• Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
    230 replies, posted
[QUOTE][B]Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum talks to TODAY&#8217;s Ann Curry about the new excitement his campaign is generating, why he says he won&#8217;t make negative personal attacks on his rivals and whether women in the military should serve in combat roles.[/B] >> much. rick santorum is now joining us from capitol hill . senator, good morning. >> good morning, ann. >> there is a sense you're finally getting your due, gaining momentum after the three-state sweep and a new gallup poll released thursday shows you're tied with newt gingrich nationwide. what do you want to say about the excitement this is generating? we heard kelly talk about the money. does she have that right? how much more do you expect? >> we'd love it to keep up at this pace. it's been about $1 million a day which is terrific. we're saying the same message we have been saying for months. this is the most important election in the history of our country, an election about whether we are going to with a country that believes in foundational freedom, that we'll build a great country from the bottom up or with an elite from the top down telling us what to do. >> on thursday you said mitt romney 's campaign has been serially tearing down opponents without offering any kind of vision for what he wants to do for this country. i have to ask. if you look at what's happened so far for the republican nomination, it is clear that negative campaigning generates votes. the question is if history is a guide, aren't you going to now have to go negative? will you commit that you and your pacs will not or are you going to have to now? >> i have talked about the issues. the speeches i give, i try to give a vision for america, what i believe is in the best interest of our country with limited government and reducing the size and scale of washington and promoting the basic values that i think of hard work, giving people opportunity -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but i'm asking whether or not you will go negative. >> as i said -- >> have you decided you absolutely will not? can you commit to that now or will you have to? do you want the nomination enough to do that if you have to? >> if you mean negative by personally questioning their personal or business or -- no. i'm going to talk about the issues. i'm going to talk about my record, my vision for the country. i will talk about governor romney's record and barack obama 's record and vision for the country. this should be about the issues, about what people care about at home. they don't care where you made money and how you made that money as long as you didn't do anything illegal, unethical. they are focused on how you will help them make money, provide for themselves and the family and build stronger communities in america. >> you're clearly animated when you talk about this. are you prepared to commit to not going negative? can you answer that question yes or no? >> if you mean going negative against someone in a personal way, absolutely not. we will talk about the issues. i think governor romney and barack obama 's record, which on a lot of issues are the same, are negative in what they have done to this country and the state of massachusetts . i will certainly point that out as i have throughout the course of the campaign. we'll talk about things americans care about that affect them, not this back and forth we have seen in the race so far. >>[B] one of the things you were asked last night on cnn as an issue americans care about is the pentagon's plan to allow women to serve in combat roles. you have concerns about aptd you said, quote, it could be a very compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. what do you mean by that? do you want to take another crack at that?[/B] >> well, no, exactly what i said. when you have men and women together in combat, [B]i think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. i think it's natural. it's very much in our culture to be protective. that was my concern. i think that's a concern with all of the militaries. the israeli military has women in a lot of roles but don't allow them in combat because of the natural inclination to not focus on the mission but be in a position to protect someone because that's something that's natural within our culture.[/B] >> some people might listen to the quote and think you meant that you were concerned about women being emotional. >> oh, no. that's not the issue. i have talked about this issue a lot. i have never raised that as a concern. no. the issue is certainly one that's been talked about for a long, long time is how men would react to seeing women in harm's way or potentially being in a vulnerable position and not be concerned about accomplishing the mission. >> i see. right. i hope it's okay to ask how your 3-year-old daughter is doing. i know she was hospitalized with pneumonia. >> well, she's doing great. i was with her last night. i hadn't been with her since i left her in the hospital. she was on the mend when i left. it was so great to be home last night and get a chance to spend a lot of time with her and the rest of the kids. this has been a wellspring of refreshment on the campaign for me. >> we wish her well. >> thank you. [URL]http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/46339600#46339600[/URL] <- Video [/QUOTE] Plus girls have cooties.
Yeah, the army should be all men so they can be manly and stuff and let each other die. Awesome.
Damn women would hold he guns backwards too I bet, dumb broads
This doesnt really seem like that ridiculous of a point, hes talking about [I]in combat[/I] itself, I dont think he's suggesting that women shouldn't be in the armed forces at all
a soldier might want to protect a friendly soldier? unacceptable
I always thought that was the reason there were no women in combat roles?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;34637164]This doesnt really seem like that ridiculous of a point, hes talking about [I]in combat[/I] itself, I dont think he's suggesting that women shouldn't be in the armed forces at all[/QUOTE] The soldier will protect his fellow soldiers. Woman or man, it does not matter, they will protect one another.
I think what they're saying is that they'd value protecting women over protecting men.
Man. That's as ridiculous as them saying that if gays can serve openly, they would be fucking any time there would be combat.
Soldiers protecting other soldiers? Blasphemy.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637310]I think what they're saying is that they'd value protecting women over protecting men.[/QUOTE] I'm sure anyone that's been in the military could vouch against that. I don't know from personal experience, but I hear the bond you form with fellow soldiers is stronger than any other. It would be very unlikely that someone would go out of their way to help a woman, and get his best friend killed.
They should use the women as cannon folder and if they're not in battle make the women prepare all the men MRE's. This guy is living in a time when it was stereotypical of a male to protect a woman at all cost and basically in this mind set that men are far more superior from what it sounds. Way to many "classic family values" that this guy talks about but does not follow.
I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.
Because protecting you fellow soldier is something undersirable
We can't have soldiers protecting other soldiers. How else are we going to institute the draft again if we don't have enough dead soldiers to make the case to those damn liberals in congress? Obviously they hate America if they're not willing to send their children to die in a useless war that will end up costing us trillions.
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/quote] evopsych, biotruths, "i'm not a sexist but...", "political correctness..." nice, I think you set a new record for something, I'm not sure what though
It's more of a compassionate thing.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34637500]evopsych, biotruths, "i'm not a sexist but...", "political correctness..." nice, I think you set a new record for something, I'm not sure what though[/QUOTE] Wasn't aware that "evopsych" was an invalid kind of psychology.
Women can serve in combat, but only men are applicable for Selective Service :v:
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637544]Wasn't aware that "evopsych" was an invalid kind of psychology.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware we were all enslaved to evolutionary priorities. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34637606]Women can serve in combat, but only men are applicable for Selective Service :v:[/QUOTE] Women CANNOT currently serve in open combat (In the United States anyway), and a lot of us want to change that.
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637617]I wasn't aware we were all enslaved to evolutionary priorities. [/QUOTE] I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637733]I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?[/QUOTE] I have, and we have our own freedom of choice and different decision making processes, it's ignorant to say that every single person thinks exactly the same way in a situation.
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637768]I have, and we have our own freedom of choice and different decision making processes, it's ignorant to say that every single person thinks exactly the same way in a situation.[/QUOTE] You're aware that that is absolutly NOT what evolutionary psychology is about, right? Nobody is claiming that every human behaves the same in a given situation.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637733]I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?[/QUOTE] oh so you're saying we're nothing more than monkeys? yeah I feel inclined to listen to your arguments now [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] I give a big middle finger to my evolutionary priorities every time I use a condom
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637796]You're aware that that is absolutly NOT what evolutionary psychology is about, right? Nobody is claiming that every human behaves the same in a given situation.[/QUOTE] Then what are you trying to say? If it isn't claiming that then what relevance does your claims of "we're all animals" have in this conversation at all?
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637768]I have, and we have our own freedom of choice and different decision making processes, it's ignorant to say that every single person thinks exactly the same way in a situation.[/QUOTE] We don't have freedom of choice because are decision making processes are based off of past experiences. Our personal experiences differ which gives us the illusion of freedom of choice. When in combat we can assume that most people are synonymous in their survival instinct, which is where evolutionary psychology comes in (survival of the ingroup, preservation of the species through reproduction etc).
When did I say we were all "nothing more than monkeys" or that humans are all animals?
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE] This HAS to be a satire post I refuse to believe otherwise, because it's great satire (if not, just want to let you know that evopsych is basically pseudoscience)
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34637803] I give a big middle finger to my evolutionary priorities every time I use a condom[/QUOTE] You already succumbed to them at that point. You don't really think that wanting to fuck is nothing but your own personal choice, do you?
This is true. That's why women can't be special ops at all. It might change though. Men do too much to protect women in combat sometimes. Read up on some rescues. Santorum is only stating something that's been said in US military for a long time. Don't understand the big ruckus.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.