Headhunter wrote:Above post is cancer lmao what a hateful mess
Is it surprising that someone who is gender confused would be more apt to sexualize a child?
does that mean that all gays, or trans since you mentioned gender confused, sexualize children? that was a part of why jason feels they should be kicked out of the military. do you share his stance?
Why try to set it up as an all or nothing? The military is about setting standards, not about exceptions. I have no doubt there are many folks who are legally blind, asthmatic, obese, flat-footed, diabetic, trans, etc. who could be great soldiers, but that is not how the military operates.
Right off the bat you are dealing with high rates of mental illness,suicide rates, and general readiness issues with trans people. It is about the best decision for the country, not the best decision for a trans person.
so are you saying that this should be taken at a case by case basis, rather than just a sweeping ban for all trans soldiers and potential trans soldiers alike?
Nope, sweeping ban. No one has time for the bullshit.
what bullshit is that? trans soldiers were already serving. thus had already made the grade, apparently.
Bradley/Chelsea Manning was like a shining light!
are we going to take one example and apply it to the whole? because that could be used against any orientation, race, religion that happens to have members serving in the military. why do you go the straw man angle always?
Headhunter wrote:Above post is cancer lmao what a hateful mess
Is it surprising that someone who is gender confused would be more apt to sexualize a child?
does that mean that all gays, or trans since you mentioned gender confused, sexualize children? that was a part of why jason feels they should be kicked out of the military. do you share his stance?
Why try to set it up as an all or nothing? The military is about setting standards, not about exceptions. I have no doubt there are many folks who are legally blind, asthmatic, obese, flat-footed, diabetic, trans, etc. who could be great soldiers, but that is not how the military operates.
Right off the bat you are dealing with high rates of mental illness,suicide rates, and general readiness issues with trans people. It is about the best decision for the country, not the best decision for a trans person.
so are you saying that this should be taken at a case by case basis, rather than just a sweeping ban for all trans soldiers and potential trans soldiers alike?
Nope, sweeping ban. No one has time for the bullshit.
what bullshit is that? trans soldiers were already serving. thus had already made the grade, apparently.
Bradley/Chelsea Manning was like a shining light!
are we going to take one example and apply it to the whole? because that could be used against any orientation, race, religion that happens to have members serving in the military. why do you go the straw man angle always?
He/she/it was a true patriot who I think we are all happy Obama pardoned and is getting gender reassignment on our dime. Hero.
Headhunter wrote:Why the straw man arguments always, Foo? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know it makes people happy and I am a pleaser.
One could argue straw man arguments are a form of safe spaces for those who don't want to be challenged in an argument. Very millenial of you, Fooskey.
Headhunter wrote:Above post is cancer lmao what a hateful mess
Is it surprising that someone who is gender confused would be more apt to sexualize a child?
does that mean that all gays, or trans since you mentioned gender confused, sexualize children? that was a part of why jason feels they should be kicked out of the military. do you share his stance?
Why try to set it up as an all or nothing? The military is about setting standards, not about exceptions. I have no doubt there are many folks who are legally blind, asthmatic, obese, flat-footed, diabetic, trans, etc. who could be great soldiers, but that is not how the military operates.
Right off the bat you are dealing with high rates of mental illness,suicide rates, and general readiness issues with trans people. It is about the best decision for the country, not the best decision for a trans person.
so are you saying that this should be taken at a case by case basis, rather than just a sweeping ban for all trans soldiers and potential trans soldiers alike?
Nope, sweeping ban. No one has time for the bullshit.
what bullshit is that? trans soldiers were already serving. thus had already made the grade, apparently.
Bradley/Chelsea Manning was like a shining light!
are we going to take one example and apply it to the whole? because that could be used against any orientation, race, religion that happens to have members serving in the military. why do you go the straw man angle always?
He/she/it was a true patriot who I think we are all happy Obama pardoned and is getting gender reassignment on our dime. Hero.
taxpayers should not be paying for her reassignment surgery. is that the exception or the rule?
Headhunter wrote:Why the straw man arguments always, Foo? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know it makes people happy and I am a pleaser.
One could argue straw man arguments are a form of safe spaces for those who don't want to be challenged in an argument. Very millenial of you, Fooskey.
Foo wrote:Why did the military have to do "months of research"?
Why don't you ask them? I was not a part of that process.
Are you slowly easing into a "Actually, Trump DOES know more than our military" argument with this question?
He claimed to consult with generals and military experts, do you think he was lying?
I'm sure he consulted with people. Ultimately, that tells us very little. Who did he consult with? What was that process like? We do know about all the high-ranking military personnel who SHOULD HAVE been part of the process and were blindsided by the decision.
Headhunter wrote:Chelsea Manning was the only transgender military member, adjust your opinions accordingly.
David Duke was the only Donald Trump supporter, adjust your opinions accordingly.
Jason and I are Trump supporters. You failed.
Nope, every single Trump supporter is in essence, David Duke. Just like every single transgender military member is in essence, Chelsea Manning. Your rules, not mine.
"The parameters, assumptions and source data used in each of the four studies dramatically alters cost calculations, so any estimate should be treated with caution. Due to this variability, Trump’s claim about “tremendous medical costs” is unsubstantiated."
"The parameters, assumptions and source data used in each of the four studies dramatically alters cost calculations, so any estimate should be treated with caution. Due to this variability, Trump’s claim about “tremendous medical costs” is unsubstantiated."
And? He is in position to get estimates. I don't have to substantiate claims for Crave Eatery decisions either. He can talk to experts, see the folly of trans people serving and correct the course.
if the military is paying for transitions on a widespread basis, that should not be happening.
trans soldiers should not seek military service, for the purpose of receiving transition therapy and surgery on their dime.
the cost of that should not be used as a way to deny trans the right to serve. it should simply no longer be a procedure that is provided by or paid for by the military.
is that the extent of your argument for the ban of trans soldiers?
Jmac Attack wrote:So far, no response from Trump on what Putin did today. I am curious how he is gonna react.
Make sure you keep refreshing the Huffington Post as they will have the Democrat approved hyper critical response laced with allegations, no matter what.
You probably read Huffington Post more than I do or ever have. But, I will make sure I keep lookin' per your request. It will be enlightening I am sure!
Seriously though, have you not noticed that no matter what, that is the response? The narrative is buolt around a desired outcome not the news or the facts.
If Trump talks tough, it is clearly a smoke screen because Russia won him the election.
If Trump does not talk tough, it is because he doesn't want to upset Putin.
I get ya man. I was just seriously curious. I would be if it were Obama or Bush....etc. I haven't had a whole lotta time to stay up with the times lately. You're a busy man too, so I am sure you understand. I have had time to catch up a little on what all is going on the past hour.
"The parameters, assumptions and source data used in each of the four studies dramatically alters cost calculations, so any estimate should be treated with caution. Due to this variability, Trump’s claim about “tremendous medical costs” is unsubstantiated."
And? He is in position to get estimates. I don't have to substantiate claims for Crave Eatery decisions either. He can talk to experts, see the folly of trans people serving and correct the course.
And nothing. That was a hilariously epic fail on your part.
