
I'm sure there are unreliable men as well. But if I understand what you are posting, it seems to indicate that women generally are not fit for roles in combat as a rule while men are. Is that correct?

[Harleyrider]

That 's good..more money she waste, the better.
LOL.......tell ya what JIM, she could buy new curtians FOR EVERY WINDOW IN AMERICA and not spend half of what dumbya has spent in IRAQNAM.............that dog wont hunt here boy............

[James 3528]

Iraq has been the cheapest war we have fought. Shows what you know about the issues. Why don't you stick with NASCAR?

[hvactech13]

I'm sure there are unreliable men as well. But if I understand what you are posting, it seems to indicate that women generally are not fit for roles in combat as a rule while men are. Is that correct?

Yes that is correct. And yes there are men who have no business being in combat as well. Meet the standards or go to the safe zone, no exceptions!

[glennac]

Back in 1968 when the draft was scraping the bottom of the barrel to get bodies in uniform a study was made by the Pentagon and printed in the Army Times on women in the Military. The study was on rather or not to open more positions to women. These were for troop clerks, supply personnel, cooks, and other non physically demanding jobs. The study concluded that this would be a waste of tax payer’s money for three reasons. 1. Women had a much higher sick call rate than men. 2. Women had a much higher drop out rate during their first tour of duty than men. (Getting pregnant, dropping out due to incapability, mental breakdowns, etc.). 3. Women had a much lower reenlistment rate in the service than men (the military depends on a good reenlistment rate to keep up well trained personnel in the ranks and it is a great waste to the tax payers money to have to train new personnel every few years for 9 months or so. The study basically said that then WACs should be kept the same be primarily for the military hospitals. I read the article while in the service. I’m sure today in the PC atmosphere there could never be a study like that. They would have to say that women are equal to or superior to men.

[Milk man]

It's been a long time since I've looked at a PT test. But I do remember that a 30 year old's standards where differnt than a 17.

A better test would be dragging a 150 pound man 100 yards in a certain amount of time.

[chillbilly]

Milk man
A better test would be dragging a 150 pound man 100 yards in a certain amount of time.


Shoot! If that's the case, I should be a General judging by all the liberal bodies I've had to drag out of the threads on this forum. :D :D :D

[chucko615]

She might have to take care of these things first.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/



Wow where's tin's stand on this? Where's his righteous indignation? hillary's brother's caught trading influence and he doesn't even comment on it, but let anyone related to President Bush work in the mailroom of a company with a scandal and it's "crooks and liars run in the family" time. Not one word in 2 pages, nothing!!!! Not even a "it's a Republican smear campaign against hillary".