On Sun, 3 May 2020 16:19:25 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 5/3/2020 3:56 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>>>
>>> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>>> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>>> his memory like that.
>>>
>>> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>>> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>>> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>>>
>>> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>>> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>>> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>>>
>>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>>
>>> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>>> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>>
>> You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>And my father about that "ignorant peanut farmer" (Jimmy Carter).

Gary, control that arm!

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> > >> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > >>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
> > >>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
> > >>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> > >>>
> > >>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get
> > drafted >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often
> > means >>> combat for most.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
> > >> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an
> > equal >> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if
> > they want >> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is
> > the primary >> purpose of the military, they should be assigned
> > there too.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging
> > > in combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed
> > > and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American
> > > boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
> > >
> >
> > Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It
> > is 2020 and they should be 50-50.
>
> Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and
> women in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio
> of combat infantry positions be 50-50?
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Exactly. Navy is more even but not 50% hence no expectation of 50% of
anything. 'GI Jane' aside in the movie, we don't have any female seals
because none have made it. We do have plenty of female SB (closest
thing to a Seal). Generally, we females are representative based on
percentage across the job areas of the Navy. Higher percent than Army
by far. I'll check but I think it is 30-35%?

cshenk wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > >> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > > >>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
> > > >>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
> > > >>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get
> > > drafted >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often
> > > means >>> combat for most.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
> > > >> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an
> > > equal >> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if
> > > they want >> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is
> > > the primary >> purpose of the military, they should be assigned
> > > there too.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging
> > > > in combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed
> > > > and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American
> > > > boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It
> > > is 2020 and they should be 50-50.
> >
> > Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and
> > women in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio
> > of combat infantry positions be 50-50?
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Exactly. Navy is more even but not 50% hence no expectation of 50% of
> anything. 'GI Jane' aside in the movie, we don't have any female seals
> because none have made it. We do have plenty of female SB (closest
> thing to a Seal). Generally, we females are representative based on
> percentage across the job areas of the Navy. Higher percent than Army
> by far. I'll check but I think it is 30-35%?


Of course, I will follow up regarding *******s in the military, these days it's like a "Bull Dykes Gone Wild!" tacky reality show, pretty disgusting!

(grin)

cshenk wrote:
> cshenk wrote:
>
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>>>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
>>>>>>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
>>>>>>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get
>>>> drafted >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often
>>>> means >>> combat for most.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
>>>>>> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an
>>>> equal >> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if
>>>> they want >> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is
>>>> the primary >> purpose of the military, they should be assigned
>>>> there too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging
>>>>> in combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed
>>>>> and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American
>>>>> boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It
>>>> is 2020 and they should be 50-50.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and
>>> women in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio
>>> of combat infantry positions be 50-50?
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Exactly. Navy is more even but not 50% hence no expectation of 50% of
>> anything. 'GI Jane' aside in the movie, we don't have any female seals
>> because none have made it. We do have plenty of female SB (closest
>> thing to a Seal). Generally, we females are representative based on
>> percentage across the job areas of the Navy. Higher percent than Army
>> by far. I'll check but I think it is 30-35%?
>
>
> Of course, I will follow up regarding *******s in the military, these days it's like a "Bull Dykes Gone Wild!" tacky reality show, pretty disgusting!
>
> (grin)
>

Popeye Katz claims all navy officers are homosexual. It'll be
interesting to see if your research bears him out.

On 2020-05-03 3:56 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
>>> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
>>> the office.
>>
>> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>>
>> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>> his memory like that.
>>
>> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>>
>> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>>
>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>
>> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>>
>> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>
> You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.

I can imagine. According to Gary, he should have been more respectful
because he was the president.

On 2020-05-03 3:59 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
>>>>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
>>>>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get drafted
>>>>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often means
>>>>> combat for most.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
>>>> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>>>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want
>>>> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary
>>>> purpose of the military, they should be assigned there too.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in
>>> combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and
>>> maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in
>>> combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
>>>
>>
>> Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It is
>> 2020 and they should be 50-50.
>
> Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and women
> in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio of combat
> infantry positions be 50-50?
>

Equal rights. Women want equality everywhere else. They want equal pay,
to be equally represented in management, company boards and in politics.
I thought there had been some sort of unwritten law on military
promotion that emphasized combat experience.

On 5/3/2020 1:32 PM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
>> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
>> the office.
>
> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>
> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
> his memory like that.
>
Here you go again with that "princess" nonsense. Hell, he wasn't in the
country when I was born. I never set eyes on him until I was a year
old. He brought me a teddy bear. When I was in the 1st and 2nd grade
he was in Vietnam.

You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
wouldn't have liked doing it.

> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>
You have no idea. He took orders from his immediate superior officers.
The President didn't show up to give orders on the battlefield. You
also assumed (very incorrectly) that because he was a commissioned
officer he sat behind a desk. The two Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, a
Bronze Star and Legion of Merit medals contradict that. Would you like
to see them? I could take a picture.

Or I could just show you this:

https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/40764

He's even mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Sat behind a desk my ass.

> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>
He'd give a crisp salute because that's what Marines do. He'd also be
thinking "what an idiot".

> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>
"Semper Fi" has nothing to do with who is President. It means "Always
Faithful" (or "Always Loyal"). To the country, not to the President.

> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>
> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>
I don't like it and I know my father wouldn't like it, either.

Jill

On 2020-05-03 5:55 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 5/3/2020 1:32 PM, Gary wrote:

>> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>> his memory like that.
>>
> Here you go again with that "princess" nonsense.Â* Hell, he wasn't in the
> country when I was born.Â* I never set eyes on him until I was a year
> old.Â* He brought me a teddy bear.Â* When I was in the 1st and 2nd grade
> he was in Vietnam.
>
> You didn't know my father, Gary.Â* He wasn't shy about expressing his
> opinions.Â* You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief.Â* I did.
> Was that respectful?Â* Nope.Â* He would have saluted him, sure.Â* He
> wouldn't have liked doing it.

Marines swear to protect the Constitution. There is that bit in there
about following the orders of the president but he would not have been
getting orders directly.


>> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>>
> You have no idea.Â* He took orders from his immediate superior officers.
> The President didn't show up to give orders on the battlefield.Â* You
> also assumed (very incorrectly) that because he was a commissioned
> officer he sat behind a desk.Â* The two Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, a
> Bronze Star and Legion of Merit medals contradict that.Â* Would you like
> to see them?Â* I could take a picture.
>
> Or I could just show you this:
>
> https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/40764

I am impressed Jill. You have good reason to be proud of him,


>
>
>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>
> "Semper Fi" has nothing to do with who is President. It means "Always
> Faithful" (or "Always Loyal").Â* To the country, not to the President.
>
>> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>>
>> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>>
> I don't like it and I know my father wouldn't like it, either.

I was a little surprised when my father was talking about his prized
possession. His parents and been born in England and at the time he was
born all Canadians were British, but he never seemed to be a staunch
royalist. His most cherished possession was his DFM. It would have
been a DFC if he had been an officer at the time, and he was
commissioned later on. What made it so valuable to him was that it had
been touched by the king.

On 2020 May 1, , dsi1 wrote
(in >):

> Yoose guys are into body shaming. What is yoose - 14 year old girls? You're
> also collecting photos of me. That's creepy/psycho. Also, your photo editing
> leaves much to be desired.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared...3nnI5ntFFYKHu6
> kE8o

Kudos to the guy that stuffed that T. Rex! Thatd be a job. Whered he
get it? I usually shoot mine in Central Nevada, but the limit is two.

leo

On 2020 May 2, , U.S. Janet B. wrote
(in >):

> from the accounts that I have read, a bear doesn't give you all that
> much room to get the barrel up to fire.. That's why bear spray comes
> in a holster with a trigger

Paraphrased poorly from a years ago Usenet post on a mythical glitter bear
repellant:

Glitter Bear Repellant identifies the bear that you had to spray.
Black bear: Look for a bear that has glitter on its head and chest.
Grizzly bear: Look for signs of glitter in its scat.

Something like that.

leo

On Sun, 03 May 2020 16:54:57 -0700, Leo >
wrote:

>On 2020 May 2, , U.S. Janet B. wrote
>(in >):
>
>> from the accounts that I have read, a bear doesn't give you all that
>> much room to get the barrel up to fire.. That's why bear spray comes
>> in a holster with a trigger
>
>Paraphrased poorly from a years ago Usenet post on a mythical glitter bear
>repellant:
>
>Glitter Bear Repellant identifies the bear that you had to spray.
>Black bear: Look for a bear that has glitter on its head and chest.
>Grizzly bear: Look for signs of glitter in its scat.
>
>Something like that.
>
>leo
>
yea, I get it

On 5/3/2020 10:55 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 5/3/2020 1:32 PM, Gary wrote:

>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>
> "Semper Fi" has nothing to do with who is President. It means "Always
> Faithful" (or "Always Loyal").Â* To the country, not to the President.
>
Yes. To the _country_.
The orange man is only loyal to himself, not the country, and expects
his followers to be loyal to him.

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-10, Leo wrote:
> On 2020 May 1, , dsi1 wrote
> (in >):
>
> > Yoose guys are into body shaming. What is yoose - 14 year old girls? You're
> > also collecting photos of me. That's creepy/psycho. Also, your photo editing
> > leaves much to be desired.
> >
> > https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared...3nnI5ntFFYKHu6
> > kE8o
>
> Kudos to the guy that stuffed that T. Rex! Thatd be a job. Whered he
> get it? I usually shoot mine in Central Nevada, but the limit is two.
>
> leo

Stuffed? 🤨

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> >>
> >> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
> >> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
> >> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> >
> > Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
> > Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
> > that often means combat for most.
> >
>
> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
> the military, they should be assigned there too.

One thing I know about the military is this:
If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
advance to high rank, they need some
combat experience in their record.
Attending the military academies right after high school
damn sure doesn't hurt either.

I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> > Gary wrote:
> >> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
> >> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
> >> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
> >
> > You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> And my father about that "ignorant peanut farmer" (Jimmy Carter).

OK then... And my father (career Defense Dept and a lifelong
Democrat) about JFK but he was still the "boss."

Anyway, the military officers support any current president,
more exactly the office that any idiot might be elected to it.
Personal opinions aside, he is their Commander in Chief.

On 2020-05-03 7:54 p.m., Leo wrote:
> On 2020 May 2, , U.S. Janet B. wrote
> (in >):
>
>> from the accounts that I have read, a bear doesn't give you all that
>> much room to get the barrel up to fire.. That's why bear spray comes
>> in a holster with a trigger
>
> Paraphrased poorly from a years ago Usenet post on a mythical glitter bear
> repellant:
>
> Glitter Bear Repellant identifies the bear that you had to spray.
> Black bear: Look for a bear that has glitter on its head and chest.
> Grizzly bear: Look for signs of glitter in its scat.
>
> Something like that.
>

There is a similar story about how hikers should wear metal bells on
their feet so the noise will scare the bears away. They should also
learn to identify bear scat. It is tubular and looks like human crap.
Black bears are omnivorous and their scat often has bits of berries and
seeds in it. Grizzly scat sometimes has little metal bells in it.

On Mon, 04 May 2020 08:44:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>> > Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>> >> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>> >> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>> >
>> > Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>> > Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>> > that often means combat for most.
>> >
>>
>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
>> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
>> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
>> the military, they should be assigned there too.
>
>One thing I know about the military is this:
>If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
>advance to high rank, they need some
>combat experience in their record.
>Attending the military academies right after high school
>damn sure doesn't hurt either.
>
>I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
>wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.

I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
opportunities as men?

On 2020-05-04 9:33 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2020 08:44:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>
>>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>>>> Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>>>> that often means combat for most.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
>>> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
>>> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
>>> the military, they should be assigned there too.
>>
>> One thing I know about the military is this:
>> If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
>> advance to high rank, they need some
>> combat experience in their record.
>> Attending the military academies right after high school
>> damn sure doesn't hurt either.
>>
>> I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
>> wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.
>
> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
> opportunities as men?
>

No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
men are expected to have.

On Mon, 04 May 2020 07:33:38 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 May 2020 08:44:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>>Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>> > Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>> >> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>> >> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>> >
>>> > Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>>> > Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>>> > that often means combat for most.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
>>> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
>>> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
>>> the military, they should be assigned there too.
>>
>>One thing I know about the military is this:
>>If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
>>advance to high rank, they need some
>>combat experience in their record.
>>Attending the military academies right after high school
>>damn sure doesn't hurt either.
>>
>>I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
>>wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.
>
>I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>opportunities as men?

Touché!

On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2020-05-04 9:33 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 May 2020 08:44:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>>>>> Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>>>>> that often means combat for most.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
>>>> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>>>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
>>>> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
>>>> the military, they should be assigned there too.
>>>
>>> One thing I know about the military is this:
>>> If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
>>> advance to high rank, they need some
>>> combat experience in their record.
>>> Attending the military academies right after high school
>>> damn sure doesn't hurt either.
>>>
>>> I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
>>> wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.
>>
>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>> opportunities as men?
>>
>
>No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>men are expected to have.
>
that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
skewed by your bias against women

On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:

>>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>>> opportunities as men?
>>>
>>
>> No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>> to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>> been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>> same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>> men are expected to have.
>>
> that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
> skewed by your bias against women
>



I have a bias against women?? I have always supported equal pay for
equal work. I have supported equal opportunity. I don't have problems
with women advancing in the work force. Nor do I have a problem with
minorities having equal opportunity. I only ask that they be expected
to perform equal work for equal pay. I am not a big fan of people being
hired or promoted primarily to fill quotas.

I worked for the government long enough to see how it worked in
practice. Job competitions came with a statement about them being an
equal opportunity and what women, native people, francophones, people of
colour were invited to self identify. In other words.... we can't ask
you your race, gender, culture etc.... but less us know. I always
worked in what had been male dominated fields and over the years I had a
few female bosses. A couple of them were good. One was an idiot. Given
the nature of those who aim for management positions, that is actually
pretty good.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
> wouldn't have liked doing it.

My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
office, not the person.

> You have no idea. He took orders from his immediate superior officers.
> The President didn't show up to give orders on the battlefield.

I have plenty of idea. The President gives the orders and that
works down the hierarchy. I know that.

> You
> also assumed (very incorrectly) that because he was a commissioned
> officer he sat behind a desk.

I never said that about your father.

> The two Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, a
> Bronze Star and Legion of Merit medals contradict that. Would you like
> to see them?

Settle down, princess. You told about your father's rank and
accomplishments years ago and I immediately admired him. A father
to be proud of.

> He's even mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Sat behind a desk my ass.

You totally invented the "sat behind a desk" part. What's
wrong with you?


> > If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
> > roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
> > salute to him. (To your dismay)
> >
> He'd give a crisp salute because that's what Marines do.

And that's all I said.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>>>> opportunities as men?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>>> to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>>> been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>>> same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>>> men are expected to have.
>>>
>> that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
>> skewed by your bias against women
>>
>
>
>
>I have a bias against women?? I have always supported equal pay for
>equal work. I have supported equal opportunity. I don't have problems
>with women advancing in the work force. Nor do I have a problem with
>minorities having equal opportunity. I only ask that they be expected
>to perform equal work for equal pay. I am not a big fan of people being
>hired or promoted primarily to fill quotas.
>
>I worked for the government long enough to see how it worked in
>practice. Job competitions came with a statement about them being an
>equal opportunity and what women, native people, francophones, people of
>colour were invited to self identify. In other words.... we can't ask
>you your race, gender, culture etc.... but less us know. I always
>worked in what had been male dominated fields and over the years I had a
>few female bosses. A couple of them were good. One was an idiot. Given
>the nature of those who aim for management positions, that is actually
>pretty good.

Yeah, I know. those second class citizens couldn't possibly be better
qualified than a white guy.. It was all rigged . So dinosaurs are
still alive.
Janet US

On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
>> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
>> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
>> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
>> wouldn't have liked doing it.
>
>My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
>no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
>office, not the person.

Military saluted the uniform, not the person wearing it.


>> You have no idea. He took orders from his immediate superior officers.
>> The President didn't show up to give orders on the battlefield.
>
>I have plenty of idea. The President gives the orders and that
>works down the hierarchy. I know that.
>
>> You
>> also assumed (very incorrectly) that because he was a commissioned
>> officer he sat behind a desk.
>
>I never said that about your father.
>
>> The two Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, a
>> Bronze Star and Legion of Merit medals contradict that. Would you like
>> to see them?
>
>Settle down, princess. You told about your father's rank and
>accomplishments years ago and I immediately admired him. A father
>to be proud of.
>
>> He's even mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Sat behind a desk my ass.
>
>You totally invented the "sat behind a desk" part. What's
>wrong with you?
>
>
>> > If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>> > roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>> > salute to him. (To your dismay)
>> >
>> He'd give a crisp salute because that's what Marines do.
>
>And that's all I said.

On 2020-05-04 1:21 p.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>> I worked for the government long enough to see how it worked in
>> practice. Job competitions came with a statement about them being an
>> equal opportunity and what women, native people, francophones, people of
>> colour were invited to self identify. In other words.... we can't ask
>> you your race, gender, culture etc.... but less us know. I always
>> worked in what had been male dominated fields and over the years I had a
>> few female bosses. A couple of them were good. One was an idiot. Given
>> the nature of those who aim for management positions, that is actually
>> pretty good.
>
> Yeah, I know. those second class citizens couldn't possibly be better
> qualified than a white guy.. It was all rigged . So dinosaurs are
> still alive.
>


I didn't say that could not be better qualified than a white guy. That
would be hard to judge if they are rated on different scales. How is is
supposed to work? Are white males in the armed forces expected to have
proven themselves in combat in order to get ahead but women and non
whites don't have to have that same experience?

FWIW I grew up in a very white Canada. The larger cities had China
small towns and most cities and towns had at least one Chinese
restaurant, but just about everyone else was white. I saw only a
handful of black people in my youth. It wasn't that he all disliked
blacks and other people of colour. They just weren't there. That
started to change in the 60s and 70s when we started to have a lot of
immigration from the West Indies and Asia. The area where I grew up
went from being almost totally white to being very diverse.

All cops were white, because everyone else was. They also tended to be
large men because they were expected to have to be able to carry their
own if situations got violent. There were minimum height and weight
requirements. There were a number of black men and south Asians
recruited, but east Asians and women had a hard time meeting those
standards.


It was time for change. They argued that modern police methods had
reduced the need for brawn for cops to do their job, so recruits no
longer had to meet that minimum and weight. It was shortly after they
dropped those standards that I had to attend a course at a police
college at the same time there was course for their new recruits. There
were lots of tall and heavily built white, south Asian and black men.
There were also quite a few women and Chinese men. Curiously, the only
people who would not have met the old standards were the women and the
Chinese. There were no petite white men, no petite black men. For some
reason, they still had to meet the old standards. One might have
expected that if those old standards were no longer relevant a small
black or white man should have fit the bill. Go figger.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>>>> opportunities as men?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>>> to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>>> been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>>> same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>>> men are expected to have.
>>>
>> that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
>> skewed by your bias against women
>>
>
>
>
>I have a bias against women??

Yes, and so does Gary.

On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
>> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
>> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
>> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
>> wouldn't have liked doing it.
>
>My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
>no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
>office, not the person.

You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
> >>>> opportunities as men?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
> >>> to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
> >>> been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
> >>> same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
> >>> men are expected to have.
> >>>
> >> that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
> >> skewed by your bias against women
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >I have a bias against women??
>
> Yes, and so does Gary.

Just ask the kangaroo, Bruce.
And learn to read for comprehension.

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
> >> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
> >> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
> >> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
> >> wouldn't have liked doing it.
> >
> >My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
> >no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
> >office, not the person.
>
> You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!

Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?

On Mon, 04 May 2020 16:34:30 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>> >>> to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>> >>> been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>> >>> same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>> >>> men are expected to have.
>> >>>
>> >> that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
>> >> skewed by your bias against women
>> >>
>> >I have a bias against women??
>>
>> Yes, and so does Gary.
>
>Just ask the kangaroo, Bruce.
>And learn to read for comprehension.

Tell us again about Nancy Pelosi and how she's mean to the Führer,
Gary

On Mon, 04 May 2020 16:34:50 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >jmcquown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
>> >> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
>> >> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
>> >> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
>> >> wouldn't have liked doing it.
>> >
>> >My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
>> >no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
>> >office, not the person.
>>
>> You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!
>
>Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?

It's twitchin'!

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> Tell us again about Nancy Pelosi and how she's mean to the Führer,
> Gary
>
https://i.postimg.cc/NF9BSv0F/Vampire.jpg

On Mon, 4 May 2020 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Tell us again about Nancy Pelosi and how she's mean to the Führer,
>> Gary
>>
>https://i.postimg.cc/NF9BSv0F/Vampire.jpg

lol. Well, you'd never see me with a nationalist flag either.

cshenk wrote:

> cshenk wrote:
>
> > Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > >> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > > > >>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to
> > > > fight >>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but
> > > > maybe not to >>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not
> > > > combat minded. >>>
> > > > >>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get
> > > > drafted >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that
> > > > often means >>> combat for most.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and
> > > > age, >> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should
> > > > be an equal >> obligation. They want equal access at all
> > > > levels..... if they want >> it, but few are interested in
> > > > combat. Since combat is the primary >> purpose of the military,
> > > > they should be assigned there too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are
> > > > > engaging in combat situations. They have been for years. They
> > > > > get killed and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other
> > > > > red-blooded American boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the
> > > > > friggin' 60's!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US.
> > > > It is 2020 and they should be 50-50.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and
> > > women in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the
> > > ratio of combat infantry positions be 50-50?
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Exactly. Navy is more even but not 50% hence no expectation of 50%
> > of anything. 'GI Jane' aside in the movie, we don't have any
> > female seals because none have made it. We do have plenty of
> > female SB (closest thing to a Seal). Generally, we females are
> > representative based on percentage across the job areas of the
> > Navy. Higher percent than Army by far. I'll check but I think it
> > is 30-35%?
>
>
> Of course, I will follow up regarding *******s in the military, these
> days it's like a "Bull Dykes Gone Wild!" tacky reality show, pretty
> disgusting!
>
> (grin)

Gregory again. He's one disgusting piece of flesh still living.

Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2020-05-03 3:59 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > > > > > Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to
> > > > > > > fight in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but
> > > > > > > maybe not to actually fight, as with men, some are not
> > > > > > > combat minded.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get
> > > > > > drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft that
> > > > > > often means combat for most.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and
> > > > > age, it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should
> > > > > be an equal obligation. They want equal access at all
> > > > > levels..... if they want it, but few are interested in
> > > > > combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of the military,
> > > > > they should be assigned there too.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are
> > > > engaging in combat situations. They have been for years. They
> > > > get killed and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other
> > > > red-blooded American boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the
> > > > friggin' 60's!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US.
> > > It is 2020 and they should be 50-50.
> >
> > Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and
> > women in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio
> > of combat infantry positions be 50-50?
> >
>
> Equal rights. Women want equality everywhere else. They want equal
> pay, to be equally represented in management, company boards and in
> politics. I thought there had been some sort of unwritten law on
> military promotion that emphasized combat experience.

Not quite like that. There was, but it was 20-25 years ago. It had
more to do with could not get orders (duty station assignments) to get
you ahead. Example: Data Processing Rate, US Navy. 1983. 5 billets
navy wide for femaes at sea. 2,500 or so DP's. Close to 50% female.
We hit 70% of the remote duty stations that counted as 'sea' but didn't
get to an actual ship. We gained rank, but slower at the upper levels
due it.

I didn't have the experience level at sea as a counter part male over
20 years, until I hit the 22 year mark (then I had more but late in
career). My lack of experience at sea in the early years, hampered my
ability as a more senior enlisted and only overcame it later.

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:36:05 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >
> > >jmcquown wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
> > >> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
> > >> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
> > >> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
> > >> wouldn't have liked doing it.
> > >
> > >My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
> > >no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
> > >office, not the person.
> >
> > You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!
>
> Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?

Nazi salute.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 5 May 2020 03:12:19 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:36:05 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 04 May 2020 11:32:00 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>> >
>> > >jmcquown wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> You didn't know my father, Gary. He wasn't shy about expressing his
>> > >> opinions. You didn't hear him railing about the "ignorant Georgia
>> > >> Peanut Farmer" (Jimmy Carter) who was the Commander In Chief. I did.
>> > >> Was that respectful? Nope. He would have saluted him, sure. He
>> > >> wouldn't have liked doing it.
>> > >
>> > >My point was that he would have saluted his commander in chief
>> > >no matter who held the title at the time. Respect for the
>> > >office, not the person.
>> >
>> > You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!
>>
>> Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?
>
>Nazi salute.

Yes, servile obedience to the Führer! Gary's the Mike Pence of
Virginia Beach.

" wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 3:58:26 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >
> > Tell us again about Nancy Pelosi and how she's mean to the Führer,
> > Gary
> >
> https://i.postimg.cc/NF9BSv0F/Vampire.jpg

Funny one, Joan. I was going to look for a pic of the
"Wicked Witch of the West" from the movie,
Wizard of Oz," but your's was better.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:

> > Bruce wrote:
> > > You arm's starting again, Gary. Pay attention!
> >
> > Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?
>
> Nazi salute.

I had 3 guesses.
- right arm saluting in the usain way
- right hand over heart in the usain way
- Nazi salute

Bruce wrote:
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> >Gary wrote:
> >> Tell me, Bruce. What's all your nonsense lately about my arm?
> >
> >Nazi salute.
>
> Yes, servile obedience to the Führer! Gary's the Mike Pence of
> Virginia Beach.

And you're the "Mike Pence" of our future president John Kuthe.