I do acknowledge that, in an adrenalin-fueled moment, SOME women can do amazing feats of strength. See this link – the daughter involved is described in the news as ‘skinny’, but she is not. She’s a basketball player, taller than the average women, and clearly NOT an ectomorph.
The Hollywood Reporter is THRILLED that the new Terminator movie is filled with femmes, and describes them as ‘muscular’.
Decide for yourself. I can’t see the muscles, just women who are more slender than the norm for women their age.
If faced with fighting slightly above average men – say, 220 # men in reasonably decent shape – even with guns/ammo, those women are toast.
Sure, they might be able to get off some shots early. For argument’s sake, let’s assume that 1/2 of them reach their target.
If the men have ANY experience with weapons, it won’t take long for the women to fold. Even with modern weapons, it takes some arm strength to lift them up and hold them steady for an extended time period.
The guns are METAL – and HEAVY. To use them for anything more than a short session takes a fair amount of strength in the arms. It’s one of those things that limits women’s utility in combat.
They also can’t carry as much ammo and other equipment as the men.
Sure, they can defend a position, if necessary.
For a while.
Over time, the equalizing effect of guns diminishes, and it becomes a matter of endurance. As fighters get tired, their muscle strength diminishes – yes, even the guys. Women don’t have the strength to lose.
Women in combat have some serious deficiencies.
On the other hand, women have some advantages, too, particularly in shooting rifles.
A sensible combat scenario would put women where they excel – as a backup defense, as snipers, and as support specialists.
Not as an all-female team who plans to ‘kick ass’.
There was a time when media was not so openly partisan. There was a time when journalists prided themselves on objective reporting of the news. I know that many, even in that time, were – behind-the-scenes – passively or actively pulling for one side or the other.
However, there was a spectrum of opinion/loyalties that was broader; that breadth helped keep open propagandizing somewhat in check.
Not so today. The reduced budgets, coupled with lazy “professionals” who won’t bestir themselves to go out into the field and investigate for themselves, have led to today’s “news”, where foreign advocates for one side sell their staged photos, along with the “official” story, to bureaus that peddle their work as unbiased fact.
The propaganda that is talked about HERE is just one more example of why most of us have turned to alternative media sources. They may also have bias, but it is openly admitted.
On one hand, student debt is only a problem for the people who signed for the loans. That’s the Tough Love approach – make those that benefited from it responsible for repayment.
On the other hand, permanently saddling people with responsibility for a debt that was incurred when they were barely legal adults, doesn’t seem quite fair. And, that debt, which many took on to prepare for careers, is – unlike someone who blew through $50,000 on women, alcohol, and fast cars – not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That kid is stuck with that debt for LIFE.
And, for his/her parents, AFTER that student’s death, if they co-signed the loan.
Say what you will, no other debt (other than IRS unpaid taxes) is lifelong. It does have the same lifelong obligation as slavery did. We stopped that whole debt imprisonment (well, except for men who got behind on their child support, and those that owed the court money for fines, and…where was I going with this?).
I’m linking here to a possible solution that falls between the complete forgiveness option (good luck with getting that, no matter HOW Leftist the Congress becomes), and telling the debtors, “tough luck, you were an idiot to trust us” (Animal House lovers will get that reference.
Anyway, it’s a starting point. The longer we put this off, the more the unwary former students will think that Bernie and his Dem bros are making sense.
We need to put this generation on the road to home, family, and a fair shot at life.
…should go to reducing the US public debt. I’m serious – that’s money that RAISED the debt, so ALL money saved from stopping illegal aliens from committing fraud should go to debt reduction.
Here’s how it could work:
Take the amount of their yearly fraud, multiply by at least 5 years or the time they got away with it – whichever is greater. Take that amount from the budget of that agency that was lax about following the rules. If the agency has to reduce services, or even let some employees go, well, that’s just the price that their facilitation of crimes costs.
THEY choose to do allow the crime. THEY should suffer the consequences.
Of course, any fines go straight to debt reduction, not to the agency.
There is also MORE money that should be forfeit, and applied to public debt reduction:
The FOIA records produced by SSA as a result of IRLI’s lawsuit have shown that, from 2012 to 2016, there were 39 million instances where names and Social Security numbers on W-2 tax forms did not match the corresponding Social Security records. Additionally, over $409 billion was added to the Earnings Suspense File (ESF), which holds uncredited wages that can’t be correctly matched to SSA’s database. From 1937 to 2005, $519 billion was reported to be sitting in the ESF. In tax year 2016, that number rose to over $1.5 trillion.
Let me be clear – the agencies that facilitated this FRAUD on the American public should NOT be able to profit from their CRIMES. That money should NOT be given to the agency, but to reducing the debt we owe.
I’ve written about asset forfeiture before. In my home state, it’s a major problem in some counties.
This is a practice that needs to be eliminated, or at least heavily restricted to property belonging to CONVICTED felons. We could do a lot to reduce prosecutorial abuses by stopping them from profiting from the practice.
A not-mentioned, but likely tactic that the Left will try to use against Trump is to seize his assets, under the pretense that they were part of a crime. Note that the state NEVER HAS TO PROVE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. All that is needed is an indictment.
Who would benefit from that asset forfeiture? NY state and city would.
I urge everyone to go to the link below – it will astound and infuriate you to realize the abuse of this law to enrich the law enforcement arm of the state.
Read about Joe Biden’s connection to the legislation.