Boycott the Super Bowl
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm
Boycott the Super Bowl
I don't know about you but I was shocked and outraged by this story ..
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--repor ... 46715.html
In the year 2013 it's time to put an end to this kind of bigotry in America once and for all. Openly gay people can now serve in the military protecting our freedom from those who want to take it away so why are they not welcome with open arms in the National Football League?
And what about women? A woman can now serve on the front lines of combat in the U.S. Military but she cannot quarterback a football team?
The time has come for Americans to wake up and realize that the National Football League is antithetical to the true American values of equality that our forefathers fought and died for.
(I like Kapernick and predict the 49er's will win).
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--repor ... 46715.html
In the year 2013 it's time to put an end to this kind of bigotry in America once and for all. Openly gay people can now serve in the military protecting our freedom from those who want to take it away so why are they not welcome with open arms in the National Football League?
And what about women? A woman can now serve on the front lines of combat in the U.S. Military but she cannot quarterback a football team?
The time has come for Americans to wake up and realize that the National Football League is antithetical to the true American values of equality that our forefathers fought and died for.
(I like Kapernick and predict the 49er's will win).
Last edited by notsheigetz on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This space available for rent.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Keep in mind you are dealing with a professional that involves slamming your head into other peoples heads for money.
everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Yes, I did mean to say person-cott, thank you.TennPaGa wrote: I assume you meant to say "person-cott".
At age 63 I do not recall anything in my whole life that I remember enjoying with my clothes on more than playing football.
If I had to compete against open gays and women I'm not sure it would have been the same but who knows? Back then it wouldn't have felt patriotic and like the right thing to do but we've come a long way.
Last edited by notsheigetz on Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This space available for rent.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I don't know, all that bending over...
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I was a center, which I don't think you can beat for the most intimate position on the field...
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I get the impression that being gay in the black community is a bit more challenging than in the white community.
I also think that we are on the cusp of a generational shift when it comes to being gay. In 10 years I think that professional sports will probably have a different attitude toward this stuff.
I remember a spoof I saw one time and it involved an all-gay pro football team called "The San Francisco 69ers."
I always thought that was really funny in a Beavis and Butthead sort of way.
I also think that we are on the cusp of a generational shift when it comes to being gay. In 10 years I think that professional sports will probably have a different attitude toward this stuff.
I remember a spoof I saw one time and it involved an all-gay pro football team called "The San Francisco 69ers."
I always thought that was really funny in a Beavis and Butthead sort of way.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
And what is the purpose of the military? And putting women on the front lines serves that purpose?notsheigetz wrote:
A woman can now serve on the front lines of combat in the U.S. Military
Women do many things better than men, but this is just liberal insanity.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I don't get it either. They have studied this. Keep in mind that combat troops carry on average about 75 lbs of gear and amour. That can't be easy for a woman to do, purely from a physical standpoint.Benko wrote:And what is the purpose of the military? And putting women on the front lines serves that purpose?notsheigetz wrote:
A woman can now serve on the front lines of combat in the U.S. Military
Women do many things better than men, but this is just liberal insanity.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
The thing is, women have been serving on the front lines for years unofficially, and reports I've seen appear to indicate that they perform similarly to their male colleagues. All this does is make the official policy match the reality of the situation.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
My platoon was involved in the most enemy contact in our entire RSTA squadron, as stated by our commander after the deployment. We were a support platoon. So the women in my platoon were involved in just as much/more combat as the soldiers who went on "direct combat" missions (by which I assume you mean dismounted patrols?).Simonjester wrote: i suspect there is actually quite a bit of difference between being on a mission that ends up engaged in combat, and being in the front line troops that go out on combat missions, i know it sounds like semantics, but while the actual combat part may be similar or the same, the hardships and conditions are quite different for combat troops, just after this topic hit the news last week a solders description of the ride into Iraq was going around, the level of toughness and endurance of all things filthy humiliating and painfully is beyond anything i would have imagined.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Simonjester wrote: i don't actually doubt a women's ability to fight or see any reason to pull them off of missions where their being there is not harming the operations or has already been integrated, i think it is more a question of logistics. here is the letter i referred to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html i have a hard time seeing how women could be integrated into the type of mission or the conditions this guy describers. Maybe it can be done, but if it can, it can't harm the ability of the military to get the job done and it has to be cost effective, keeping in mind all that is being done just to prove some academic ideology of equality, the military has no shortage of gung ho men willing to fill this need.
Come on, we're talking about the government here! Where political expediency takes precedence over common sense, always.Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
But, as long as women know fully what they're potentially getting themselves into, it's hard to say they don't have a right. And not all women are heterosexual, feminized types.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
It's not easy for men to carry around 75 pounds either, not without training.clacy wrote: I don't get it either. They have studied this. Keep in mind that combat troops carry on average about 75 lbs of gear and amour. That can't be easy for a woman to do, purely from a physical standpoint.
Lots of women do it all day, without any training. Some 4 year olds can weigh 100 pounds. Add their paraphernalia and it can be a lot more.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
A 4 year old in the 95th percentile for weight would weigh about 45lbs. Just sayin'...smurff wrote: Some 4 year olds can weigh 100 pounds. Add their paraphernalia and it can be a lot more.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
There are some women who could play middle linebacker for pro football teams that run a lot. How about the gov't mandate that 50% of all middle linebackers must be women and if not the NFL gets fined?
Women and men are equivalent.
The earth is cooling..oops warming...oops changing...
Guns cause violence....
Women and men are equivalent.
The earth is cooling..oops warming...oops changing...
Guns cause violence....
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I don't think the government is mandating that 50% of soldiers be women. They're allowing women who are already enlisted to participate in previously male-only combat roles.Benko wrote: There are some women who could play middle linebacker for pro football teams that run a lot. How about the gov't mandate that 50% of all middle linebackers must be women and if not the NFL gets fined?
Women and men are equivalent.
The earth is cooling..oops warming...oops changing...
Guns cause violence....
Mandate != permission
Last edited by Pointedstick on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
This is combat so the only thing that matters is ability (potential ability) to do the job. If women are really able to do the job as well as men (I am skeptical of that for combat roles) then I would have no problem with it. But that kind of thought process i.e. can they do the job as well as men is not how liberals (who run everything) think.Pointedstick wrote: They're allowing women who are already enlisted to participate in previously male-only combat roles.
Mandate ? permission
Really anything that would weaken the military liberals would be for (this is the consistent behavior of liberals for decades) which further contributes to my doubts.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
This isn't some liberal conspiracy. Women have already been serving in combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan by virtue of the fact that fighting can occur anywhere in a place with ill-defined battle lines, and the distinction between combat and non-combat roles is breaking down as a result of it.Benko wrote:This is combat so the only thing that matters is ability (potential ability) to do the job. If women are really able to do the job as well as men (I am skeptical of that for combat roles) then I would have no problem with it. But that kind of thought process i.e. can they do the job as well as men is not how liberals (who run everything) think.Pointedstick wrote: They're allowing women who are already enlisted to participate in previously male-only combat roles.
Mandate != permission
Really anything that would weaken the military liberals would be for (this is the consistent behavior of liberals for decades) which further contributes to my doubts.
Read the reports. Women fight just fine. This isn't some grand liberal social experiment; it's simply acknowledging what everyone overseas already knows, which is that women who serve support roles--like embedded translators--are often called upon to fight alongside their male colleagues and they do a fine job of it, from everything I've heard, though I'm willing to be open-minded and entertain dissenting views.
In the end, if women turn out to be poorer fighters than men, they'll get killed in higher numbers, won't be promoted, and most will probably avoid the toughest combat roles (nobody wants to die). Even if you have grave doubts, it's largely a self-solving problem.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
The accommodations needed to keep them officially out of combat (even though they ARE engaged in combat) are probably greater than any that might be needed after the unofficial is made official. There are also legal and ethical issues as well: How long can the USA get away with saying they prohibit females from combat when the reality (and the nature of war itself) is that soldiers in the field will of necessity become involved in combat, no matter which gender?Simonjester wrote: i really don't doubt women can and have done a good job in combat, in my mind it is (as i said before) a question of logistics, what accommodation need to be made for women to serve in "every roll", and are those accommodation harmful to getting the job done? and are they cost effective for the limited value added of being able to say "we have women doing all the same jobs as men"..
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Yeah, that's true. But I've been looking at lots of documentaries lately, and it's amazing to me how big Americans are getting.flyingpylon wrote:A 4 year old in the 95th percentile for weight would weigh about 45lbs. Just sayin'...smurff wrote: Some 4 year olds can weigh 100 pounds. Add their paraphernalia and it can be a lot more.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
I've read that of the thousands of near frontline combat jobs they could apply for,only about 150 women have asked to fill them.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Simonjester wrote:there is a big difference between making what they are already doing, and situations they are already in that have already had the details worked out, legitimate, and moving them into new roles just to say "we have".smurff wrote: The accommodations needed to keep them officially out of combat (even though they ARE engaged in combat) are probably greater than any that might be needed after the unofficial is made official. There are also legal and ethical issues as well: How long can the USA get away with saying they prohibit females from combat when the reality (and the nature of war itself) is that soldiers in the field will of necessity become involved in combat, no matter which gender?
It was my understanding they are trying to do the latter not the former. maybe the "rules on paper" are out dated, but as far as i know women in combat is done, accepted and common knowledge. Putting women in every area of combat, or in specifically difficult types of combat is a pointless and potentially harmful exercise in warping the reality of war to fit a questionable ideological goal.
the alpha and omega of war or battles is winning, if they want to fight and it doesn't harm winning then let them, but forcing equality is not the military's job "winning is"
party platform stuff that is. Or maybe they just read it to their kids with nursery rhythms.Simonjester wrote: warping the reality of_____to fit a..........ideological goal.
This was what I was trying to say. Unfortunatly our society has been so contaminated by PC, that I don't trust that any part of to be free of its influence e.g. we would rather risk a bomb be blown up then profile.Simonjester wrote: the alpha and omega of war or battles is winning, if they want to fight and it doesn't harm winning then let them, but forcing equality is not the military's job "winning is"
We have created a society that is so pervasively PC that I doubt any military person e.g. general or higher up makes any military plans without considering the PC consequences.
The long term future for such a society i.e. a society where PC is more important that e.g. military victory, preventing bombs from blowing up, etc. are obvious (see James Burnham).
Last edited by Benko on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:26 pm
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Can't we let the military experiment with women in combat and reassess later? Introducing them in small numbers to test the viability of a combat role and looking for unintended consequences with an implementation plan developed by the MILITARY rather than a bureaucrat seems like the most rational course to me. I have a hard time imagining why sufficient training can't enable a woman to fire a rifle as well as a man, but then again I'm not military so I don't pretend to have extensive knowledge regarding what combat actually entails.
In short, I'm for equality whenever possible and hate to see our military turn anyone away who wants to serve. However I detest the idea that politicians who have never served a day in their life know more about what makes an effective fighting force than our officers. This should be a military decision, but we should force them to justify their position. If the military decides women are a detriment in combat, let them prove it. If they decide that they are a valuable addition, let them prove that too.
In short, I'm for equality whenever possible and hate to see our military turn anyone away who wants to serve. However I detest the idea that politicians who have never served a day in their life know more about what makes an effective fighting force than our officers. This should be a military decision, but we should force them to justify their position. If the military decides women are a detriment in combat, let them prove it. If they decide that they are a valuable addition, let them prove that too.
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
It is my understanding that they are focused on doing neither, but may accomplish both. A law allowing women in combat would not go forward without the approval of all the branches of the military. There was no PC-Devil whispering in the ears of congress or the president to make them spring this change on TPTB.Simonjester wrote: there is a big difference between making what they are already doing, and situations they are already in that have already had the details worked out, legitimate, and moving them into new roles just to say "we have".
It was my understanding they are trying to do the latter not the former.
Unless there are plans to bring back the draft, there will not be enough men to fill all the combat roles in the future. That leaves them with several options:
Fight fewer wars
Fight smarter wars
Hire more mercenaries for combat
Remove restrictions on combat related to gender
All of these are possible, but the last one has happened. There have already been massive field experiments with USA female soldiers in combat, and they have been underway at least 20 years.
I think it was since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we've been told it's only a minority of American families with at least one male member in the service. Before the 1960s and 70s, it was probably every family. Serving in the military, including the possibility for combat, used to be a rite of passage for young men in America. What's stopping men from joining the Army to do combat?
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Don't vote. It only encourages them!TennPaGa wrote: That said, it is clear that, in America, one cannot actually have a foreign policy debate. These people are all buffoons.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Boycott the Super Bowl
Truth?smurff wrote: I think it was since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we've been told it's only a minority of American families with at least one male member in the service. Before the 1960s and 70s, it was probably every family. Serving in the military, including the possibility for combat, used to be a rite of passage for young men in America. What's stopping men from joining the Army to do combat?
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!