Click here for full article (http://www.infowars.com/articles/military/women_in_combat.htm)
The Pentagon is implementing new military plans that will make the concept of women in combat a reality.

The Center for Military Readiness warned this week that the Pentagon is flouting policies mandated by Congress in an effort to implement politically correct policies that increase the number of uniformed women put into harm's way.

Others suggest the Pentagon tinkering with rules forbidding women in combat is a clear effort to increase boots on the ground as the troop-strapped DoD faces manpower shortages in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe.

Seven female U.S. soldiers have thus far been killed in Iraq and many more have been wounded. The question is, why? Aren't women supposed to be kept out of units that may see combat?

I like the idea. Rotations of women on their menstral cycle into combat would be great. We could group them in small platoons. It's widely known that women's periods tend to gradually occur at similar times. We could always have a fresh batch of PMSers in the field.

This is a good thing. Equality for women means equality. Women should see combat just as much as men.

No they shouldn’t. They can be in the military but on the front lines, no. It’s too much of a risk, because of the chances of rape and other horrific events that could occur to them.

Originally posted by Overdose
No they shouldn’t. They can be in the military but on the front lines, no. It’s too much of a risk, because of the chances of rape and other horrific events that could occur to them.
"Horrific events" can happen to men as well...

And don't you think it would occur more if women were on the battle-field.

Perhaps. But if so, they signed up for the military knowing the risks, didn't they?

It's a bad idea. Not because they couldn't do the job but because it would take the pride from the male soldier.

They would be kidded the rest of their lives with stuff like ...

Iraq -- the woman's war

Iraq? Oh yeah that's the war we had to send in the women to bail you guys out.

Bad idea

Dop

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Perhaps. But if so, they signed up for the military knowing the risks, didn't they?
Yes, and sometimes we have to protect our citizens from making a bad decision.

Yes, and sometimes we have to protect our citizens from making a bad decision.
No we fucking don't. We can tell people they shouldn't, but ultimately the decision rests on the individual, and in no way should we directly stomp on their individual rights and stop them from making that decision. The government isn't our daddy, it's not here to rape us in the ass. Any kind of authoritarian bullshit should be met with any immediate action to stop it.

Originally posted by Blibblob
No we fucking don't. We can tell people they shouldn't, but ultimately the decision rests on the individual, and in no way should we directly stomp on their individual rights and stop them from making that decision. The government isn't our daddy, it's not here to rape us in the ass. Any kind of authoritarian bullshit should be met with any immediate action to stop it.
Okay, then lets get rid of the military. If the Government isn't our "daddy". We choose to live in America, so we should move to a country that will protect it's citizens and would be their "daddy"

Women in combat is not a bad thing, not necessarily. Accomodations of all sorts would have to be made, but, the military is accostomed to making the big changes. During Harry Truman's time as POTUS, he integrated the military. No more racially segregated units. Don't you know that meant all kinds of changes, to virtually every aspect of U.S. military life to that point in time. During the mid 1970's, the military again integrated with the doing away of women's-only units, and those women being reassigned to previously male-only units. Again, major accomodations for everyone involved. Since that time, women have continued to move further and further toward the immediate front lines in various types of combat support, or combat service support units. They have proven themselves repeatedly to be up to the task of 'continuing the mission' as any - has anyone seen stories of the "plight of the American female soldier" type? I've not. IMHO, women have a place in combat units, without benefit of 'affirmitave action' types of personnel activity. Any females going to a combat unit must be able to preform the same as a male soldier in that same position. A rifleman needs to be just that, male or female. To accept women in combat, the chain of command, as well as society, has to accept the term soldier applying to either sex, and no sensationalism attached to a female soldier dealing with whatever horrors war hands them than we would accpet about a male being dealt the same.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay, then lets get rid of the military. If the Government isn't our "daddy". We choose to live in America, so we should move to a country that will protect it's citizens and would be their "daddy" Go to Canada. Find someone who wants to be your daddy and live a happy life. :)

Okay, then lets get rid of the military. If the Government isn't our "daddy". We choose to live in America, so we should move to a country that will protect it's citizens and would be their "daddy"
How the hell did you get that from what I said? Where are your connections... your logic even? Mr. Democrat, the government has no more obligation to us than we do to ourselves. Note "no more", it has less. The government is not a living being, it's the community, and the community has no right to tell you what to do with yourself. Note also liberty. As human beings we are all equally alive, equal in the "eyes of the law", remove political mumbo jumbo of the government that's gotten bigger than it should and it falls down to meaning that since we're all the same damn species, in basic essence we aren't better than one another and shouldn't be treated with pity or contempt, whatever. Now, why am I explaining the simple tennets of liberty and government? Because by advocating a fatherly government, you don't apparently don't comprehend them. The rest of the community isn't there to bow to your every whim. The individuals of the community aren't there to be riduculed or commanded. The individuals of the community deserve equal chances. Anyways, back to liberty. The government doesn't have the right to take it away, in any case, for any reason, not even safety, which is what you're advocating. Woman have the full right to do as the choose as much as men. And you have NO right to take that away from them. This is simple liberty.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6694376

Looks like the men are refusing to back this war anymore so maybe they'll have better luck convincing the woment they need to die for halliburton.

Dop

Originally posted by Blibblob
How the hell did you get that from what I said? Where are your connections... your logic even? Mr. Democrat, the government has no more obligation to us than we do to ourselves. Note "no more", it has less.
You said it was their choice to join the military. And since it’s our choice to live in America (that is prone to an attack), we should live elsewhere or get rid of our military because it’s our choice to live in a terrorist prone area…which thus means, we should live with the repercussions of our decision to live here and not have a military look out for us…like the Government would do these women.

Originally posted by Blibblob
The government is not a living being, it's the community, and the community has no right to tell you what to do with yourself. Note also liberty. As human beings we are all equally alive, equal in the "eyes of the law", remove political mumbo jumbo of the government that's gotten bigger than it should and it falls down to meaning that since we're all the same damn species, in basic essence we aren't better than one another and shouldn't be treated with pity or contempt, whatever.
Yes we have the right to liberty and freedoms. Although, our Government also has a responsibility to protect its citizens (that’s why we have a military) And since women would be more prone to rape and other harmful things on the frontline, we need to protect them from this futuristic evil. Sometimes people make bad decisions and we as a Government need to draw the line somewhere. They should be able to join the military, perform small operations, but on the front lines? No. They are at a higher risk, and we need to protect them.

Originally posted by Blibblob
The government doesn't have the right to take it away, in any case, for any reason, not even safety, which is what you're advocating. Woman have the full right to do as the choose as much as men. And you have NO right to take that away from them. This is simple liberty.
Ever heard of an attractive nuisance?

Let me give you an example.

A man has a house. It’s run-down and looks abandoned and is dangerous. You would think that it would be trespassing, if you got hurt and he wouldn’t be to blame. But in reality, it’s his reasonability to do what he can to protect the people who go on his territory because it’s attracting people to go on it by the way it looks.

It’s the same thing. Allowing women on the frontlines would only attract, more rape and damage the enemy would inflict on the women.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ever heard of an attractive nuisance?


The idea of an attractive nuisance is generally a factor when the people attracted to the nuisance are too young to know better.

I think society should make sure you're home by 10:00pm because letting you stay out clubbing is bad for you, as determined by me.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The idea of an attractive nuisance is generally a factor when the people attracted to the nuisance are too young to know better.
Well, lets think about this. Should we allow women to go into more harmful situations? They are attracting more harm on the frontlines because of their sex. I think it's common sense that they don't go on the front lines. Military? Fine. Small operations? fine. But you have to draw a line somewhere.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I think society should make sure you're home by 10:00pm because letting you stay out clubbing is bad for you, as determined by me.
Burn! I get home at 3am ;)

im just curious as to how a woman on the "front lines" is more prone to rape than a woman NOT on the front lines.

Thats HARDLY the first thought that came into my head, but yet it seems to be the big issue with you OD.....

I was thinking more along the lines of: Women are proven to be lacking in strength to males, so having them cover someone's elses ass in war ISNT having the "best option" available.

Im actually quite baffled as to the Front lines=Rape reasoning...Any stories to tell or proof of your worries?

Originally posted by Decka
im just curious as to how a woman on the "front lines" is more prone to rape than a woman NOT on the front lines.

Because on the front lines they are closer to the enemy and they are directly fighting the enemy and are at risk of capture. And since they are a female, and the people who we are mostly fighting are male, I'm sure more rape and other horrific things would occur to her.

Tell me something OD. Do you think a woman on the front line getting raped is a more horrific offense than a civilian getting his head chopped off?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Tell me something OD. Do you think a woman on the front line getting raped is a more horrific offense than a civilian getting his head chopped off?

Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? I'm not here to play your games...HaVok.

I have a better idea. Why don't we send the Bush twins over there to fight the war.

;) okay!

I find it ironic that rape, a disgustingly nasty crime that is punishable by only a few years in prison, is a good argument for some here to disallow women to fight on the front lines.

I'm off topic a bit, but rape should be considered a much more serious crime than it is.

Anyhow, back on topic, what's to stop enemy soldiers from raping men? It happens in prison, does it not?

I'm against women from fighting on the front lines unless and ONLY unless they can perform physically up to the par of the men.

Originally posted by Overdose
Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to? I'm not here to play your games...HaVok. I wouldnt ask the question if I knew the answer, Susie. How come you never answer direct, simple questions?

If women are more apt to being raped, as OD claims....then can women claim to be equal to men?

hello boys.... ::giggles:: it seems you seem to debating on the future of women in general. I however am conflicted on this issue. 1. I believe a woman should be given the opportunity to fight on the front lines alongside men. 2. I believe a woman is mentally and physically (in some cases) to stand up to the same conditions. Now on the other hand.

As two of you gentlemen brought up the fact that women on their menstrual cycle could be a formidal opponent. but I shudder to think of where I will clean myself and dispose of my female items appropriately to not draw the attention of the animals that might be around. Also I must consider that if you put a few females in a male populated area with a bunch of soldiers it causes problems. It will always cause problems. makes a soldier think about abandoning his platoon and running off and getting married, or they will fight with each other for her attention. It is not a good idea I think. There are many risks and many rewards, but then again women also bring new life into the world we would not want to decrease our breeding stock so to speak; Would we?

I vote for giving women the choice. But there must be physical and mental examinations and standards set. I just think that there should be a choice... if a woman Chooses to fight on the front lines she should not be told she cannot because of her sex.

Originally posted by Overdose
Well, lets think about this. Should we allow women to go into more harmful situations?

If they want to, yes. They're adults.


Originally posted by Overdose
Burn! I get home at 3am ;)

Well yeah, I knew that. But there are people in this society (not me) that would say that regardless of what your parents say, you shouldn't be allowed out that late for your own good. Bad things happen at night in big cities. What makes it OK for you to tell women what they can't do in the first situation and not OK for others to tell you what to do in the second situation?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Well yeah, I knew that. But there are people in this society (not me) that would say that regardless of what your parents say, you shouldn't be allowed out that late for your own good. Bad things happen at night in big cities. What makes it OK for you to tell women what they can't do in the first situation and not OK for others to tell you what to do in the second situation?
Except being out late...and going into war are things that can hardly be compared.

Originally posted by Overdose
Except being out late...and going into war are things that can hardly be compared.
Isn't your main argument that women can be raped? They can also be raped because they stay out late.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Isn't your main argument that women can be raped? They can also be raped because they stay out late.

Again, war and comparing staying out late is not even a fair comparison or one that is even worth debating.

Originally posted by Overdose
Again, war and comparing staying out late is not even a fair comparison or one that is even worth debating.
It is fair if you're giving one reason for banning one thing, but support another which results in the same thing.

OD is putting WAY to much effort into worrying about women having a higher chance of being raped on the front lines.....

tell me if im wrong here....

if you are on the front lines.....you mostly either survive or get killed. There's not a high percentage of people that get taken into custody by the enemy.

Of the small percentage of women IN the military, the chances of them actually being a prisoner is VERY slim. I could actually probably call OD a shovanist because he thinks only men are capable of cannon fodder. If i were a woman, and were taken hostage, and they took me back, raped me, and let me go....... id probably be thankful they didnt kill me.

And Borghunter has a point.....if you arent willing to let women go on the front lines because of the "increased chances of rape"....then why let women out past 10pm at all? Isnt late at night a time period where there is an "increased chance of rape"?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
It is fair if you're giving one reason for banning one thing, but support another which results in the same thing.

Okay, smoking kills you and so does weed. They are very similar, but one is worse (weed, in many cases) So we ban one and not the other? You sometimes have to do that, and that's just the sad truth.

Weed is worse for you than tobacco? Bullshit. Because of marijuana's status as an illicit substance, nowhere near the same amount of research has been done as with tobacco. The amount of documentation regarding the 'evils' of tobacco (ab)use, garnered over the centuries, is astronomical. How can anyone compare the two?

:hitout:
Ok, as most girls wouldn't admit, and i know you guys will agree with me, women aren't as strong as men, and they couldn't handle being at war. this is both socially and mentally. But just think about it, if a huge number of women are killed, then what about the population? I would just love to see a man have a baby by himself. And by the way guys, the whole period thing, kinda overdone.....it's gettin old, think of a new way to call us B*tches!

I know many people that used tobacco all their lives and most of them are doing some serious dirt-napping today.

On the other hand, I know many people that used reefer all their lives and are doing just fine today.

You make the call.

Dop

regardless of the fight for equality, we're different. women were made with a nurturing spirit, men were made with a disciplining spirit. war is not the place for women, i dont care how hardcore they want to be, there is a difference between us. in the workforce , its different, but war is war. even though men can cook for themselves, in most families, women do most of the cooking. when a car breaks down, not to say that women cant do it, but normally a man is called to do the repairs. we have things that are just the way they are, this is one of them. i dont really like seeing women on construction sites, it seems to take the feminine edge off........but still, not to say that they cant do it..

OD - I am amazed that you would take this stance. Don't you think women have the right to do what they want with their lives? If a woman wants to be a combat soldier she should not be denied the right to do it.

Equal rights OD. The government has no business telling individual groups of people that they can't do something that other groups have the right to do.

Compare this concept to gay marriage. It is the same. The government trying to deny certain people the same rights that other people have.

When men go into cambat, they know they could be captured, tortured, raped, killed.

Do you think women are too stupid to make that choice for themselves?

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay, smoking kills you and so does weed. They are very similar, but one is worse (weed, in many cases) So we ban one and not the other? You sometimes have to do that, and that's just the sad truth.
First of all, research shows that tobacco is far worse and far more addictive. Secondly, I support both substances being fully legal.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
First of all, research shows that tobacco is far worse and far more addictive. Secondly, I support both substances being fully legal.
Ummmm, research shows that one joint is around 20 cigs....and can cause just as much harm. Also, it's what you do ON weed that makes it very bad for you.

And I only support weed being used for medical purposes. I'm amazed that you would be FOR making weed legal to everyone.

As for the rape issue, it's more likely that a women will get raped. Bottom line. We should not put women in situations that will be more of a risk then a man would be in if put in that same situation.

As for "equal rights"...is this a right? I'd like to know how it is, because women can be in the military...just not on the front lines where they are at a higher risk then a man would be at.

And this also comes down to, men are naturally stronger then women. It's the way our bodies were made. Not to say a women can't be strong, because I know a few girls who could kick my ass. But typically men are stronger.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ummmm, research shows that one joint is around 20 cigs....and can cause just as much harm. Also, it's what you do ON weed that makes it very bad for you.
Show me this research. Also, people smoke far less marijuana than they do tobacco. People have a joint...sometimes every other day, sometimes every week, usually only occasionally. THC is also non-addictive, while nicotine is highly addictive.
And I only support weed being used for medical purposes. I'm amazed that you would be FOR making weed legal to everyone.
I'm amazed that you don't. Ever hear of "what adults do to themselves is no one's business but their own"?
As for the rape issue, it's more likely that a women will get raped. Bottom line. We should not put women in situations that will be more of a risk then a man would be in if put in that same situation.
We wouldn't be putting them there. They would volunteer for it.
As for "equal rights"...is this a right? I'd like to know how it is, because women can be in the military...just not on the front lines where they are at a higher risk then a man would be at.

And this also comes down to, men are naturally stronger then women. It's the way our bodies were made. Not to say a women can't be strong, because I know a few girls who could kick my ass. But typically men are stronger.
By this logic, we should not allow women on the streets after dark because then they are at "higher risk" than a man.

Many woman make the Miliatray their career. One cannot advance very far in the military without combat experience.

Don't try to protect us from ourselves. Don't try to make life easier for us. Don't try to deny us rights under the guise that we are "too vulnerable".

Don't for one minute think that woman are not aware of what can happen to them in battle. We know the same thing could happen to us walking down a city street. We are aware of it everytime we go out after dark. Please do not deny us something with the excuse that you don't think we should be doing it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
[B]By this logic, we should not allow women on the streets after dark [B]

Or males under the age of 18 . . .

OD the two situations are absolutely comparable - the comparison is not between war and staying out late, the comparison is that both situations involve society involving itself in making decisions for other people. Where do we put an end to this? Do we stop letting people bungee jump? Hang glide? Climb El Capitan? Adults are more than capable of making these decisions for themselves. Or in your case (legally speaking) - your parents are more than capable of allowing you out.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Show me this research.
The research I’m working on, but it really doesn’t matter. They are both bad for you. Why do we allow one and not the other? That seems to be your main argument.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Also, people smoke far less marijuana than they do tobacco.
They do? Really? I know many kids who get high every other day, if not every day. I suggest you start to learn about real life use of marijuana.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
People have a joint...sometimes every other day, sometimes every week, usually only occasionally. THC is also non-addictive, while nicotine is highly addictive.
Okay, let’s just say you are correct…and people smoke cigarettes more then they do weed. Now isn’t that because if you are caught smoking weed you go to jail or could potentially go to jail? Wouldn’t the amount of weed-smoked increase, if we made it legal for 18-year-olds? And to answer my own questions, yes. Smoking cigarettes is legal, so more people do it. Smoking weed isn’t legal, so less people do it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'm amazed that you don't. Ever hear of "what adults do to themselves is no one's business but their own"?
That’s extremely general. So I guess if a man wants to beat his adult wife, that’s okay? It’s their business, and so we as a Government and society have no right to defend and help that women who is an adult? I mean, she’s over 18, it’s her choice, her body, so we should just allow that to occur?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
We wouldn't be putting them there. They would volunteer for it.
And we as a Government shouldn’t let women make a decision that could be increasingly harmful for them.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
By this logic, we should not allow women on the streets after dark because then they are at "higher risk" than a man.
Comparing war to being out late is extremely naive. You can play this game all you want, but I will never ever see the comparison between staying out late and war.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
OD the two situations are absolutely comparable - the comparison is not between war and staying out late, the comparison is that both situations involve society involving itself in making decisions for other people. Where do we put an end to this? Do we stop letting people bungee jump? Hang glide? Climb El Capitan? Adults are more than capable of making these decisions for themselves. Or in your case (legally speaking) - your parents are more than capable of allowing you out.
Yes, and there has to be a line drawn at some point. All of those things you mentioned are nowhere near as risky, or dangerous as war. We as a Government need to be more careful who we send out in the front lines to defend our country. Women are naturally weaker, just by their body make-up. They are at a higher risk of rape, which is just yet another torture device they can use. Forcing a women to have a baby, or even kill the baby if she is captured for a long period of time would just create many complications. Not to mention their menstrual(is that spelled correctly?) cycle. It’s all relevant.

The research I’m working on, but it really doesn’t matter. They are both bad for you. Why do we allow one and not the other? That seems to be your main argument.
Oh, I don't know why we allow one and not the other. Ask the Democrats, personally, I thought you would have known! Oh, well, I'd ask the jewface Joe Lieberman, but I highly doubt he has the competency or intelligence to know either.

They do? Really? I know many kids who get high every other day, if not every day. I suggest you start to learn about real life use of marijuana.
Oh my god! So do I! Oh, by the way, they're awesome. Not to mention highly intelligent.

Okay, let’s just say you are correct…and people smoke cigarettes more then they do weed. Now isn’t that because if you are caught smoking weed you go to jail or could potentially go to jail? Wouldn’t the amount of weed-smoked increase, if we made it legal for 18-year-olds? And to answer my own questions, yes. Smoking cigarettes is legal, so more people do it. Smoking weed isn’t legal, so less people do it.
I have one word for you: NO. A) Not a single person in recorded history has EVER died from an overdose on Marijuana. It's been around longer than Tobacco. Marijuana use has ALWAYS been less than that of tobacco, even back when it was legal. Tobacco can be smoked "safely" anywhere, marijuana makes you feel funny, not as good as a social drug. Historians think that Washington had a patch of Marijuana in his yard, and Levi jeans used to be made out of hemp. Let's look at the prohibition. The number of people who went out and got drunk on a regular basis was rather small, it was left to the city's drunk bum. Alchohol was a social drink that was consumed in rather small amounts, and rarely would one want to get drunk off of it. Prohibition comes along, alchohol use SKYROCKETS. Prohibition goes away, for about two years alchohol use steadies out and rises slightly, after that, it drops to levels around that of before, and a bit below at times. Mostly the rise of it's use was from the fact that it was easier to record how many used it than when it was illegal. A shitload of people smoke marijuana, we don't have counts because it's illegal. Most guestimates don't put it that high, so after it becomes legal there will be a percieved increase, but there really wont be.

That’s extremely general. So I guess if a man wants to beat his adult wife, that’s okay? It’s their business, and so we as a Government and society have no right to defend and help that women who is an adult? I mean, she’s over 18, it’s her choice, her body, so we should just allow that to occur?
One comment to this. You're an idiot.

And we as a Government shouldn’t let women make a decision that could be increasingly harmful for them.
Fucking shoot yourself. The government should make decisions for NOBODY. That's what LIBERTY is. Whats in the first sentence of the constitution? Perserve LIBERTY? Idiotic democrats. I'm sorry, but you apparently don't comprehend what a government can and cannot do. Telling somebody what they can't do with themselves is directly infringing upon personal liberty.
"Your rights end where another's begin"
The government isn't your daddy.

Originally posted by Overdose
They do? Really? I know many kids who get high every other day, if not every day. I suggest you start to learn about real life use of marijuana.
I know people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. That's 40 times the amount of smoke per day than a person who gets high once a day.
Okay, let’s just say you are correct…and people smoke cigarettes more then they do weed. Now isn’t that because if you are caught smoking weed you go to jail or could potentially go to jail? Wouldn’t the amount of weed-smoked increase, if we made it legal for 18-year-olds? And to answer my own questions, yes. Smoking cigarettes is legal, so more people do it. Smoking weed isn't legal, so less people do it.
The effects of marijuana last quite a bit longer than the effects of tobacco. So, marijuana is used less than tobacco.
That’s extremely general. So I guess if a man wants to beat his adult wife, that’s okay? It’s their business, and so we as a Government and society have no right to defend and help that women who is an adult? I mean, she’s over 18, it’s her choice, her body, so we should just allow that to occur?
If the woman consents to the beating, sure. That is, if they're engaged in some S&M acts or whatever. If the woman does NOT want to be beaten, then of course not.
And we as a Government shouldn’t let women make a decision that could be increasingly harmful for them.
Sure we should. It's not the government's place to say what someone does to oneself.
Yes, and there has to be a line drawn at some point. All of those things you mentioned are nowhere near as risky, or dangerous as war. We as a Government need to be more careful who we send out in the front lines to defend our country. Women are naturally weaker, just by their body make-up. They are at a higher risk of rape, which is just yet another torture device they can use. Forcing a women to have a baby, or even kill the baby if she is captured for a long period of time would just create many complications. Not to mention their menstrual(is that spelled correctly?) cycle. It’s all relevant.
And ALL this would be information the woman would think about, and make the decision to be on the front lines or not.

Bottom line: You see the government as a nanny or babysitter. You see the government assigning each person a bodyguard who keeps them from being hurt. I see the government as a necessary evil which much be made as small as possible, and regulates as little as possible. The government should not concern itself with people who want to hurt themselves and not other people.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Oh, I don't know why we allow one and not the other. Ask the Democrats, personally, I thought you would have known!
Why would I ask the Democrats? Why is one legal and not the other?

Originally posted by Blibblob
I have one word for you: NO. A) Not a single person in recorded history has EVER died from an overdose on Marijuana.
Please show me where someone has died from a cigarette overdose? Not to mention, it’s what you do on weed. It makes your judgment inept, and you tend to do extremely idiotic things (something that does not usually happen with cigs).

Not to mention my cousin Sadie was put in the hospital for an allergic reaction due to marijuana.

Tobacco kills you, and if you think marijuana is healthy you need to take some more school classes.

Originally posted by Blibblob
One comment to this. You're an idiot.
The only reason you called me an idiot is because you have no defense for the example I set in place. Why do you to personally attack Blib? I know I do it, but honestly, I suggest you clam down…because right now you remind me of Trav.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Fucking shoot yourself.
Even Trav doesn’t get that offensive, rude, and inconsiderate. Please refrain from commenting on peoples lives and suicide. I’ve had to deal with many people on the verge of suicide, so honestly, learn some respect.

Originally posted by Blibblob
The government should make decisions for NOBODY.
I disagree. Our Government has rules, laws and restrictions on many things that decide what we can and cannot do.

Originally posted by Blibblob
That's what LIBERTY is. Whats in the first sentence of the constitution? Perserve LIBERTY? Idiotic democrats. I'm sorry, but you apparently don't comprehend what a government can and cannot do. Telling somebody what they can't do with themselves is directly infringing upon personal liberty.
"Your rights end where another's begin"
The government isn't your daddy.
And again, we are not saying they cannot be in the military. We are not taking away that right. We are only trying to ensure the safety of our women. They are at a much higher risk of rape and other horrific events occurring to them. Just like our Government decides to launch war, they are (the Government) protecting us. And since women are at a higher risk of rape, (the Government) is protecting them.

I'm actually leaning more toward YOUR side, but you're just being a jerk and that's pushing me to make this even a longer debate.

Originally posted by Overdose
Please show me where someone has died from a cigarette overdose?
No one. He's showing you that tobacco and marijuana are, at worst, equally dangerous.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I know people who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. That's 40 times the amount of smoke per day than a person who gets high once a day.
So you know how many joints a person smokes a day in terms of marijuana?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
The effects of marijuana last quite a bit longer than the effects of tobacco. So, marijuana is used less than tobacco.
Yes, the affects that make your judgment inept, and make you do stupid things lasts longer.

So why is drinking(which does that) legal? And weed isn’t?

Cigarettes kill you, so does weed. Why is one legal and not the other?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
If the woman consents to the beating, sure. That is, if they're engaged in some S&M acts or whatever. If the woman does NOT want to be beaten, then of course not.
I don’t think we as a society should accept the fact that women are beaten or physically abused. That would fall under assault, which is a criminal act. So no matter if she “consents” to the beating, the man will still be charged.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Sure we should. It's not the government's place to say what someone does to oneself.
I disagree. There is a line that needs to be drawn.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Bottom line: You see the government as a nanny or babysitter. You see the government assigning each person a bodyguard who keeps them from being hurt.
You are blowing things way out of proportion. I’m saying there needs to be a line drawn. I said they can be in the military, do small operations, and other minor things. I don’t think we should have a babysitter, but letting citizens have complete control over their lives isn’t always the best way to go. When the majority of our society is un-educated, and not-intelligent I think our Government should take steps to protect stupidity.

Originally posted by Overdose
So why is drinking(which does that) legal? And weed isn’t?

Cigarettes kill you, so does weed. Why is one legal and not the other?
EXACTLY
I don’t think we as a society should accept the fact that women are beaten or physically abused. That would fall under assault, which is a criminal act. So no matter if she “consents” to the beating, the man will still be charged.
Why? It's the woman's decision. It's her body, the government has no goddamned right to tell her she can't do something to HER OWN body. Besides, what if she derives pleasure from being abused?
I disagree. There is a line that needs to be drawn.
Yes, and that line is where you start to hurt others instead of yourself.
but letting citizens have complete control over their lives isn’t always the best way to go.
Uh, hello, that's the definition of liberty! And what is the preamble to the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Originally posted by BorgHunter
EXACTLY
Ummm, no. Not exactly. Why is one legal and not the other? Please, explain Borg?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Why? It's the woman's decision. It's her body, the government has no goddamned right to tell her she can't do something to HER OWN body. Besides, what if she derives pleasure from being abused?
Wrong. If this man is abusing her, physically, and even if she gets pleasure from it, it’s still technically a crime by the person hitting this women.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Yes, and that line is where you start to hurt others instead of yourself.
Sorry, incorrect.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

promote the general Welfare…one could say that I’m promoting the general welfare of the women because they are at a much higher risk of rape etc. in war.

Originally posted by Overdose
Ummm, no. Not exactly. Why is one legal and not the other? Please, explain Borg?
Beats the hell out of me; they all should be legal.
Wrong. If this man is abusing her, physically, and even if she gets pleasure from it, it’s still technically a crime by the person hitting this women.
Actually, I think S&M acts are not illegal.
Sorry, incorrect.
I'm glad to see that you're so arrogant as to think that my views regarding government are "incorrect." I've never called your views wrong...different than mine, yes, but not wrong.
promote the general Welfare...one could say that I’m promoting the general welfare of the women because they are at a much higher risk of rape etc. in war.
Sure, but at what cost?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong. If this man is abusing her, physically, and even if she gets pleasure from it, it’s still technically a crime by the person hitting this women.

Nope. The definition of battery is an unwanted touching of another.

Here's the problem with the "a line needs to be drawn somewhere" argument. 1) it doesn't give people any indication of what side of the line their behavior falls on, and 2) you may not like who ends up making the decision for you. In fact, with a pretty conservative administration in office I could certainly see the line being drawn on the side that removes any ability for your parents to authorize you to stay out dancing after curfew.

I will readily admit that currently society is probably working under the "let's draw a line somewhere" rule, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Nope. The definition of battery is an unwanted touching of another.
Then it would in some sense fall under the name of, self-multination. Even though she isn’t doing it personally, she is wanting it, and is getting pleasure out of it. Which would then put her in a mental institution.
Originally posted by LionelHutz

1) it doesn't give people any indication of what side of the line their behavior falls on
Okay, lets think. I’m all for women being in the military, equality, and the whole bit. Although, when putting men and women in a war/front-line situation it seems as if it would get rather chaotic. As we know, people tend to go crazy or off the deep end in war. And since men, for the most part are sex-deprived, would want to somehow have sex with a fellow women? Not to say all people in the military would do this, but I’m sure it would happen and rape would occur. How would you separate them? It would be very difficult to do so, since they would need to be separated. How would you like to do that? Tell me how you would come about doing that, and then I’ll agree that women should be able to serve on the front-lines with men, as long as it is separated.

Originally posted by Overdose
but I’m sure it would happen and rape would occur. How would you separate them? It would be very difficult to do so, since they would need to be separated. How would you like to do that? Tell me how you would come about doing that, and then I’ll agree that women should be able to serve on the front-lines with men, as long as it is separated.

I'm not going to tell you that it's not going to happen. I just think that women are more than capable of making the decision to take on that risk on their own.

Then it would in some sense fall under the name of, self-multination. Even though she isn’t doing it personally, she is wanting it, and is getting pleasure out of it. Which would then put her in a mental institution.
Then why the fuck aren't you in a mental institution for your deviant behavior?

I disagree. Our Government has rules, laws and restrictions on many things that decide what we can and cannot do.
Our government has laws and restrictions to keep other people from hurting you. The government should make NO decisions that we can't make ourselves. Please read the constitution, Locke's Social Contract and Rousseau's Social Contract before you attempt to tell me what a government can and cannot do. One think that they can't do is tell you what to do. We call that "totaltarianism".

OD - People who live alternate life styles are not mentally ill. You of all people should understand that. There are many people who are turned on by pain, they hook up with people who are turned on by giving pain. Tada - two consenting adults doing something that is no body's business.

Some states have restricions about this sort of thing, but MOST states deefine assault as unwanted touching.

ya bliblob, thats what I was saying a while back. the difference between conservatives and liberals is this: conservatives tell you what you cant do, liberals tell you what you have to do

And us Anarcho-Commies wanna give you a hug! Group hug! Yay!