Anyone who would take the minor effort to read her biography will find that Col Liddick, regardless of why some may think she was selected, is extremly well qualified to take on this position. Congratulations Colonel, this vet wishes you well and is confident that you will do well. I look forward to seeing you in even more challenging and rewarding positions as your career progresses.
by T-Torquemada September 16, 2012 7:19 AM EDT You're right and making matters, those men will be replaced by homosexuals. The officer corp is now probably up to 30 percent homosexual and the percentage grows with rank. We are witnessing the homosexualization of our military. Thanks in part, to the gayboy in chief. ------------------------
What? 30% seriously????
Where oh where did you dig that number up from? And the percentage grows with rank?
People! This is the face of the GOP where the Party supporters and leaders believe that making up facts to suit their ideology is a virtue.
I know you have no idea there is a draft. That may be because you do not register for it because of your sex. If you were required to register for the draft regardless of your sex, then you might realize that an all-volunteer army is as certain a thing as the World Trade Center. It can disappear before lunch.
I cannot help but wonder if we would have been more sensible about invading Iraq had women been required to register for the draft. When more than half of the electorate has never faced the reality that voting for war can mean voting to be conscripted, it's no surprise we are invaders.
I am no longer shocked by the mentality of the GOP supporters: One wrote that all liberals are rapists and pedophiles, another wrote that all single mothers are drug addicts and on welfare BY CHOICE, and more wrote that Kate Middleton deserved to be photographed topless and bemoaned the fact that photos weren't more clear so he could see her *******, more Tea Partiers wanted all women to close their legs while it was their protected right to enjoy God given erections via Viagra, others wrote their support of Akins and their baseless faith in women's bodies shutting down during a legitimate rape, other chimes in saying that all rape "victims" hold responsibility, ..........now this...our military will no longer be effective because of women.
Why is it every time I read a post written by one of you brain damaged uneducated trailer guys I feel an urgent need to take a shower?
KPeters, it is not the GOP (at least I hope not) but there does seem to be a certain class of losers that tend to migrate that direction. I doubt most of these losers could pass muster in the Girl Scouts much less the US Military.
wow,i guess women do not get into sex scandals.just another liberal move to make this thing go away.as long as you have men and women working together this close you are always going to have this problem.
So in your mind, the saying "boys will be boys" is a mantra? It is an excuse for men to act like animals and not like civilized human beings acting in the confines of morality codes and laws. Right. So men are allowed to harass women because it has always been so.
If your'e stupidity helps the FBI cyber guys track you, I'm all for that! Remember; when you hear a loud THUD on the door, PLEASE, stand in front of it.
I wish Col Liddick well and good luck. I am hoping that her selection was based upon her being the best qualified ti assume this critically important role. Given the USAF's silence on the issue I suspect that it is only the press that deens her gender as relevant to the story and her selection.
As to the morons that would suggest that she is somehow less capable than her male counterparts or that males would refuse to serve under her command, you clearly have no concept of what it is like to serve in the US Armed Forces nor probably could yu meet the standards required of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen
Affirmative action by sex scandal is always harmful.
It creates a culture where there's less incentive to correct small problems... because correcting small problems would prevent a big scandal. At the same time it creates an incentive to exaggerate violations. When it takes a dramatic event to create change and promote a woman, then regular maintenance of respectful conduct is devalued. I cannot see as legitimate any change that implicitly asserts there is an intrinsic moral defect with male leadership generally, and that the only solution is to promote a woman. Good leadership is not restricted to members of any sex, male or female.
Who said she was appointment due to affirmative action? Perhaps the military believed that she has the best qualifications needed to straighten out this particular scandal. Perhaps she offered the most empathy, understanding along with other skills that are shared by her male counterparts but this situation required more; skills beyond what the males colleagues held.
Show me where it says or any other article that she was appointed through affirmative action.
Then why is the sex of the new person in charge of training a news topic at all?
Let's try this headline instead, "Best Qualified to lead Air Force training after sex scandal." That headline is a cue for feminists to begin screaming.
Regardless of whether you believe this particular appointment is an example of rewarding a woman with a promotion when an organization experiences a sex scandal, you certainly know it is a common practice.
I believe it is a harmful practice. It discourages quick resolutions to small problems. It encourages exaggeration of small incidents. It devalues men who implement the oragnization's prohibitions on sexual harassment and discrimination.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
You're right and making matters, those men will be replaced by homosexuals. The officer corp is now probably up to 30 percent homosexual and the percentage grows with rank. We are witnessing the homosexualization of our military. Thanks in part, to the gayboy in chief.
------------------------
What? 30% seriously????
Where oh where did you dig that number up from? And the percentage grows with rank?
People! This is the face of the GOP where the Party supporters and leaders believe that making up facts to suit their ideology is a virtue.
Women choose military service, while men are required to serve as part of their citizenship duty.....
---------------------------------
Since when? I had no idea there was a draft.
I cannot help but wonder if we would have been more sensible about invading Iraq had women been required to register for the draft. When more than half of the electorate has never faced the reality that voting for war can mean voting to be conscripted, it's no surprise we are invaders.
Why is it every time I read a post written by one of you brain damaged uneducated trailer guys I feel an urgent need to take a shower?
And just when was the last American male "required" to serve in the US military? The answer is 1973.
But the point isn't that males aren't drafted today. The point is that women don't even register for the draft as men do today.
An all-volunteer army is as certain a thing as the World Trade Center.
As to the morons that would suggest that she is somehow less capable than her male counterparts or that males would refuse to serve under her command, you clearly have no concept of what it is like to serve in the US Armed Forces nor probably could yu meet the standards required of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen
It creates a culture where there's less incentive to correct small problems... because correcting small problems would prevent a big scandal. At the same time it creates an incentive to exaggerate violations. When it takes a dramatic event to create change and promote a woman, then regular maintenance of respectful conduct is devalued. I cannot see as legitimate any change that implicitly asserts there is an intrinsic moral defect with male leadership generally, and that the only solution is to promote a woman. Good leadership is not restricted to members of any sex, male or female.
Show me where it says or any other article that she was appointed through affirmative action.
Let's try this headline instead, "Best Qualified to lead Air Force training after sex scandal." That headline is a cue for feminists to begin screaming.
Regardless of whether you believe this particular appointment is an example of rewarding a woman with a promotion when an organization experiences a sex scandal, you certainly know it is a common practice.
I believe it is a harmful practice. It discourages quick resolutions to small problems. It encourages exaggeration of small incidents. It devalues men who implement the oragnization's prohibitions on sexual harassment and discrimination.
Our space program's decline was due to a woman?