"Rape Rooms" & Women In The U.S. Military

[Mr. Shaman]

Well, the way everyone else does it is that they put their point - and if challeneged about the validity of a statement they then provide a link. I don't see whats so wrong with that.

That doesn't seem (to you) a waste of time-and-space??

I'm thinkin'.....if I can offer a position, with the facts to support my position, I've done (with one post) what you're suggesting doing with three posts; one, from me....a challenge (from someone else)....then, the facts to support my position???

I figure, if I've made my position/facts clear, with one post, then (hopefully, if someone's done the necessary-research) a detractor comes-back with their post/facts, we've saved a step. If no one can dispute what I've posted, I'm assuming a majority-agreement. If someone comes-back, later, the thread is easily pushed-to-the-front.

Why would you want to make the process more-complex than it needs to be?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Shaman, you're just being stubborn. All you do is make a cute, little, one-line sarcastic comment with a rolleyes at the end and embed some random link into one of your saracstic words (usually "Bushco").

That hardly constitutes serious or legitimate debate. No one is going through clicking on all of your links so you're really not getting through to anyone (which I assume is your point for posting on anonymous political forums). Make you're own argument using reason and then include a link at the end if you choose to support it. End of conversation.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

.......................

 

[Libsmasher]

.

I guess it was different, when Saddam's sons did it.

*

"Responding to the verdict, the defendant's attorney said she thought he should have been cleared of all charges. "After all, he did serve his country."

Who was it who listened to the feminazi swarm and put women "soldiers"
into the military? Bubba Clinton.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nice, so does that include ex-presidents?

That's more-critical than the Present, huh?

I'm not surprised.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...gainst-halliburton-staffers-wont-go-to-trial/​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman, you're just being stubborn. All you do is make a cute, little, one-line sarcastic comment with a rolleyes at the end and embed some random link into one of your saracstic words (usually "Bushco").

That hardly constitutes serious or legitimate debate. No one is going through clicking on all of your links so you're really not getting through to anyone......

....And, that's my fault, huh.....that no one can come-up with anything to dispute what I've posted??

 

[9sublime]

How can you dispute one word sarcastic answers following by a little picture of a man rolling his eyes? In fact, why should someone bother to respond and dispute a point if you cant be bothered to properly debate it in the first place?

The little comments are just pointless clutter.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

Libs in the clinton era decide to pretend women are "soldiers", and send young women into the ranks of a tough macho male organization, with an ethos of violence. Women get raped. Duhhhhh.

 

[9sublime]

Ah, good old sexism eh?

I'm sure that some women soldiers could outdo men in every department in battle - its just not the majority of them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No one is going through clicking on all of your links so you're really not getting through to anyone......

In fact, why should someone bother to respond and dispute a point if you cant be bothered to properly debate it in the first place?

This (all) adds-up, to you, huh?

How's a debate to begin....without someone (first) stating their position?

Seems, to me, I've already opened plenty-'o-doors for that to happen.

I can only assume there are no disagreements with my cynicism. Hell, even you've been unable to debate (against) any o' my positions!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Libs in the clinton era decide to pretend women are "soldiers", and send young women into the ranks of a tough macho male organization, with an ethos of violence. Women get raped. Duhhhhh.

So.....it's the womens' own fault, huh.....that they would dare breach the boundaries of a tough macho male organization, huh?

 

[Libsmasher]

So.....it's the womens' own fault, huh.....that they would dare breach the boundaries of a tough macho male organization, huh?

You got it! Talk about stupid women!

 

[SW85]

I'm thinkin'.....if people aren't passionate, about politics, why do they (even) frequent sites-like-this???

You're conflating passion with irritating formatting.

The thing is, even if a mod were to strip your post of all the formatting, you still wouldn't be making a point. Feigned outrage is not a substitute for original thought.

So.....it's the womens' own fault, huh.....that they would dare breach the boundaries of a tough macho male organization, huh?

Are we denying now that there is no more of a tough macho male organization than the military, and that's precisely the reason why things like rape are happening there?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The thing is, even if a mod were to strip your post of all the formatting, you still wouldn't be making a point. Feigned outrage is not a substitute for original thought.

Feigned-outrage, huh......regarding what???

Gee.....it almost sounds like you're nearing a specific-subject. C'mon..c'mon...you can do it!

Are we denying now that there is no more of a tough macho male organization than the military, and that's precisely the reason why things like rape are happening there?

.....And, that's how their toughness is proven, huh.....by physically-assaulting one o' their own, huh?

Whew!! How fulfilling it must be....being one o' Georgie's Badd Boyz!!