If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Newt defends women in combat and says Rick Santorum completely misunderstands modern warfare   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 161
    More: Hero, Rick Santorum, women in combat, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Newt Gingrich, newts, Santorum completely  
•       •       •

2451 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Feb 2012 at 9:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-15 07:37:58 AM
Shiat, this deserves to go green simply because it's a Santorum headline that's not cramming some tired reference up our asses.
 
2012-02-15 08:28:54 AM
You think Newt understands modern warfare? At all?
 
2012-02-15 08:31:16 AM
Modern Warfare 2 or 3?
 
2012-02-15 08:31:22 AM
Newt understands lessons learned from pictures of hot IDF girls
 
2012-02-15 08:36:57 AM

rwhamann: Shiat, this deserves to go green simply because it's a Santorum headline that's not cramming some tired reference up our asses.


files.sharenator.com
 
2012-02-15 08:43:27 AM
Newt's mom makes him hot pockets so he doesn't have to take a break from pwning n00bs
 
2012-02-15 08:49:29 AM
Soo... just to be clear here: not being as stupid as Santorum is heroic?
 
2012-02-15 08:50:50 AM
This is just Newt waiting for other candidates to trip and then opportunistically using their mistake as a spear to jab them with.
 
2012-02-15 08:56:58 AM
There are some combat related jobs that women can do, and do admirably. There are also ones that, on average, they can't do.

The correct answer, derived by my amazing brain, is to use a single set of physical fitness standards for a particular job, and require both men and women to meet those standards. That way you aren't excluding women who would otherwise be valuable members of a team, while still maintaining the high standards expected.

For example, artillery and infantry troops are often called upon to carry heavy loads that require upper body strength. This isn't normally something that women have, so the majority of women would be excluded by virtue of not being able to lift X pounds and carry it 100 yards in Y seconds, or able to march X miles with a pack that weighs Y pounds in Z hours. But for the exceptions to the general rule that *CAN* handle that, they get to do it. Those standards would obviously have to be met by the men also.

It would be 'unfair', in the sense that most women would have a much tougher time than most men meeting those standards. However, we are talking about war here, and war isn't fair, and military readiness *MUST* take precedence over considerations of political correctness.

Having said that, there are plenty of combat positions where raw strength is less important than, say, brains and endurance. You'd have to look at each specialty and develop different requirements for them if necessary, in addition to the normal baseline PT requirements (which would remain segregated as they are now, one standard for men, the other for women). Obviously, for non-combat jobs, you wouldn't need to develop PT standards beyond what they have now.
 
2012-02-15 08:59:01 AM

No YOU'RE a Towel: Soo... just to be clear here: not being as stupid as Santorum is heroic?


Well, as far as Republicans go...
 
2012-02-15 08:59:34 AM

No YOU'RE a Towel: Soo... just to be clear here: not being as stupid as Santorum is heroic?


It's a GOP presidential candidate, so maybe subby was grading on a curve?
 
2012-02-15 09:03:18 AM

No YOU'RE a Towel: Soo... just to be clear here: not being as stupid as Santorum is heroic?


When you're a Republican candidate, just talking about soldiers is heroic. You don't have to have ever been one.
 
2012-02-15 09:03:56 AM
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."

Newt on women in combat, before he apparently changed his mind...
 
2012-02-15 09:04:41 AM

Aarontology: Newt's mom makes him hot pockets so he doesn't have to take a break from pwning n00bs


Well, she died in 2003, but I heard she had quite a hot pocket herself back in the day. Married at 16, you know.
 
2012-02-15 09:05:34 AM
I'll just leave this here:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

-- Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, "Renewing American Civilization."


Source^ (among many)
 
2012-02-15 09:05:36 AM

dittybopper: There are some combat related jobs that women can do, and do admirably. There are also ones that, on average, they can't do.

The correct answer, derived by my amazing brain, is to use a single set of physical fitness standards for a particular job, and require both men and women to meet those standards. That way you aren't excluding women who would otherwise be valuable members of a team, while still maintaining the high standards expected.

For example, artillery and infantry troops are often called upon to carry heavy loads that require upper body strength. This isn't normally something that women have, so the majority of women would be excluded by virtue of not being able to lift X pounds and carry it 100 yards in Y seconds, or able to march X miles with a pack that weighs Y pounds in Z hours. But for the exceptions to the general rule that *CAN* handle that, they get to do it. Those standards would obviously have to be met by the men also.

It would be 'unfair', in the sense that most women would have a much tougher time than most men meeting those standards. However, we are talking about war here, and war isn't fair, and military readiness *MUST* take precedence over considerations of political correctness.

Having said that, there are plenty of combat positions where raw strength is less important than, say, brains and endurance. You'd have to look at each specialty and develop different requirements for them if necessary, in addition to the normal baseline PT requirements (which would remain segregated as they are now, one standard for men, the other for women). Obviously, for non-combat jobs, you wouldn't need to develop PT standards beyond what they have now.


My knowledge of military physical requirements is non-existent, but this sounds like it makes sense. I would dare to say that there are probably situations where a woman's dexterity and agility would rate higher than a man's that could play into the advantage of our forces as well .
 
2012-02-15 09:06:06 AM
I think Newt is just looking to the military as a dumping ground for wives.
 
2012-02-15 09:07:11 AM
Never mind, I see masercot just covered that point.

/Is that supposed to be a reference to lasercats?
 
2012-02-15 09:07:18 AM
Newt Ginrich is... right? Excuse me while I look out a window and see the what color the sky is in bizaro world.
 
2012-02-15 09:07:30 AM

No YOU'RE a Towel: Soo... just to be clear here: not being as stupid as Santorum is heroic?


For normal people? No.

For Newt? Yes.
 
2012-02-15 09:08:12 AM
I think Newt is trawling for a 20 year old to blow him.
 
2012-02-15 09:09:42 AM
Newt "Women get infections in fox holes" seems to have learned his lesson: that the Liberals were right when they were pushing for greater roles for women in the military, a change he initially fought against. Or, he's just taking a moment to kick an opponent while he's on the ground. Either/Or.
 
2012-02-15 09:09:56 AM
We need an all-female combat unit to blaze the trail. Kind of like the Tuskeegee Airmen, or the 442nd Infantry Regiment, but way sexier.
 
2012-02-15 09:10:17 AM

cettin: My knowledge of military physical requirements is non-existent, but this sounds like it makes sense. I would dare to say that there are probably situations where a woman's dexterity and agility would rate higher than a man's that could play into the advantage of our forces as well .


And, they get a +1 to Charisma.

/Roll for initiative
 
2012-02-15 09:10:53 AM
Newt has lived his life with the motto, "love is a battlefield," so I tend to believe him.
 
2012-02-15 09:10:58 AM
Women make excellent snipers.
 
2012-02-15 09:11:11 AM

Arkanaut: I'll just leave this here:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

-- Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, "Renewing American Civilization."

Source^ (among many)


Just wait until the Infinite Stratos is created.
 
2012-02-15 09:12:08 AM
Giraffe hunting? What the fark does that mean?
 
2012-02-15 09:12:09 AM
This is what I understand from Modern Warfare: If you are trying to take out a terrorist, use a missile and take out his entire posse and not a .50 cal that only blows his arm off.

/would've prevented the assault on BurgerTown.
 
2012-02-15 09:12:26 AM

RyogaM: Newt "Women get infections in fox holes" seems to have learned his lesson: that the Liberals were right when they were pushing for greater roles for women in the military, a change he initially fought against. Or, he's just taking a moment to kick an opponent while he's on the ground. Either/Or.



Or, he's talking about wars on the moon.
 
2012-02-15 09:12:57 AM
Women in combat...

Because there is nothing like having a hot pastrami on rye hand delivered.
 
2012-02-15 09:13:40 AM

Ennuipoet: rwhamann: Shiat, this deserves to go green simply because it's a Santorum headline that's not cramming some tired reference up our asses.

[files.sharenator.com image 400x400]


I've always been a little bit disturbed by that poster. Is he cross-eyed or something? Is he high on smack? Why does his face and eyes look so weird? That may have been an intentional aspect of this piece of propaganda to encourage enlistment.
 
2012-02-15 09:13:51 AM
psyops?

l.yimg.com
 
2012-02-15 09:13:53 AM

DarnoKonrad: Or, he's talking about wars on the moon.


The Out of this World War, if you will.
 
2012-02-15 09:15:38 AM
What is the obsession with upper body strength in the armed forces people seem to have?
 
2012-02-15 09:15:50 AM

dittybopper: There are some combat related jobs that women can do, and do admirably. There are also ones that, on average, they can't do.

The correct answer, derived by my amazing brain, is to use a single set of physical fitness standards for a particular job, and require both men and women to meet those standards. That way you aren't excluding women who would otherwise be valuable members of a team, while still maintaining the high standards expected.

For example, artillery and infantry troops are often called upon to carry heavy loads that require upper body strength. This isn't normally something that women have, so the majority of women would be excluded by virtue of not being able to lift X pounds and carry it 100 yards in Y seconds, or able to march X miles with a pack that weighs Y pounds in Z hours. But for the exceptions to the general rule that *CAN* handle that, they get to do it. Those standards would obviously have to be met by the men also.


AKA the plot to G.I. Jane.
 
2012-02-15 09:16:02 AM

Arkanaut: I'll just leave this here:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

-- Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, "Renewing American Civilization."

Source^ (among many)


Wait, that's REAL??

Hunt giraffes???

Newt does not strike me as a man who is frustrated by sitting in a chair all the time.
 
2012-02-15 09:17:33 AM

Jake Havechek: Giraffe hunting? What the fark does that mean?


That's when you go hunt a giraffe. You use a weapon of some kind, like a gun, bow, or knife and physically harm a giraffe to death until it dies.
 
2012-02-15 09:17:39 AM

Arkanaut: I'll just leave this here:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

-- Adjunct Professor Newt Gingrich, Reinhardt College, January 7, 1995, "Renewing American Civilization."

Source^ (among many)


I think the best part of that is that giraffes have no natural predators. Nobody is driven biologically to hunt giraffes because they're an animal that can cave your skull in without even having most of their body anywhere near you. That's just such a random animal reference to use, it's almost as if it's a euphemism for dumb or suicidal. "When Bob got to drinking we tried to get him back home but he was driven to hunt giraffes."
 
2012-02-15 09:18:21 AM

PsyLord: This is what I understand from Modern Warfare: If you are trying to take out a terrorist, use a missile and take out his entire posse and not a .50 cal that only blows his arm off.

/would've prevented the assault on BurgerTown.


I hated that mission! Took me at least ten tries.
 
2012-02-15 09:18:47 AM

casual disregard: Newt does not strike me as a man who is frustrated by sitting in a chair all the time.


He is if that chair is in the back of Air Force One.
 
2012-02-15 09:19:27 AM
Newt Gingrich: Moon Warrior and Giraffe Hunter!
 
2012-02-15 09:19:57 AM
Newt wants women to be shot and killed!!!
 
2012-02-15 09:20:06 AM

Sofa King Smart: psyops?

[l.yimg.com image 630x284]


Wait, is his real name Faith? That's almost as bad as Newt.
 
2012-02-15 09:20:20 AM

dittybopper: For example, artillery and infantry troops are often called upon to carry heavy loads that require upper body strength. This isn't normally something that women have, so the majority of women would be excluded by virtue of not being able to lift X pounds and carry it 100 yards in Y seconds, or able to march X miles with a pack that weighs Y pounds in Z hours. But for the exceptions to the general rule that *CAN* handle that, they get to do it. Those standards would obviously have to be met by the men also.


What about bears?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-02-15 09:20:24 AM

sprawl15: Jake Havechek: Giraffe hunting? What the fark does that mean?

That's when you go hunt a giraffe. You use a weapon of some kind, like a gun, bow, or knife and physically harm a giraffe to death until it dies.


Wrong, it is a euphemism for banging tall interns.
 
2012-02-15 09:20:31 AM
Aw, that's cute that suddenly he's an advocate for women, after so many years arguing that they shouldn't be near combat. Of course, Newt is really past his prime, so really, the chances of him finding some sweet soldier woman to take him in after he cheats on the heiress are pretty low, so I can see him going with this now...
 
2012-02-15 09:20:40 AM
Women serve in combat in many countries around the world. I would like to know why Ricky thinks american women in the military are inferior to those in other countries.

why do you have such little regard for the soldiers in our military mr. santorum?
 
2012-02-15 09:21:35 AM

cettin: My knowledge of military physical requirements is non-existent, but this sounds like it makes sense. I would dare to say that there are probably situations where a woman's dexterity and agility would rate higher than a man's that could play into the advantage of our forces as well .


As it stands now (or, as it stood when I served, and I don't think it has changed much), there are two different physical training (PT) standards for men and women. Men have to do more push-ups, and run faster, than the women in the same age group. This is a valid recognition that men, on average, are bigger and stronger than women. This is why the Olympics are segregated by sex, otherwise the men would dominate almost every single event.

For non-combat related jobs, it's a perfectly fine system, and I wouldn't change it. But if women want to be grunts, tankers, or cannon-cockers, they should be expected to perform at the same physical level as the men in those fields.

For some combat jobs, too, it wouldn't necessarily apply. A fighter pilot doesn't need raw upper body strength, for example.
 
2012-02-15 09:21:41 AM

MFAWG: What is the obsession with upper body strength in the armed forces people seem to have?


I think the extent of many people's knowledge on the subject "women have less upper body strength."

Now please indulge me while I offer my brilliant, insightful observations about how some NBA players seem to be taller than others.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report