Trump announces transgenders cannot serve in the Military!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did I "imply" that? Or are you attempting to deflect from the dumbass statement you made that the Constitution required the military to allow pre-op "transgender" sexually confused individuals into the services?

I simply asked you "where" does it say that?

You can't point it out!

And before you leap too far into the deep water you might want to revisit the recent turn of events with respect to "immigration policy"!!!

Another leap of illogic by LL.

The comment was made that PC has no place in the military.

I said I agreed, but the constitution does still apply to people in the military. Not in regard to transgenders--which I CLEARLY said I do not think should be in the military--but in the bigger picture. That one person's definition of PC can be a constitutional issue to someone else depending how they see things. And that WHO decides what PC issues are real and which are fabricated changes what happens and what issues might progress up the legal chains.

As I said, you seem intent on disagreeing with any post I make before you actually read it.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WTF

How many rifles could 89 million dollars the military spends on Viagra buy?

Lets just say that's a lot of boners, lol.



Jim

[Prolongus]

Oh hell...Bannon or Putin told Trump to ban transgenders. I forget Trump can't come up with an original idea.

So the transgenders who have been serving...are they suddenly not fit to serve? Even tho there aren't any news stories (fake or real) about a bunch of them being dishonorably discharged or insubordination by them that would trigger the reasoning behind this clueless decree? And don't give me any Chelsea Manning shit...she was convicted of espionage...any race, gender, etc. could do that.

Suppose you were in a foxhole surrounded by ISIS head hoppers and a platoon sweeps in and saves your ass. You find out later 2 of them are transgender. Wanna go back to that foxhole?

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Oh hell...Bannon or Putin told Trump to ban transgenders. I forget Trump can't come up with an original idea.

So the transgenders who have been serving...are they suddenly not fit to serve? Even tho there aren't any news stories (fake or real) about a bunch of them being dishonorably discharged or insubordination by them that would trigger the reasoning behind this clueless decree? And don't give me any Chelsea Manning shit...she was convicted of espionage...any race, gender, etc. could that.

Suppose you were in a foxhole surrounded by ISIS head hoppers and a platoon sweeps in and saves your ass. You find out later 2 of them are transgender. Wanna go back to that foxhole?

Quit while your behind nimrod. And, fuck the traitor Manning and Obama for pardoning "her." Since you love Trannies so much, go see one. Post a review. Don't be a hypocrite.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Oh hell...Bannon or Putin told Trump to ban transgenders. I forget Trump can't come up with an original idea.

So the transgenders who have been serving...are they suddenly not fit to serve? Even tho there aren't any news stories (fake or real) about a bunch of them being dishonorably discharged or insubordination by them that would trigger the reasoning behind this clueless decree? And don't give me any Chelsea Manning shit...she was convicted of espionage...any race, gender, etc. could that.

Suppose you were in a foxhole surrounded by ISIS head hoppers and a platoon sweeps in and saves your ass. You find out later 2 of them are transgender. Wanna go back to that foxhole?

You can say "Fuck that transgendered bullshit", pro-plunged-ass. You are obviously more concerned with scheduling an appointment to have your head surgically removed from your ass, pro-plunged-ass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Another leap of illogic by LL.

And ANOTHER HEAP of manure in an effort to appear "informed"!

Personally, I'm going to let Mattis sort it out. Not some old dried up "prof" who changes the subject the teaches almost daily! That would be you!

But for you to "imply" the Constitution controls THIS CONVERSATION is the same as "implying" the Constitution controls immigration policy.

Obaminable made a "policy" decision last year. Not a legal one.

Like a lot of the shit he pulled last year his "motivation" was nefarious.

[Prolongus]

I'll say this: If anybody here is qualified discussing being BANNED...it's definitely you, BANNEDWINO! How many times for you in the last year or so? Ha ha...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You gay ass Pissbury (sic) homo's (sic) fuck each others (sic) ears and nose?

Gawd Danm (sic)! Yall (sic) got some serious homo'ing going on up there!

Relax fagboy, I was only thinking of you and your Q-tip-dicked tranny pals. It obviously doesn't work for the rest of us.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree, Political Correctness does not.

But the Constitution does.

And some people have a hard time seeing the difference. Segregated units were once seen as PC. Who gets to decide what is PC vice Constitutional matters a lot.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Another leap of illogic by LL.

The comment was made that PC has no place in the military.

I said I agreed, but the constitution does still apply to people in the military. Not in regard to transgenders--which I CLEARLY said I do not think should be in the military--but in the bigger picture. That one person's definition of PC can be a constitutional issue to someone else depending how they see things. And that WHO decides what PC issues are real and which are fabricated changes what happens and what issues might progress up the legal chains.

As I said, you seem intent on disagreeing with any post I make before you actually read it.

I fucking read what you posted and just copied it again ...

... so what the fuck are you jabbering about?

BTW: "Political correctness" has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is what it says: "Political correctness" ... NOT "Legal Correctness"! Those two concepts are different and should be different when interpreting the Constitution....if the Constitution is applicable.

When you make dumbass remarks I will comment. Live with it!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Oh hell...Bannon or Putin told Trump to ban transgenders. I forget Trump can't come up with an original idea.

So the transgenders who have been serving...are they suddenly not fit to serve? Even tho there aren't any news stories (fake or real) about a bunch of them being dishonorably discharged or insubordination by them that would trigger the reasoning behind this clueless decree? And don't give me any Chelsea Manning shit...she was convicted of espionage...any race, gender, etc. could do that.

Suppose you were in a foxhole surrounded by ISIS head hoppers and a platoon sweeps in and saves your ass. You find out later 2 of them are transgender. Wanna go back to that foxhole?

Trump came up with the idea of building a border wall. Ya can't get no more original that that. On top of that it would create jobs, lol.



Jim

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

I'll say this: If anybody here is qualified discussing being BANNED...it's definitely you, BANNEDWINO! How many times for you in the last year or so? Ha ha...

Aren't you clever you imbecile. Like I give a fuck calling stupid cocksuckers, stupid Cocksuckers like you. Now go find a Tranny and hop in a foxhole with her.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Sounds like a MENTAL disorder to me.

And since it HAS a mental disorder title "Gender Dysphoria", it certainly sounds like a mental disorder to me as well..

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you know, courts have ruled that prison systems around the country must treat and pay for therapies and surgeries for prisoners wishing to alter their bodies to fit some feeling of connection to a gender other than their own

I take it the rulings are based on the idea that just as an emergency room cannot deny treatment to someone for a severe injury or other physical health issue, regardless of insurance or ability to pay, transgenderism is just another medical issue and not a mental problem

And that right there is the issue.. AS I LINKED, there are plenty of mental issues that disqualify one from serving. SO WHY SHOULD this (being gender disphoric) mental issue, NOT disqualify someone when all those others do?? Should IT be given preferential treatment? Then that's not equality is it?

PLUS in many of those court cases, the judges who made those rulings, were LIBERAL controled ones..

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree, Political Correctness does not.

But the Constitution does.

And some people have a hard time seeing the difference. Segregated units were once seen as PC. Who gets to decide what is PC vice Constitutional matters a lot.

So should all those OTHER MENTAL and physical things that disqualify someone from seving also be done away with "To be constitutional'??

Originally Posted by WTF

How many rifles could 89 million dollars the military spends on Viagra buy?

Which over on the Mil times forums, several years back when it was announced the Mil would pony up FOR viagra, i was all AGAINST IT.. I don't see why ANY medical company should pay for viagra... You want it PAY FOR IT yourself..

Originally Posted by wordup666

Then you think everyone joining is just wanting surgery?

Yes.. If the mil gets forced to pay for a trannies reassgnment surgery/hormone therapy, i DO See thousands of TGs wanting to join JUST TO GET all that done.. Then getting out as soon as they can.

Just like i did when the GI Bill was altered, and TA was revised to allow people to get all sorts of certifications.. Just on my last ship alone, we had over a hundred NEW recruits that came in FOR THE EXPRESS reason of "Using the GI bill and Tuition assistance as much as possible, THEN GETTING out..

Originally Posted by grean

Being transgendered does not affect a person's ability to perform their function in the military.

How?? IF they are on hormone therapy, are they medically capable of standing ARMED WATCH? Or going into battle?
Let alone having to spend MONTHS upon months for all the surgery if they are going to reassignment surgery..

Originally Posted by grean

Moreover, as far as the blind person example, if a procedure could restore their vision to or above an acceptable level, if the military is willing to pay for that in exchange for a term of service from that person, I don't think anyone would question that.

As i have mentioned, i saw PLENTY of people come in JUST to milk the system for TA/Gi bill.. AND THEN GOT out after 3-5 years.. IMO if we were to pay for that sort of stuff, they should have a minimum requirement of MORE THAN just 5 years, and MUST reinlist at least once to justify the expenditure..

Originally Posted by grean

The military also covers breast implants last I heard.

I never agreed with that call, and never will..

Originally Posted by Old-T

Another leap of illogic by LL.

The comment was made that PC has no place in the military.

I said I agreed, but the constitution does still apply to people in the military. Not in regard to transgenders--

And how does saying "Sorry, your medical issues disqualify you from serving" violate the constitution??

[bambino]

Originally Posted by garhkal

And since it HAS a mental disorder title "Gender Dysphoria", it certainly sounds like a mental disorder to me as well..



And that right there is the issue.. AS I LINKED, there are plenty of mental issues that disqualify one from serving. SO WHY SHOULD this (being gender disphoric) mental issue, NOT disqualify someone when all those others do?? Should IT be given preferential treatment? Then that's not equality is it?

PLUS in many of those court cases, the judges who made those rulings, were LIBERAL controled ones..



So should all those OTHER MENTAL and physical things that disqualify someone from seving also be done away with "To be constitutional'??



Which over on the Mil times forums, several years back when it was announced the Mil would pony up FOR viagra, i was all AGAINST IT.. I don't see why ANY medical company should pay for viagra... You want it PAY FOR IT yourself..



Yes.. If the mil gets forced to pay for a trannies reassgnment surgery/hormone therapy, i DO See thousands of TGs wanting to join JUST TO GET all that done.. Then getting out as soon as they can.

Just like i did when the GI Bill was altered, and TA was revised to allow people to get all sorts of certifications.. Just on my last ship alone, we had over a hundred NEW recruits that came in FOR THE EXPRESS reason of "Using the GI bill and Tuition assistance as much as possible, THEN GETTING out..



How?? IF they are on hormone therapy, are they medically capable of standing ARMED WATCH? Or going into battle?
Let alone having to spend MONTHS upon months for all the surgery if they are going to reassignment surgery..



As i have mentioned, i saw PLENTY of people come in JUST to milk the system for TA/Gi bill.. AND THEN GOT out after 3-5 years.. IMO if we were to pay for that sort of stuff, they should have a minimum requirement of MORE THAN just 5 years, and MUST reinlist at least once to justify the expenditure..



I never agreed with that call, and never will..



And how does saying "Sorry, your medical issues disqualify you from serving" violate the constitution??

+1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wordup666

Then you think everyone joining is just wanting surgery?

The vast majority suffering with this disorder, hell yes! You'd be surprised at the number of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" queers that came out of the woodwork to avoid being deployed to Afghanistan in 2002-2003. It was obvious that they didn't enlist to "serve their nation" if that meant there was any possibility that they might have to fulfill a genuine military mission that might mean they were actually going to be shot at. It was pathetic how may queer-rats abandoned the service as this nation shifted from a peace time footing to a war time footing.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The vast majority suffering with this disorder, hell yes! You'd be surprised at the number of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" queers that came out of the woodwork to avoid being deployed to Afghanistan in 2002-2003. It was obvious that they didn't enlist to "serve their nation" if that meant there was any possibility that they might have to fulfill a genuine military mission that might mean they were actually going to be shot at. It was pathetic how may queer-rats abandoned the service as this nation shifted from a peace time footing to a war time footing.

+1
It's amazing that these idiots in this forum don't get it. If you can have Uncle Sam pay for your surgery, why try to pay for it on your own.