Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 216

Thread: What is the CA govenor thinking??

  1. #111
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I remember the first time I deployed after we were married and I gave my wife a general power of attorney. The guy at the legal office was shocked and seemed almost upset at my decision. I'm sorry he was in such an unhappy, untrusting relationship.
    I got the same reaction, still do when I deploy. Same thing about our finances, which are 100% pooled, there is not "my money" or "her money" & I am actually surprised that I know so many people that almost seem to be planning for their marriage to eventually fail.

    I implicitly trust my wife, I have no reason not to ... If I did she would not be my wife.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  2. #112
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    For my part, I can see why a state would want to use the term "spouse", it is just a legal term on a legal document, it is not a term of endearment or one that assigns a role in the relationship ... I can see where they would not want to a form for a M/F marriage, a form for F/F marriage and another form for M/M marriage. I can see that having a blank that could be filled in would be one way to satisfy everyone, but some bean-counter somewhere figuring that it takes an extra 10-seconds to type it in multiplied by the number of marriage certificates in a year equals [x] number of extra man-hours per year.

    My totally subjective opinion is that the state found the path of least resistance.



    You have a very good point. I like my gender role in my marriage, I am the man of the house, and I think my wife defers to me on decisions at times because she looks at me that way. I am the primary income maker, I am the one that does the lawn, fixes the sink and takes out the trash, splits firewood etc. (damn, I do a lot of chores); she tends to cook more -- even though I enjoy it and have considered going to culinary school when I retire, she does more laundry than I do etc. In many ways I am and do consider myself a very traditional person. I am far from effeminized or metrosexual but my mother in law lived with us for about 6 months last year and often talked about how much input my wife had in our marriage and how it seemed that my wife was not subordinate to me. It was foreign to her after having been married to my father in law for almost 30 years ... it is just what is normal for our marriage. At the same time, I know that society is one that is constantly in progression and the societal norms from when I was raised and forming my opinions are very different than those from 30 years before and now 30 years later, probably how many parents of teens and those in their 20's felt in the 60's during that social revolution.

    Since this is MTF, what about gender roles in the military? I think "if someone can do the job, let them do it regardless of their plumbing." Let's face it, in many sections of our military if you are a "war-fighter" you stand a better chance at promotion -- especially to the pinnacle positions. I was a Marine infantryman for 12 years, the better part of that in the Reconnaissance (Special Operations) community, and every now and then the subject of women in the infantry came up. Most of us didn't really care. If a woman could hike with the same ruck, shoot with the same accuracy, climb the same wall etc. we would not have cared if she was a GRUNT or not. I had a discussion years ago with a large group of NSW (SeAL) friends and they had the same opinion, they really cared less; but it seems that the people who are the most fervently opposed to the idea are those that don't actually do the job. I am IN NO WAY in favor of making the standards easier -- that will cost lives, but if a female could do it, I wouldn't care. I knoew a couple of women who were in incredible shape and likely could have gotten through the School of Infantry, but they did not want to do it -- look at Shannon Faulkner from the Citadel in the early 90's ... she spent 3 years fighting in court to get in and was not physically prepared for the rigors of the student indoc.


    Now, as idealistic as we can be, we have to be realistic; men and women are physically different. Thos differences may limit the vast majority of women from being able to do that kind of job. It isn't like assigning women to a ship or a sub, which if they can get through the academic school means they can do the job. Is the expense of creating new body armor that fits their body shape, creating new barracks or barracks rooms etc. worth it for the (probable) handful that would be able to make it ... probably not.
    While we agree in theory. In actual practice it doesn't matter what you (or any other operator) are in favor of. The writing is already on the wall...

    "If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”- General Dempsey

    What this means in 'DC mouth full o' dicks speak is that once the first couple of gals with hairy nipples get through training and the numbers inevitably decline thereafter, the Diversity cult will demand that the selection standards be lowered or heads will roll. So, they'll have no choice really. Genetics and common sense don't matter to these ideologues. No one is watching the store.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 07-25-2014 at 04:40 AM.

  3. #113
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    While we agree in theory. In actual practice it doesn't matter what you (or any other operator) are in favor of. The writing is already on the wall...

    Trust me, I know that the policy makers are the ones that will make the decision ultimately. Congress is charged with oversight as part of their Article I responsibilities, we just are the kinetic part of that policy. I find it ironic though that the people who are the most vocal opponents of a female operator are people who never had what it took to actually be an operator themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    "If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”- General Dempsey

    And the burden should be on the service to explain why the standards are what they are and not just say "trust us". After all, "trust us" was the argument that women on combat ships and in combat aircraft was wrong, and the people who argued against the repeal of DADT using "trust us", as opposed to the GEN Ham study that found the impact would be minimal were wrong. The Marine Corps has had a couple of females who have made it through the School of Infantry, and a few females who have attempted Infantry Officers School (none have made it) and has so far laid out a very plain language and successful defense of the high physical standards that are precluding so many women from passing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    What this means in 'DC mouth full o' dicks speak is that once the first couple of gals with hairy nipples get through training and the numbers inevitably decline thereafter, the Diversity cult will demand that the selection standards be lowered or heads will roll. So, they'll have no choice really. Genetics and common sense don't matter to these ideologues. No one is watching the store.

    The 18 months I spent in the Senate showed me that the one issue that is less partisan (note: I am not saying non-partisan) than anything else is the military -- specifically readiness. I worked on a very liberal staff and on this issue their viewpoint was pretty close to mine, no one wants to be the one that forces a change that gets a bunch of people killed.
    Last edited by Stalwart; 07-25-2014 at 08:21 AM.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  4. #114
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    I got the same reaction, still do when I deploy. Same thing about our finances, which are 100% pooled, there is not "my money" or "her money" & I am actually surprised that I know so many people that almost seem to be planning for their marriage to eventually fail.

    I implicitly trust my wife, I have no reason not to ... If I did she would not be my wife.
    That always struck me as indicitive of the typical reaction by the military in general. I'm sure the command(s) have seen many times how a deployed troop is bent over by what was thought to be a trusting spouse back home. The command has to deal with picking up the pieces and all the other drama associated with that. Therefore, the legal office folks are directed to advise against the general POA. Basically, it just another diaper we all get to wear (or at least sniff).

  5. #115
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Measure Man View Post
    Not sure I would call it "catering to the wishes"...I see it more as changing the language to align with the overarching law.

    If a group was once exlusively male and referred to as a "North Essex Men's Club"...and they change their rules to allow women, it would seem to make sense to change the name referred to...maybe "North Essex Member's Club" or something. I don't think that's "catering to women" as much as "including women"....I don't think the term "spouse" caters to homosexuals, just includes them.

    But....YMCA hasn't changed their name...and as far I know you don't have to be young, male or Christian to join.
    Which is why it is my post that used the term 'catering to the wishes'..........my opinion. If you choose to believe that this was merely an administrative adjustment so be it.

    BTW: Just to clarify....since the law calls out the specific term to be used is spouse then that, in effect is a ban on the use of any other term, to include husband and wife, which is also specifically cited as not to be used.
    Last edited by TJMAC77SP; 07-25-2014 at 12:13 PM.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Opt out
    Posts
    2,285
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    Which is why it is my post that used the term 'catering to the wishes'..........my opinion. If you choose to believe that this was merely an administrative adjustment so be it.

    BTW: Just to clarify....since the law calls out the specific term to be used is spouse then that, in effect is a ban on the use of any other term,
    Well, the law doesn't say "this specific term must be used"

    It says..."we amend existing to law to read (insert term)"

    to include husband and wife, which is also specifically cited as not to be used.
    Where does it say this?

    If you go back and edit your post, and change the word "clarify" to "be clear"...does this mean you have banned use of the word clarify?, or just thought there was a better term to be used in this instance?

  7. #117
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    Laws still have to be Constitutional.

    I won't argue that a court in CA is likely to interpret the law differently than a court in MS or LA.
    Its why most states want to secede, because the federal government, especially the SCOTUS, has been stepping over their limits of constitutional powers and striking down the 10th amendment to benefit their own ideological beliefs.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  8. #118
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Its why most states want to secede, because the federal government, especially the SCOTUS, has been stepping over their limits of constitutional powers and striking down the 10th amendment to benefit their own ideological beliefs.
    Most states want to secede? Which ones, please?

  9. #119
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    Most states want to secede? Which ones, please?
    Joining Louisiana now are Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, California, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

    All right winger states, I know right? Those were the petitions from 2012. This is from 2013.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-autocomplete/
    Last edited by WILDJOKER5; 07-25-2014 at 03:51 PM.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  10. #120
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Joining Louisiana now are Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, California, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Colorado, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

    All right winger states, I know right? Those were the petitions from 2012. This is from 2013.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-autocomplete/
    That is poor, poor proof that the states want to secede. Autocomplete from google? Really? Perhaps I'm just curious about how California feels so I type it in...that is used as a count in this "survey" that I want to secede.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •