- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/13/18 at 1:05 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Well, that and the larceny.
then she deserved the boot
Posted on 9/13/18 at 1:08 am to bmy
Former supply clerk. Not surprising.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 3:55 am to MrCarton
For reference:
Posted on 9/13/18 at 5:09 am to teke184
Hey teke, I think the press dubbed the ship "the love boat". I cant remember the name to google the story but it was not just one or two female sailors, it was several.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 6:55 am to MrCarton
quote:
“The biggest mistakes I’ve made in the infantry were from my personal relationships,”
Plural... she probably fricked half the regiment.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 7:23 am to MrCarton
It was my hope that Secretary Mattis would reverse this policy. Unfortunately, he has not.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 7:38 am to teke184
quote:
Not surprised at all.
Kind of like the number of female sailors who come back into port several months pregnant.
This.
I'm all for females being able to serve in combat roles if they can pass the same training men do but mixing them at these ages where hormones are high is simply fricking ridiculousness in how you have to ignore biology in order to think this will work like it does in the movies.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 7:57 am to Bard
quote:
I'm all for females being able to serve in combat roles if they can pass the same training men do but mixing them at these ages where hormones are high is simply fricking ridiculousness in how you have to ignore biology in order to think this will work like it does in the movies.
So even thought you recognize it is a policy disaster to ignore biology you support it if the women can pass the same training.
That is either illogical or you grasp women can't pass the same training for combat positions without affirmative action.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 7:59 am to Bard
quote:
I'm all for females being able to serve in combat roles if they can pass the same training men do but mixing them at these ages where hormones are high is simply fricking ridiculousness in how you have to ignore biology in order to think this will work like it does in the movies.
No shite. If I had a nickel every time my 1SG mentioned something of the effect of try not to get someone pregnant during a safety brief before a long weekend, I'd have a shite load of nickels.
Posted on 9/13/18 at 9:10 am to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
So even thought you recognize it is a policy disaster to ignore biology you support it if the women can pass the same training.
That is either illogical or you grasp women can't pass the same training for combat positions without affirmative action.
Nope, I support it as long as they can pass the same training and test that men do. Any women passing through would be in their own unit. Nothing illogical about it. This is a goal that 99% (if any) will never reach. Allowing it to exist if those rare individuals can achieve it takes nothing away from the military but it silences the SJW dissent.
Win. Win.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News