Posted on 02/08/2016 5:40:11 AM PST by Kaslin
And those Cruz supporters are right. Drafting women didn’t happen in WW2. Why in the hell should it happen now, other than to satisfy a feminazi’s wet dream of “equality?”
Think the challenge will more likely come from wimpy guy that gets drafted, claiming discrimination - violation of equal protection clause, 14th Amendment.
This brings other questions, like if the draft is supposed to be fair and equal, that would mean we split the draft 50/50 between men and women.
Not THAT is a true feminist dream, a 50/50 military.
True: However, the Army and other services have lowered physical standards for women. This is going to get people killed.
Leave out the “going to.”
Replace it with “is.”
ya, that's what the scoffers said about gay marriage.
Agree 100%
Criticizing Cruz for the sake of criticizing Cruz? Yawn.
MENTIONING something isn’t “focusing” on it. The proposal was put out their and some of the RINOs running seem to like the idea so it was entirely proper to mention how it’s an idiotic idea. For all you know it was in response to a question.
You Trumpies, honest to God.
Lindsey Graham had military service, if you consider the JAG as part of the military. I agree with your take regarding having served at some level and understanding how the military works. All things being equal, I’ll take the guy who has stood in a US military formation somewhere.
Plenty of parents of daughters are concerned about the answers that Rubio and Bush gave the other night.
And that's even before the enemy closes their position.
They could always call out "King's X! I'm a lesbian!"
I'd go farther and restrict the franchise generally, creating something of a Spartiate state similar to the one Robert Heinlein imagined, and Hollywood lampooned (using lots and lots of Nazi imagery) in Starship Troopers.
I wouldn't let foreigners, deviants, women, addicts, or criminals (including people who grab boxes of Swisher Sweets) vote.
Women shouldn't serve in combat arms, combat aircraft, or ships. Any kind of ships. Gay BLT's? Forget it.
Oh, and just for the hell of it, I'd strip tax-exempt status from any "reconciling" church that ordains women or homosexuals. And don't even ask me about mosques. Anybody shows up for registration, or to pay their county taxes, or for jury duty, wearing dishdash, a burqa, an abaya, or niqab, or hijab, or jellaba, or any other form of Moslem dress, will find his ass on the next USAF transport headed for the Middle East, to get jumped at 25,000 feet over western Iraq with a reserve chute (just good enough not to kill him/her).
Since we're all just posting what we want anyway.
I am a woman and I object strongly to your not letting women vote. Sure there are some women that shouldn’t vote, but then so are some men.
Yes, I know you're a woman, and there are some women who are as intelligent and good-looking as you are.
However, the only way to handle the problem (remember Miss Obamaphone? How about Snooki? Madonna Ciccone? [she doesn't care]) is to make a categorical exclusion, then get the good ones back. Sort of like Trump's immigration solution. Or is it Cruz's? But the categorical ejection is the only way to purge the voter base of what's being going on since World War II with the rapid decay of national character, a lot of which is due to feminization of benchmarks and concerns.
I don't say that idly. Look at the overnight news. ABC's late-night news used to be hard news, headline news. Diplomats demarched, politicians wrangled, armies marched and fleets sailed. Knowledgeable journos reviewed the national order of battle in primetime news "white paper" programs, or looked at social issues the same way: Shouldn't Negroes vote in Alabama? If they aren't, why not? And so on.
Now? Puppies gambol and wag tails. Baby dolphins nuzzle their keepers, baby pandas climb trees and chomp adorably on bamboo shoots. That's "news" under the influence of the distaff side and their priorities, which are fascinating to the merchant class. Doctors talk to women about children, children romp and play, babies slurp contentedly on pacifiers and grandads' doting thumbs.
Get the picture?
There is, with woman suffrage, a certain inattentiveness to necessary issues, and a preference for soft news and soft issues -- for "soft power" as it were. Well, soft power is great, but it isn't going to do squat to help us deal with megalomaniacs and mad dogs. That's the point, and it's a billboard in your face for anyone who thinks to look for it.
Losing focus is the best way to lose the civilizational competition. That's my point.
I'll understand if you disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.