Panetta opens combat roles to women

[gcoll]

Question... You may have posted in here your opinion but I didn't see it and I am interested because you have stated in the past something akin to thinking that men die earlier because they take more difficult work, and that a certain amount of coddling of women has been done to protect them from danger. In this situation I'm curious as to how these beliefs can be meshed... especially if you hold the belief that women should not be allowed into combat.

My own opinion is if a woman can pass whatever physical tests are set forth who the **** cares? I don't think the bar should be lowered... Bu if some lady wants to go blow **** up and die for her country what difference does it make if she doesn't have a penis?

You and I hold the same view on women in combat.

I don't know how that relates to my pontifications on why men tend to have shorter life expectancies though. . .

The right to the pursuit of happiness my uneducated friend, comes from the writings of Thomas Paine the author of the pamphlet Common sense which is one of the main sources that thomas Jefferson(have you heard of Him?) used to write the decleration of Independence. Asd a matter of fact he plagerised the phrase in question,that every man was born with THE RIGHT LIFE,LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Thomas Jefferson took John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property" and changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" because he thought it was more grandiose.

But none of that changes the fact that they are negative rights, not positive rights.

I can see why Harvard rejected your application Buddy

Well, I'm sure you could have gotten in.

[stephkyle7]

You and I hold the same view on women in combat.


Thomas Jefferson took John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property" and changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" because he thought it was more grandiose.

But none of that changes the fact that they are negative rights, not positive rights.

It really is odd how you will press on regardless of the futility in your actions, its like watching someone spit into the wind.
Thomas paine borrowed extensively from locke but is qutoed as saying Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness



In Common Sense, Thomas Paine famously inaugurated the American tradition of attempting to win contentious public arguments by praising the good judgment of average citizens. When Paine’s incendiary pamphlet first appeared, in January 1776, the colonies were divided about whether to declare their independence, with many colonists still loyal to the crown. Those on both sides of the issue recognized that taking up arms against the King of England demanded justification. Those who favored revolution did so for complicated reasons flowing from the ineptness of George III’s rule, which was increasingly viewed as arbitrary, dictatorial, and contrary to the economic interests of the colonies. A few, including Thomas Jefferson and Paine himself, went further, to supplement their case with abstract philosophical arguments about natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. But regardless of the rationale, it was almost universally acknowledged that proposing insurrection against British rule was a profoundly radical act—one involving a dramatic break from precedent and tradition. And yet Paine chose to portray the case for rebellion as transparently obvious—based, in fact, on nothing more than “simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense.” Today Paine’s tract is thought to have done more than any other piece of writing to foment the American Revolution.

so once again ,Paine and yes, in america we have legislation protecting against discrimination based on gender,women infact do have the RIGHT to join the military as long as they have met entrance standards and you should understand a topic before you rush headlong into it in an effort to discredit someone elses thoughts with phrases like ...you dont know what you are talking about, especially when in the final analysis it reflects your own state of being and not the person you were so eager to confront.

[gcoll]

It really is odd how you will press on regardless of the futility in your actions, its like watching someone spit into the wind.
Thomas paine borrowed extensively from locke but is qutoed as saying Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness



In Common Sense, Thomas Paine famously inaugurated the American tradition of attempting to win contentious public arguments by praising the good judgment of average citizens. When Paine’s incendiary pamphlet first appeared, in January 1776, the colonies were divided about whether to declare their independence, with many colonists still loyal to the crown. Those on both sides of the issue recognized that taking up arms against the King of England demanded justification. Those who favored revolution did so for complicated reasons flowing from the ineptness of George III’s rule, which was increasingly viewed as arbitrary, dictatorial, and contrary to the economic interests of the colonies. A few, including Thomas Jefferson and Paine himself, went further, to supplement their case with abstract philosophical arguments about natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. But regardless of the rationale, it was almost universally acknowledged that proposing insurrection against British rule was a profoundly radical act—one involving a dramatic break from precedent and tradition. And yet Paine chose to portray the case for rebellion as transparently obvious—based, in fact, on nothing more than “simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense.” Today Paine’s tract is thought to have done more than any other piece of writing to foment the American Revolution.

so once again ,Paine and yes, in america we have legislation protecting against discrimination based on gender,women infact do have the RIGHT to join the military as long as they have met entrance standards and you should understand a topic before you rush headlong into it in an effort to discredit someone elses thoughts with phrases like ...you dont know what you are talking about, especially when in the final analysis it reflects your own state of being and not the person you were so eager to confront.

Your quoted paragraph does not support your assertion. Re-read what you posted.

I've always heard it was Thomas Jefferson modifying John Locke's "Life, Liberty, Property." It's possible that that is a myth. But if Thomas Paine really was responsible, feel free to provide a citation. When and where did he say it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness

But, that doesn't matter. My larger point is that those are negative rights. The right to property does not mean the government has to buy me a house.

[dbroncos78087]

The best of their abilities will invariably fail as an unbelievable few will qualify on the basis of strength and stamina. This will then lead to the inevitable lowering of the standards to appease the females.

Just like affirmative action.

Now you will have combat femmes less capable than their male counterparts who will have to take up their slack. Very dangerous in combat.

So don't even let them compete? I'm not going to argue with you they will be the majority of front line troops but to not even let them try is completely ridiculous.

I don't see how affirmative action is relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not advocating letting anyone into the armed service that isn't capable of competing at 100% of their best.

I think you are reading something into my post (and others who want women to be able to compete) that we want to lower the standards to let them either compete at a different standard or to "dumb" them down for the women. Please understand that I am 100% not advocating for that and I think you would find out that most of us on the pro-let-the women-serve side are not advocating for that.

[knicksfan42]

So don't even let them compete? I'm not going to argue with you they will be the majority of front line troops but to not even let them try is completely ridiculous.

I don't see how affirmative action is relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not advocating letting anyone into the armed service that isn't capable of competing at 100% of their best.

I think you are reading something into my post (and others who want women to be able to compete) that we want to lower the standards to let them either compete at a different standard or to "dumb" them down for the women. Please understand that I am 100% not advocating for that and I think you would find out that most of us on the pro-let-the women-serve side are not advocating for that.

Its relevant, because in many fields like law enforcement they lowered testing requirements so more minorities would pass.


He is saying that standards in the military will likely be lowered to get more women on the front lines, the same way standards in other fields were lowered because of affirmative action .

[cabernetluver]

To all of you who are making noise that you know having women in combat roles will lower the unit cohesion, or lower fighting standards, or whatever you are using to back up your pre judging what will happen, I suggest you look at the IDF, where women have been serving in all roles, and tell me how it has negatively impacted them.

[stephkyle7]

Your quoted paragraph does not support your assertion. Re-read what you posted.

I've always heard it was Thomas Jefferson modifying John Locke's "Life, Liberty, Property." It's possible that that is a myth. But if Thomas Paine really was responsible, feel free to provide a citation. When and where did he say it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness

But, that doesn't matter. My larger point is that those are negative rights. The right to property does not mean the government has to buy me a house.

The entire Negative/postive right is a conflated philosophical chinese finger puzzle to complicate a simple Idea.No one EVER (to my knowledge) has ever asserted the right to property was to be construed in the way you suggested above,clearly it is in reference to the obligatory surrender of what is legally owned under law.But Interestingly enough that Right can be and often is infringed upon in matters of Eminent domain as well as in commision of crime exceptions,so there is no absolute to ANY right,including the 2nd amendment for that matter.
But as it pertains to the topic at hand,though the supreme court has ruled the Military exempt from "civil" penalty for the refusal of service,that exclusion was neccessary to evaluate the nature of ones personal conduct and mental health which has a subjective standard and as such will at times be incongrous with normal enlistment standards.
In laymans terms, the military rigidly follows the "spirit" of the bill of rights,while not legally being required to adhere to them.Nearly ALL refusals are overturned through waiver process .
Even matters of Criminality ,weight,age, and health can and often are reversed by a simple request for exemption.
The Claim that "joining the military" is not a right,is only practical in expressing the same kind of narrow exclusion involved in every other right we enjoy.The semantics of the debate are pointless and amount to argueing over the pronounciation of Tomato or potatoe.

Suffice it to say,as I pointed out,you again threw yourself headlong into a pointed commentary with me ,based on your previous unpleasant experiences trying to bully your way to validation and have once again come short of your goal.

I will throw you a bone,The Pursuit of happiness was an extrapolation of Paines writings,Jefferson borrowed heavily from Paine, far more then Locke in the writing of the Decleration,in fact Paine was probably the most influential mind that shaped the decleration and the constitution as well.He ,Infact subscribed to something which you have asserted was not an intention of the framers,the right to "free property" as he was the first advocate of social security and safety nets for the sick and poor.
Regardless,I wish you would stop trying to find some subject on which to discredit my offerings as if i was some kind of ( I suppose the word is )troll.
I understand that young people have turned this form of interaction into a place where they can imagine themselves to be anything they want,and portray completely fanciful characterizations of their lives,but even if that were the case in regards to myself,why you feel compulsed to be the Nancy drew of the politics forum ,and constantly address me with "gotcha" type comments speaks really poorly of you.
Ive already told you, Im addressing anyone who comes here for a perspective based on life experience and a wide array of social,political,and economic considerations.If you dont agree ,or appreciate what Im saying, Ignore me.I wont be upset,I promise.
If youd like to engage me in debate then do so as an adult, not like a child, with insults,accusations,and inuendo.
Ultimately EVEN if your general decripition of me was accurate(full of sh, dont know what your talking about, disengenuous,fabricating my age,my life etc,etc as you have repeatedly implied) engaging others (like you did with Flip) to confront me is childish on a scale Im hoping your just not seeing.
Its like threatening a child for sticking their tongue at you.
Either your right,and I am beneath your notice(or should be),or your wrong, in which case you are being petty and rude,either way youve placed yourself in a lose/lose.

[gcoll]

I will throw you a bone,The Pursuit of happiness was an extrapolation of Paines writings,Jefferson borrowed heavily from Paine, far more then Locke in the writing of the Decleration,in fact Paine was probably the most influential mind that shaped the decleration and the constitution as well.

*citation needed.

Your original claim was that "pursuit of happiness" originated from the writings of Thomas Paine. Please provide support for that assertion.

Either your right,and I am beneath your notice(or should be),or your wrong, in which case you are being petty and rude,either way youve placed yourself in a lose/lose.

You insult every single person you disagree with. In fact, it's one of the only things you do. You do it constantly. The two things you do are: 1) insist that your personal experience makes your opinions special, and disqualifies other people's opinions; and 2) insist that anyone who disagrees with you is inferior. If you want proof, from this thread alone:

Guys, Ive known a lot of females in the military

Now you want to talk about Military experience when you have none?

Ill be honest guys,Maybe its jst the training and the time spent getting whipped up into a frenzy of vigilance, but I worry that our enimies will be emboldened by our withdrawl from overseas.

1st of all,you have the mental acuity of a child, so the idea,that you are the best of the best is absolutely laughable.
The more you write the more apparent it becomes.

I was enlisted in the airforce in the mid 1980s and scored almost a perfect on the Asvab(98).Most army recruits cant even qualify for the airforce so please drop the ego.

maybe you can stop playing Internet soilder and find something more productive to do with your time then acting like a child when someone more knowlegable then yourself exposes you BS.

P.s. before you embarrass yourself further why dont you read up on direct commissions.

Ive known many Officers. . .

I served 12 years in the Airforce, AirNational Guard,Air force reserves, and Army National Guard.I deployed to Panama,Iraq,Afghanistan,I was stationed in Germany and TDYed(temporaray duty assignment ) all over europe,africa,and the middle east for 8 of those twelve years.

I have a rather thorough understanding of how the Military operates(lol).

What is stupid is commenting on things your have no knowledge of and being oblivious to your ignorance while you think youve been biting.Michael Scott must be your role model(LOL).

once again completely speculative nonsense not based in fact but in myth and unproven opinions not supported by science,dunder milflin calls...

ahhh, gcoll,you are so hopeless.

The right to the pursuit of happiness my uneducated friend

I can see why Harvard rejected your application Buddy,

Im surprised with all your relevant experience in the military you didnt know that....oh wait...never mind.

[stephkyle7]

*citation needed.

Your original claim was that "pursuit of happiness" originated from the writings of Thomas Paine. Please provide support for that assertion.


You insult every single person you disagree with. In fact, it's one of the only things you do. You do it constantly. The two things you do are: 1) insist that your personal experience makes your opinions special, and disqualifies other people's opinions; and 2) insist that anyone who disagrees with you is inferior. If you want proof, from this thread alone:

so you want me to support or validate the opinions of people who have no context in which to place their opinion. You and others constantly try to discuss topics you have no understanding of, and it shows in our commentary, when I point it out you behave like an angry child and throw a tantrum and then you want to catalogue my responses while ignoring the comment that earned the rebuff.
Your hilarious.
You know NOTHING about the military yet you think you should be allowed to express a opinion regarding their hiring parctices as if you do. How is that appropriate? Why shouldnt that warrant a correction by myelf or anyone else?
your basically saying Im not nice,when people come in here and say I think the moon is made of Green cheese i should just say hmmm, could be.
Inferior?
That is your psychosis.Gcoll.
You simply cant take criticism or a strong push back to your assertions.Ive never once indicated superiority to anyone, you FEEL inferior simply becasue Im redressing your comments,that is a common anxiety related characteristic,but not how I feel or see the world, I just see no point in mincing words for the sake of allowing someone to save face.
On tpics which I have little intimate knowledge or am not inetersted in researching i, dont comment, I probably have an opinion,but without spending the time to research it,Im not about to do what you and others tend to do which is to spout off at the mouth complete nonsense and then pitch a fit when someone calls you out on it.
I dont need to backtrack and throw your words back at you.I know who I am.
You get what you give and then some when you address me.Rest assured, while you may percieve me as condscending,I have never disrespected you or anyone else for that matter without an invitation.

Once again you are running and hiding behind a point that you feel will bear fruit and ignoring the greater debate (now that youve been exposed).
Thomas Paine WAS the primary influence of the declaration more so then any one else,I already indicated that "pursuit of happiness" was an extrapolation of his words used by Jefferson who went on to use paines writings as a frame work for both the constitution and the Decleration of independence.Your statement of Jeffersons interest in Grandios inflation of the Lockes "property" phrasing is someones inacurate musing,which you were either told or created yourself and then like you tend to do, youve passed it on as if it is fact.
If you want further evidence of pursuit of happiness, read Commonsense,in its entirety, it is afterall on the net, and then study researchers disscussing his impact on Jefferson and the framing of our national documents.

Then go find some other windmill to charge at, la Moncha is a long was from here.

[gcoll]

your basically saying Im not nice,when people come in here and say I think the moon is made of Green cheese i should just say hmmm, could be.

No. You should refute them based on the facts, not based on whether or not they have ever been to space.

Ad hominem arguments and appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

Ive never once indicated superiority to anyone

Well, in addition to all the examples I just gave from this thread: one from a different thread:

I have no degree in economics,but have been liberated from the corporate mindcontrol that enshrouds most people

[stephkyle7]

No. You should refute them based on the facts, not based on whether or not they have ever been to space.

Ad hominem arguments and appeals to authority are logical fallacies.



Well, in addition to all the examples I just gave from this thread: one from a different thread:

well in the interest of accuracy,your useage of "ad hominem" is rather loose,but I wont pick at threads.
Look buddy, youve been obsessing about me since our economics debate.
Clearly you dont subscribe to a keynesian approach as other people obviously do.I treated you harshly becasue YOUR aproach offended me.Not becasue you were contrary to my opinion, but because you kept deflecting any information(not criticism) that you couldnt refute and continued to express your supply side ideology as fact, when any credible economist will tell you that it is all theory,and as such is mutable.
There are countless examples that fly in the face of both approaches and as I said in that thread, as I do in almost all my threads that finding the right balance is the key and correcting the direction when one perspective has been pushed for to long is important.
You then began insulting me,criticizing my spelling,my grammar,my disinterest in proofing my posts,among other really childish and pointless comments.
You asserted opinions and ideas regarding quality of life in the 70s ,(you werent even alive, how the hell would you know?)Military training experience and the likes,Psychology,among other things that I have spent many,many years forming and reforming ideas and understandings based on more then a couple bachelor level classes at a University,all the while trying to paint me as some kind of villan of the forum.

I have no tact? is that it?
I couldve told you that from day one.
As personality flaws come and go I really dont know where to rate it but if your goal is to make me aware of my lack of subtlety im afraid your wasting your time.Im almost 50 buddy, like I said i know who I am.

when I criticized the young man who came in the forum with The F-16 as a Viable option in benghazi, I could have explained flight theory.

four forces act on an airframe in flight, lift,drag,thrust and Gravity, flight is achieved through a combibation of thrust and lift counteracting gravity and the drag of the airstream over the flight surfaces.
All wings including birds have a camber, or curve to the top of the airfoil, this casue the air speed above the wing to have an increased velocity, this increased velocity creates a low pressure area above the wing allowing the higher pressure below the wing to "push" it upward.
The amount of lift is directly proportional to the surface area of the airfoil, this is why a glider requires such long wings,to increase the surfcae over which lift occurs,this exageratted lift compensates for a gliders lake of thrust in maintaining flight.
The converse is also true, Jet fighters like The F-16 have a very small airfoil surface,and a very unpronounced camber to the wing, because of this lift is difficult to produce,so to get a 50,000 pound chunk of metal in the sky requires a sh load of thrust, this means that just at take off the vehicle is moving at around 200 miles an hour,cruising speed is around 600 miles an hour.

In a close combat scenario like benghazi was ,even using conventional weaponry meaning a strafing run with the 20mm canon,it is a highly inacurate and unpredictable weapon system to try an isolate a few ground assets.
Now, heres where we get on opposite sides of things.
shouldnt Fox news,and the young man who offered up the idea have some kind of knowledge about just what the F they are talking about?
Why should it be my responsibility to hand hold people into a little place I like to call reality,when they say incendiary things towards our political leaders ESPECIALLY A BLACK MAN IN A HIGHLY CHARGED RACIAL ATMOSPHERE WHICH HAS PRODUCED NOT 1,NOT 2 BUT 3 ASSASINATION ATTEMPTS ON A SITTING PRESIDENT TWO OF WHICH WERE SUCCESSFUL.

IT PISSES ME THE F OFF, WHEN YOU KIDS GO AROUND TALKING OUT YOUR REARS INSIGHTING HATE AGAINST PEOPLE AND YOUR NOT EVEN ACURATE IN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!
its completely classless.If I am overly agressive in expressing that youll have to forgive me, Im old and set in my ways.

[flips333]

*citation needed.

Your original claim was that "pursuit of happiness" originated from the writings of Thomas Paine. Please provide support for that assertion.


You insult every single person you disagree with. In fact, it's one of the only things you do. You do it constantly. The two things you do are: 1) insist that your personal experience makes your opinions special, and disqualifies other people's opinions; and 2) insist that anyone who disagrees with you is inferior. If you want proof, from this thread alone:

This list of quotes was scathing. Instead of fighting steph, perhaps you might just want to take a moment to consider gcoll's point. I know I know... I mean I have argued with gcoll more than I have argued with anyone else on here (Except dodgersfan... what happened to that dude?), he can be infuriating (That's a complement gcoll), but he's no dummy.

I have at times lauded my education (especially when we talk about drugs or psychology on here) that is a mistake. It doesn't further the conversation, and it doesn't make me any more right or wrong if I say the same thing and put PhD next to it. It's an internet forum so that could all be ******** anyway. The only thing you have is your words and your argument's here (oh and rep, but that's another thing entirely). Perhaps focusing your attention on your arguments and not your credentials in comparison to those around you might help you make your case. Just a thought.

[flea]

Props to you gcoll for actually wading through those eyesores he calls posts.

[gcoll]

I have no tact? is that it?

No. You just rely exclusively on ad hominem arguments and appeals to authority, and are very rude to anyone you disagree with.

Which is bad enough, but you also show a complete inability to follow a logical train of thought. You routinely post links that do not support your argument at all. (latest example being this Thomas Paine stuff).

When called out on it, you launch into these long, stream-of-consciousness rants. For example, your latest post.

You asserted opinions and ideas regarding quality of life in the 70s ,(you werent even alive, how the hell would you know?)Military training experience and the likes,Psychology,

There is data on the quality of life in the 70s. There are easily verifiable facts. And personal experience can really be misleading.

I actually haven't made any claims on military training. I was making claims about human biology and natural rights. The only fact I relied on in regards to military training, was the fact that they have physical requirements - which, again, is a very easily verifiable fact.

On psychology, I made a claim about a symptom of bipolar disorder. Hallucinations ARE a potential symptom of bipolar disorder. I linked you to about 5 sources directly stating that hallucinations are a potential symptom of bipolar disorder. You think your limited experience with a small number of patients overrides that? How? You're basing all of your "expert" opinion on a tiny sample size. And you're using that tiny sample size to make a negative claim. That is insane.

[stephkyle7]

This list of quotes was scathing. Instead of fighting steph, perhaps you might just want to take a moment to consider gcoll's point. I know I know... I mean I have argued with gcoll more than I have argued with anyone else on here (Except dodgersfan... what happened to that dude?), he can be infuriating (That's a complement gcoll), but he's no dummy.

I have at times lauded my education (especially when we talk about drugs or psychology on here) that is a mistake. It doesn't further the conversation, and it doesn't make me any more right or wrong if I say the same thing and put PhD next to it. It's an internet forum so that could all be ******** anyway. The only thing you have is your words and your argument's here (oh and rep, but that's another thing entirely). Perhaps focusing your attention on your arguments and not your credentials in comparison to those around you might help you make your case. Just a thought.

I dont have the time nor the inclination to provide a list of the equally inapropriate remarks he has made to earn the responses.In addition ,as I said,every single time Ive written something less then respectful ,it was in response to a comment from another poster that like Gcoll expected to make a disrespectful comment with impunity and then pitched a fit when they got what they gave.
People are always well aware of others behaviours but oblivious to there own, Im a busy Guy,ive got better things to do then to pick arguements with kids on the computer(lol).

@ Gcoll
Im afraid Ive not grown up in the computer age and most of my studies have been through published works which may infact be somewhere on the net, but digging through Volumes to satisfy someone who really isnt interested in learning anything isnt something Im prepared to do.

Everytime you are exposed and it is quite often, you fall back on empty points of order and such to try and reassert yourself when the factual information is just as avaliable to you as it is to me.

If you took the time to actually read any material regarding paines influence on Jefferson it becomes apparent including the link I provide which say quite clearly "pursuit of happiness" as a painesian concept. But You use selective amnesia when debating, you dance around your many failures in accuracy and grasp desperately for some other point of comtention to pivot to.

The statisticlly compiled "evidence " from the 70s is nowhere near as relevant as the experiences of people who were actually there.To argue it is ,is just a further example of the childish obstinance with which youve expressed yourself.

You infact did,in this and the other Military thread indicate some level of knowledge that you are now trying to distance yourself from .For all pratical intents and purposes citizens of the US have a right to serve in the Military,the level of subjectivity is onsuch a degree of seperation from the applicant that the smallest of protestation will reverse any denial that is not related to standards.You tryed to imply some kind of Knowledge that it was not like that based on a sentence you picked up from 15 seconds google search,and then tryed to attack me as "not knowing what i was talking about" when it is you who has no knowledge of or experience with the topic.
you did the same in the psychology thread when Mr Flip pointed out halucinations as a symptom.You replied something about some wildly visual episodes,I was frankly tired of arguing with someone who obviously didnt know a damn thing about the topic(you) and instead enjoyed the links that flipp PMed me ,and at his request dropped the topic becaus it was off topic, but as I had said in the thread, most "halucinations " are auditory in nature, and the visual ones most commonly are sunspots and the like, in the rare cases of severely graphic halucination,it is usually a result of a period of sleep deprivation,which is not isolated to DISORDER ,but rather a common occurence with ALL pyschotic breaks from exposure to extreme conditions, heat, cold, thirst,sleep,all will produce halucinations as a long term result.The disorder causes periods of mania and sleeplessness,THE SLEEPLESSNESS CAUSES THE HALUCENATIONS.something you would understand ,or found out if your goal wasnt simply to refute something I had written, I mean to actually encourage other posters (like flea just did)to "help" you?
To post a comment like ,"what a second, didnt you say you were 50 before? Comeon bro, what are you 10?


Paine is the originator behind Pursuit of happiness, and that fact was tangental to the point that you fell on your face over,which is why you keep circling back to it,just as you always do when you are confronted with your fails.
For ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES Amercian citizens have a right to apply for induction in the service and as long as they meet the standards set out by each branch, they cannot deny you entry based on some randomly selective criteria.You were wrong.again.