PC in the Miltary!

[alphamale]

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3141

[viscousmemories]

What alphamale says: blahblahPCblahblahPCblahblahPC...

What we hear.

[alphamale]

[livius drusus]

This is nothing more than spamming the News, Politcs and Law forum. If you want to discuss PC substantively then do so. Here's a thread with an actual OP on the subject. Combine your multiple one-link OPs into a post, add some actual words, maybe even an argument in response to something someone said, and you might have something worthwhile.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

This is nothing more than spamming the News, Politcs and Law forum. If you want to discuss PC substantively then do so. Here's a thread with an actual OP on the subject. Combine your multiple one-link OPs into a post, add some actual words, maybe even an argument in response to something someone said, and you might have something worthwhile.

What words would you have me add? That claiming that PC is a plot by Fox News is assinine? What else is there to say?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by alphamale

What words would you have me add? That claiming that PC is a plot by Fox News is assinine? What else is there to say?

Let me make it more clear for you: Starting four nearly identical threads in 2 minutes with nothing more than a sentence or a link in the OP is what we consider spam. This is now the second time you've done this, and if there's a third you will be banned.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Let me make it more clear for you: Starting four nearly identical threads in 2 minutes with nothing more than a sentence or a link in the OP is what we consider spam. This is now the second time you've done this, and if there's a third you will be banned.

Ask me if I give a flying fuck! And change the title of this site while your at it.

[viscousmemories]

Sorry, spam is not protected speech here.

[Jesus Christ]

And the article is, well, bullshit. So they were trying to bulk mail shit, and that's against postal regulations.

Secondly, your assertion that it's the "military" is a total and utter LIE. Baldfaced lie. Want to know how I know? I was given an extra bible care package by a chaplain's assistant--extra in that they had over-ordered ones being sent to Iraq. In it was a Bible, and some Christian commentary and some tract written by the SSG from Black Hawk Down who became a chaplain after the incident. Those were being sent, by the military, over there.

Once again, you're full of shit.

[alphamale]

OK - are these all bullshit too? All controlled from Fox News?

http://www.bobparsons.com/index.php?...think-so..html

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2003/1...cal_corre.html

http://tammybruce.com/archives/political_correctness/

http://www.cmrlink.org/activities.asp?docID=127

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id...7Creuters.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/193757.shtml

[Jesus Christ]

As a result of his statement (and I have to laugh about this) he is going to receive a counseling session from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I can only imagine what's going to be said during that session.

I can.
"You're going to say something like that when reporters are around again?"
"No sir."
"Okay."

Your second link links to an article that doesn't exist. But, from the context, I can rebut as follows:
I went through Airborne school. And they have a single standard for formation runs now. You either meet it, or you don't. That's why they went to a single formation. It isn't "PC" bullshit. It's called "single standard." The only "PC" bullshit with PT in the Army is that the standards for females are lower than men in the run and the pushup--which is due to physiological differences in muscle mass, distribution, and lung capacity. The sit-up standard, by the way, is identical.
Being in the 82nd now, I can tell you the following:
The standard for the run in the division is a single standard, as are the PT score standards (which are higher than anywhere else in the Army except for SF and the Ranger battalion). 270, out of a 300 point scale.
Third link says this:

Official military policy allows any sort of prayer, but Lt. Klingenschmitt says that in reality, evangelical Protestant prayers are censored. He cites his training at the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., where "they have clipboards and evaluators who evaluate your prayers, and they praise you if you pray just to God," he said. "But if you pray in Jesus' name, they counsel you."...
The Navy allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah or any other deity during chapel services, spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey said.

I've been to an evangelical Christian service (I always attend services when invited), and I can tell you this much: um, bullsit. The Division Chaplain was there--and went there every week. And prayers to Jesus were offered at the beginning and at the end.
Third one:

The DACOWITS and Pentagon feminists keep demanding that all-male, tip-of-the-spear combat units--the ones that directly and successfully engaged Taliban fighters on the ground-be made politically correct by including women. Never mind that the job of Special Operations helicopter pilot, as vividly portrayed by the real-life character Michael Durant in the film Black Hawk Down, is not just another "career opportunity." Gender integration in Special Ops helicopters would require compromises in training that could cause missions to fail and lives to be needlessly lost.

They're screaming utter bullshit here. Helicopter pilots are both male and female already, so this statement is, well, a lie.
Fifth link:

Although the Army should not have to worry about "political correctness," Abercrombie was making a valid point about the propaganda pitfalls of using Israeli rounds in the U.S.-declared war on terror, said Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.

"There's a sensitivity that I think all of us recognize," Weldon told the Army witnesses, including Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, who led the U.S. Third Infantry Division that captured Baghdad in April 2003.

Blount, now the Army's assistant deputy chief of staff, said the Army had sufficient small caliber ammunition -- 5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50 caliber -- to conduct current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Self pwn@g3.
Sixth:
Newsmax. Well, I read through it, and it was long on rhetoric, and short on evidence.

Coward your way out again, illiterate one.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3141

Capitalism magazine?
An editorial by Michelle "Hackjob" Malkin?
Alphatroll just because you:


believe this stuff, doesn't mean we do! After all, liberals are intelligent and sophisticated!

[alphamale]

The PC Robot answers? "It's all bullshit. We can't respond, except to say it's all bullshit." I think sourpuss invented that duck and evade!

[Jesus Christ]

Way to ignore the actual response that details why it's bullshit.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ

Way to ignore the actual response that details why it's bullshit.

Oh, you mean like these details?:

They're screaming utter bullshit here.

I can tell you this much: um, bullsit.

Your second link links to an article that doesn't exist. (Duh, yes it does!)

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by alphamale

What words would you have me add? That claiming that PC is a plot by Fox News is assinine? What else is there to say?

You have admitted that you spammed this forum with one-link posts in an attempt to rebut davidm's post. Why not actually respond to his post, then? Quote it, respond to it, make an argument. You could easily have included all these links in a genuine rebuttal, but instead you mischaracterize his post as claiming a plot and procede to spam the forum and insult people as a sole means of reponse.

Why? Even if you think davidm's argument fails, why do you refuse to respond to it reasonably? You've already been warned about spamming once; why do it again unless it's to taunt people?

Answer me straight, please, if you are capable of it.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

You have admitted that you spammed this forum with one-link posts in an attempt to rebut davidm's post. Why not actually respond to his post, then? Quote it, respond to it, make an argument. You could easily have included all these links in a genuine rebuttal, but instead you mischaracterize his post as a claiming a plot and procede to spam the forum and insult people as a sole means of reponse.

Why? Even if you think davidm's argument fails, why do you refuse to respond to it reasonably? You've already been warned about spamming once; why do it again unless it's to taunt people?

Answer me straight, please, if you are capable of it.

Answered in another thread, but davidm's post is a rambling, incoherent rant full of such gems as PC is just "politeness" and that the only objection to PC comes from the PCer's boogeyman, Fox News, when in fact there are hundreds and probably thousands of criticisms on the net. Also the Chutzpah of the Year award for daring to offer Goldwater, the much defamed by the liberals republican, as a model for republicans.

[livius drusus]

Again, that is non-responsive. I am asking you why you chose to spam this forum with vacuous one-link OPs instead of quoting davidm and responding to him directly. You, who accuse everyone and their dog of cowardice even as you evade direct question after direct question. You, who bleat endlessly about being unable to find serious discussion here. You, who knew from recent experience that we would consider such a flurry a violation of our rules.

So take some responsibility for your choices and answer me, if you are capable of it.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Again, that is non-responsive. I am asking you why you chose to spam this forum with vacuous one-link OPs instead of quoting davidm and responding to him directly. You, who accuse everyone and their dog of cowardice even as you evade direct question after direct question. You, who bleat endlessly about being unable to find serious discussion here. You, who knew from recent experience that we would consider such a flurry a violation of our rules.

So take some responsibility for your choices and answer me, if you are capable of it.

I gave it the response it deserves. You want a sentence-by-sentrence response to an incoherent rant? Don't be silly.

[livius drusus]

Do you intend to abide by the rules of this forum yes or no?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Do you intend to abide by the rules of this forum yes or no?

Oh oh! I sense the "B" word! The ultimate evasion!

[livius drusus]

Answer my question. I don't care what you think somebody "deserves". Your method of response is unacceptable here and you know it. Do you intend to observe our rules yes or no?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Answer my question. I don't care what you think somebody "deserves". Your method of response is unacceptable here and you know it. Do you intend to observe our rules yes or no?

It's coming! It's coming! Bye everyone - have a nice life! Enjoy your sanitized liberals only lovefest PC forum!

[livius drusus]

I'll add this to the long list of questions you have refused to answer. You're to political discourse what a eunuch is to sex.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I'll add this to the long list of questions you have refused to answer. You're to political discourse what a eunuch is to sex.

Owwwwwwwww!! You hurt my feelings! I'm a sensitive guy!