Jump to content

Stay Classy Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rand Corp. recently did a study and estimates there are approx. 1,300 - 6,600 transgender service members currently serving. Do we simply drum them out?

 

And I thought Kristin Beck's comments on the matter were interesting especially as to how the issue relates to leadership.

 

Apologies for not being able to link from a mobile device.

Yes. Next question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For current enlistees, I'd say give them honorable discharges with full pensions when those pensions would have naturally matured through service time, and all other benefits associated.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Doing so would create yet another method to con the US taxpayer out of money, and this "strategy" has been used countless times by members of the military, including some famous cases.

See "Tailhook."

 

You only get a pension if you serve 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Participation award!

 

The enablers are in force I see. He shows up, then hits the campaign trail with a bunch of captive Scouts... Give him a participation award? LoL...

 

My Son was @ the 2013 Jambo. That was the first one @ the new Summit Bechtel Reserve in W.Va.

 

Obama video conferenced in 2010 for the one @ A.P. Hill.

 

2013:

 

One thing Scouts didnt get to see this year was a speech from President Barack Obama, who serves as honorary president of the BSA.

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/24/obama-turns-down-boy-scouts-offer-to-speak-at-jamboree/

 

"...Presidents dating back to George H.W. Bush traveled to the Jamboree when it was previously held at a military base at Fort A.P. Hill, Va. Obama, who opposed the Scouts ban on gays, had been invited again this year but didnt take the Scouts up on their offer. He addressed the Jamboree in a video message in 2010.

 

The president is always invited and welcome to come, said BSA national spokesman Deron Smith. We understand his schedule sometimes prevents that.

 

White House spokesman Keith Maley said Obama has long believed that the Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He will continue to look for opportunities to work with the Boy Scouts..."

 

 

2013 Obama declined. The reserve in W.Va in was brand spanking new and logistics were still an issue, with the 2013 Jamboree being the very first event there. Weather was also rainy as hell. Zip line courses in the canopies were frequently shut down to lightning.

 

I wonder if security, weather, scheduling conflicts, new facility, logistics... Then the gay brewhaha played a part. LoL. Of course it did. The Reserve was a mess and barely pressed into service on time.

 

It's more classy to decline, then go and come off all political.

 

Trump seems to make a lot of noise, complains how people are unfair to him, crows about his accomplishments, puts others down. Obama may not have agreed with the Scouts on some issues, but it is classier to exude quiet strength through decorum. Trump exudes petulant bluster, that is anything BUT classy.

 

Trump is a Snowflake & Deplorable all rolled up into one. A Janus. He does not exemplify the Scout Law, Oath, and Motto. Even in Scouting's Honor Society, Order of the Arrow, Trump is anything BUT "Brotherhood of Cheerful Service." Trump has simply lived his life in a sewer.

 

Anything BUT classy, and his recent speech jusy confirmed it for the 10,000th time.

 

You don't get a "classy medal" for just showing up and participating. Especially if one particpates like a buffoon. That's a participation award, you think the conservatives would get this, they preach against them all the time.

 

Enablers...

Is there even a point addressing your stream of consciousness? Or are you just gonna say a bunch of inane things again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a point addressing your stream of consciousness? Or are you just gonna say a bunch of inane things again?

 

There rarely is. Just sit back and marvel at it.

 

But be nice. He may be like someone's crazy uncle, but he's our crazy uncle EII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, things have not gone great for Dems in the South since that 1964 Civil Rights act was put into law

You're equating transgender people who obviously have a mental problem and need treatment to the black civil rights movement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we needed a transgender military ban (another view)

 

FTA:

 

In no particular order, some of the questions already raised include the cost the military might incur. While I agree that the cost is beyond minuscule in terms of the total amount that the military spends on healthcare, that’s really not the issue. The question is the appropriateness of funding any treatment for gender dysphoria. And to deal with that issue you have to first decide what “transgender” means in a medical sense.

We have some splinter elements of the medical profession who seem to be treating it as nothing more than “just another way people can be” without supplying any scientific proof to back up their definition. But in reality, particularly if you have any respect for science in general and medical science in particular, it’s neither that simple nor innocuous.

As the American College of Pediatricians points out, particularly when dealing with problems in children (though it applies to adults as well), “a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinkingGender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).”

I’ve always found that a bit harsh and have been reluctant to refer to it as a mental disorder. (And for the record, we’re talking about transgenderism here, where the normal “XY” or “XX” genetic markers are present in males and females respectively. People with related genetic abnormalities, casually referred to as “intersex” these days, need to be accommodated differently.) Of course, some folks are a bit more direct about it, such as Ben Shapiro.

No one has the "right" to serve in the military. People are 4F for a variety of reasons. Mental illness can be such a reason.

 

Even if we’re not going so far as to refer to gender confusion as a mental disorder it is, as the ACP pointed out, at best a sign of confusion which puts any surgery, hormone injections or other medical treatments into the category of “optional” or “elective” if we’re being honest about it. We don’t pay for our troops to get breast implants or hair plugs or face lifts or tummy tucks (unless it’s corrective in nature following injury) so there is a case to be made that this shouldn’t be covered either.

 

There’s also a problem with the all too common practice of taking the use of the acronym LGBT too literally and lumping in transgender volunteers with gay and lesbian troops. While Ed was drawing a distinction between the two in his column column and bringing up the history of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy without attempting to conflate them, I’ve been watching others on social media lumping everything together as if Lesbian and Gay service should be treated the same.

The two situations are unique, each in their own way. It is disingenuous to attempt to tie gays and lesbians in with this transgender question for purposes of this discussion. I have zero problem with gays and lesbians serving in the military or anywhere else for that matter. In fact I served with more than a few when I was in the service years ago, long before they were able to come out. C’ mon, man. I was an invited guest at quite a few Go-Proud events when they were still in business. There’s no reason gays and lesbians can’t fulfill their duties without causing any issues in force performance any more than with straight service members.

But unlike transgender folk, gays and lesbians can and do use all the same bathroom, shower, lockers, barracks and other facilities assigned to their actual gender. (Read “biological sex” though it’s a disgrace we even need to invoke that term.) Not so for those who “identify” as the other sex, insist on wearing the opposite uniform and using the wrong facilities. Out in the civilian world certain accommodations can be made for the individuality of others provided they don’t infringe on the privacy and rights of everyone else, but such facilities are frequently even more scarce in the military.

More at the link:

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...