.... by members of the Obama administration.

Don't be too hasty, I think many would find Purgatory an acceptable option too.

To be fair it is better than using ed or ex.

In other words FORTRAN or COBOL.

The first two web links are not essential to understanding the content. What they lead to is enhanced content as you indicate. You should have understood the main theme of the story based on the title which informs as to the main subject. The problem here is your comprehension not the writing.

Really now? Lets examine that proposition.

Based on this sentence it appears that it actually wasn't garbage, feces (steaming or not), or unreadable. You actually did manage to read it. The problem you have is comprehension, so lets tackle that. The main problem you seem to have is one dimensional thinking. Saying that something is needed then and now establishes the need in terms of time - it is needed in both times, the first dimension. That says nothing about the urgency of the need, the degree of need, or the second dimension. That is where the qualifier "now more than ever" comes it. It is a statement that the present need is greater than the past need. That is a simple but crucial concept you can see illustrated on the following graph where the vertical axis (P) represents the Priority of resource (X), and the horizontal axis (T) represents Time. As you can see there are two points on the T(time) axis, and two points on the P(priority) axis, at points X1 and X2. Point X2 is later in time and higher priority than point X1. Resource X is needed at both points X1 and X2 on axis T, but on axis P we find that point X2 is higher representing it is needed more which can be expresses as "now more than ever" as long as the highest point on axis P is also the furthest to the right on axis T.

^ . . . . . . . X2
|
| X1
P/T --->

Only in the absence of any other qualifier, which I in fact supplied, to indicate that the need was present in both times, but there was a disparity in the degree of need. The present need is greater.

If you keep these hints in mind you may be less prone to confusion in future forum activity.

I've seen it before. It doesn't really change things. She wants to argue that if we give lots and lots of runway to women they can do as well as marginal men in strength. Don't you find this suggestive?

If she ends up with her wish, that men and women are judged by the exact same standards it will end up even worse for women than it is now. Take the "gender norming" out of the fitness tests and women's scores will plummet.

So she knows what she is talking about, and the other more experienced women that say this is an unnecessary bad idea don't? Or are their views not worth considering?

Bravery is no substitute for bravery and strength.

The whole exercise is a waste of time, there is no fundamental fact of human physiology that has changed since the last go around with this nonsense. This is purely an ideologically driven exercise to achieve wins in diversity while at the same time they throw away hard won victories on the battlefield through negligence and incompetence. I think we might have found an explanation for this policy.

Maybe. ;)

You obviously have a source of knowledge. PI or SD?

Your comments have gone awry. Military spending in the US is dwarfed by social welfare spending. Add up welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on and the total is about 2X what is spent on the Military. That is before Obamacare. You numbers are way off.

Saddam was a buddy of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and People's Republic of China who are the ones that supplied the vast majority of his weapons. You should go back and review the history.

And thus we can close the chapter on the silly notion of "perpetual war" driven by business.

So you're claiming that the reduction of the Army to about 1/3 its peak size post WW2, along with major reductions in the size of the Navy, number of ships in the fleet, the Air Force, and the number of fighters and bombers has no practical effect on the military budget or spending? I think you've got the assignment of the value for "twit" wrong.