Reaching
The whole world has gone crazy because the President announced yesterday that he wouldn’t allow transgender people to serve in uniform. Of course, they cling to that Manning fellow who was a traitor to his country and claims to be transgender because it got him released from prison by the social justice warrior in the White House.
A number of people who did serve honorably in the military and then came out are pissed off. Folks like Junea Childers, Kristin Beck, Logan Ireland .
Yeah, well, they didn’t serve openly as transgenders, they didn’t expect to have their transition paid for by the American taxpayers, and their units didn’t have to make accommodations in order for them to serve, so there’s a difference.
The Washington Post couldn’t help themselves pointing out that “The military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care” as if those two things are related. They also published some stupid crap about “A history lesson for Trump: Transgender soldiers served in the Civil War” which isn’t about transgender people at all – it’s about women who wore pants on the battlefield. Not a single instance of a transgender person was mentioned in the story. We’re constantly being told that cross-dressing is different from transgender, but no one told the Washington Post, I guess.
That angry old queen, George Takei piled on Trump, along with a bunch of other Hollywood has-beens (never-weres). Folk who spent the last two decades demeaning military service now act as if not allowing transgender people to serve is some egregious violation of their rights. There is no right to serve in the military.
Military.com provides a list of medical conditions that would preclude military service, should we find a way for everyone to serve despite the costs to the taxpayers and the costs to military order and discipline?
Allowing a bunch of people to put on uniforms knowing that they would never be deployed is bad business for the Defense Department. Everyone who has no military experience seems to have an opinion that is completely devoid of common sense and they’re all reaching for straws.
Category: Big Pentagon
*sigh*
Remember the good old days when men dressed as women to get OUT of the service?
Good ol’ Klinger!
Corporal Max Klinger: Transgender Hero of the Korean War.
He must have been one of the service members that President Obama spoke about when he he said that the LBQT community has served this country since it’s inception.
Instead of a man dressing as a woman to receive a Section 8, these days a male Soldier need to become “hyper-masculinized” for the service to shove you out the door…
Hear, hear!
God bless DJT
I hope his plan works, and all this attention given to the TG thing helps get ObamaDon’tCare repealed.
His brilliant plan didn’t work.
What they fail to mention is that Viagra is prescribed for heart conditions as it acts as a blood thinner.
I was wondering what was going on there.
Of course the MSM and their Eurowienne counterparts (BBC, Die Welt, et al) don’t mention that aspect of the use of Viagra.
Vaso-dilator. It opens the blood vessels, improving flow.
Thank God somebody explained that, but my estimate for TG Surgery 112.5m$ and the hormone therapy would run 7.3m/yr. Viagra runs 8$/pill, that’s 14,975,000 doses, for 21.8m veterans…1,398,707 Active Duty. BTW 84$m actually spent on Viagra..to one Ohio Company,,Cardinal Health Inc. Equal Opportunity Supporter of Democrats and Republicans like Sen Rob Portman who Surprise, voted to the ACA and pay for Viagra.
$41M on Viagra, remainder split between Cialis etc.
Usually don’t give ’em the brand name Viagra, you give ’em Revatio. Both are Sildenafil, but that would interfere with the writer’s agenda. Patients with CV problems generally balk at taking Viagra if you suggest that by name, but not the same drug under a less widely known name.
Can you blame them for balking?
No, and I didn’t mean to imply I would.
Sildenafil (Viagra) does not act as a blood thinner. It’s a Phosphodiesterase (PDE)inhibitor. PDE inhibition leads to vascular smooth muscle relaxation, which decreases pressure.
Thanks. There is a reason I didn’t go further that EMT-B.
I’m no lawyer, but the UCMJ and MCM are law passed by Congress. And AFAIK Congress hasn’t changed the law. Just because a former Commander in Chief made a royal proclamation about transvestites doesn’t make it law.
And this has nothing to do with women or Jim Crow. Segregation was never Federal law. Woodrow Wilson and other Democrat presidents kept Army units segregated during WW1 and WW2 to satisfy their party.
Transvestite is not transgender.
Transvestite is cross-dressing but still identifying and not switching genders. As long as you do that off duty, zero fucks given.
So if you buy into “transgender”, that would make it, by definition, a condition that existed prior to service.
And as such, not eligible to be “fixed” on the taxpayer dime.
Actually, under Obama’s rules as long as the guy says he identifies as a female and they switch him in DEERS he is TG. He doesn’t have to take any drugs or have surgery.
The PC pressure has all but eliminated calling anyone a Transvestite unless they identify as such.
Which of course falsely inflates the numbers of actual TG folks currently serving.
Surprise, surprise, surprise, Sergeant Carter!
It was said that Harry Truman only reluctantly desegregated the US Armed Forces at the behest of his Wife Bess. I see that as believable because the D-rat party always has been the party of segregation, the KKK,…
Well, think of this as an executive order… if Obama could issue ’em, so can Trump.
So, then this shouldn’t be controversial at all.
If you are Obama it’s not
If you are trump it is
Live by the Executive Order, die by the Executive Order. Too bad for President Obama that he left that “pen and telephone” in the Oval Office.
The commander in chief ordered the Department of Defense to accomodate transgender troops.
The Department of Defense implemented the order.
Additionally, transgender folks are protected under civil rights law.
Since when is there a civil right to military service? Not holding my breath for the answer.
Lars has a plastic statue of Saint Barry on the dashboard of his Prius. It talks to him and tells him things…
So does the Skittle-shitting, cotton candy farting unicorn that he has in his studio apartment…
As I point out elsewhere, the same people protesting ‘no serving’ now would be protesting ‘forced entry’ if the draft were revived.
Please cite the portion of the USC you believe “protects” transgender personnel.
Can’t say definitively without some extensive research (that I don’t have time for at present), but I believe you’ll find that there isn’t any specific protection for transgender rights in Federal law.
The closest I can think of are two SCOTUS decisions (Griswold and the more recent one regarding gay marriage). However, those decisions are not part of the US Code, and neither addresses transgenders specifically.
Differing state laws may indeed address transgender issues, but last time I checked state laws have exactly zero impact on the Federal government. I believe something called the “Supremacy Clause” is why.
Military has been held to account for the equal protection clause before, including application to homosexuals when no statutory protections existed.
Get in the time machine back to 1988 for this one:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/837/1428/157235/
The application of the equal protection clause describes the steps review of gov’t decisions has to go through:
” Finally, we must decide whether the challenged regulations survive the applicable level of scrutiny by deciding whether, under strict scrutiny, the legal classification is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest; whether, under intermediate scrutiny, the classification is substantially related to an important governmental interest; or whether, under rationality review, the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.”
So if an active member is booted and sues, the gist of the court case would be what degree transgendered people are discriminated against and what level of review it would receive – and whether the government can support the policy by meeting the requisite threshold (compelling, important, legitimate).
Looks like the arguments mostly failed on equal protection grounds for homosexuality and HIV+ based on ‘compelling’ government interest. No doubt you could get it in front of a judge for active duty servicemembers though.
It appears what helped that case was the successful estoppel claim, which means open transgendered service members should have a relatively easy time getting their case in front of a judge.
Also, they might not go with “strict scrutiny” in a new case, since part of their analysis was that homosexual orientation had no effect on duty performance, whereas with transgendered troops we at least have heightened suicide rates and (possibly) medical costs.
(I haven’t checked to see whether that case is still good law, but it’s a good find regardless.)
The opinion he cited was the three judge decision which was subsequently superceded by the full panel decision, which decided the Army was estopped to assert Watkins admitted to homosexual activity during his multiple enlistments because the Army had repeatedly allowed him to re-enlist knowing he was a homosexual.
Sure, the estoppel argument appears to be stronger and upheld in subsequent cases, which is why that one was cited a lot.
The case was also cited when courts went into the Due Process analysis before denying the plaintiff.
Which was the reason I cited it – it establishes two prongs an openly transgender soldier could use to attack an attempt for the military to remove them.
Unfortunately I don’t think they can use a “arbitrary & capricious” review or it’d be a slam dunk case… if discovery was allowed…
“You use yer mouth prettier than a twenny dollar whore”
Taggart had a way with words, didn’t he?
That’s nice, TN. But it’s also irrelevant to the question I was asking.
There’s plenty of case law establishing certain legal protections for homosexuals. However, last time I checked, a 3-judge panel’s decision is NOT part of the US Code. Nor is the 14th Amendment, for what it’s worth – that’s part of the Constitution instead.
Commissar claimed that “transgender folks are protected under civil rights law”. Bluntly, that individual often spouts many “facts” that, when checked, turn out to be . . . less than factual. Because of that, I asked him to cite his source for the claim.
He only extremely rarely does the latter.
WRT Texas Nomad’s post, IIRC “Strict scrutiny” only applies of the discrimination is against a “protected class” of people and I don’t know that TG are considered a protected class. Race, national origin, religon – those are protected classes. Not sure about homosexuals and unless there have been recent SCOTUS cases that say so, I don’t think trans-gendered or gender confused or whatever they are, are considered a “protected class” for purposes of application of strict scrutiny.
Gender is a protected class.
I don’t know if that has been determined and don’t want to spend another hour in Westlaw, but I assume they’d try to piggyback as a discriminated gender.
“Gender” as in Male and Female is a protected class.
Try finding a SCOTUS decision that says being trans-gendered puts one into a protected class.
Also I seem to recall a decision whereby the SCOTUS accepted the need in some circumstances for male/female discrimination and therefore those cases called for intermediate, not strict, scrutiny.
“Gender” is not in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The word used is “sex”, of which there are two, male and female.
I can’t speak for him.
“Gender” discrimination is outlawed under Civil Rights Act and as of 2012, EEOC said Title VII applied to gender identity under that reasoning. Maybe that is what he meant?
I type. Open up Google news. Justice Department filed brief in case that argues Title VII only applies in cases where men and women are treated differently.
Well, that idea last 10 minutes.
Gender? Nay.
-Sex- discrimination is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There is no gender discrimination happening.
None.
You can’t change your biology just because you want to put on a dress and call yourself a girl or wear muscle shirts and jeans and call yourself a guy.
Hondo that whole “civil rights” argument Commissar and others like to use is a completely false one. There is nothing anyone from the LGBTQXT+YZ crowd is denied under the Constitution that you or I can do.
And in all honesty it’s a real slap in the face to the people in the 60’s that were down for the struggle to have what they went through compared to some Rainbow Warrior’s quest to wear a dress while still standing at the urinal to pee.
There is simply no comparison.
I guess you have never heard the term “belay that order”. The Commander in Chief just ordered that transgender troops NOT be accomodated. What the hell does civil rights have to do with military service?
Lars, you need to get your lopadickoffomy, try to enlist or go back on AD, and then sue because your “civil rights” as a trannie have been violated. You could be a world famous test case and be in all the law books. Hell, students at the Berzerkeley lawer school would be studying your case. Put your member where your mouth is! Or shut up about something you know squat about.
Commissar, the Civil Rights act does not mention “transgender”. The word used is “sex”, of which there are stil ownly two, male and female.
If Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “Transgender”, please cite the relevant act.
Letting people who have gender dysphoria enlist in the military is not law. It is an executive branch policy decision carried out by regulation and/or directive. And you are correct in that the executive branch under Trump can undo anything that “0” put into play by that means. And that has a lot to do with why he won the election. Although I am no longer a lawyer, I played one for 37 years.
An Executive Order that extends rights can create standing for individuals who could sue if a subsequent Executive Order withdrew them even if they wouldn’t have standing initially.
Not that they would necessary succeed upon review, but its inaccurate to say anything done by a stroke of a pen can be undone without judicial review.
And EO’s can be undone by a subsequent administration.
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.
I’m no lawyer, but the UCMJ and MCM are law passed by Congress.
Quibble: The UCMJ is passed by congress, but the MCM is created and revised by executive order. Though I don’t think this policy change is going to require a change to either one.
It could also fall under disqualifying mental health diagnosis. Hence the PC push to change the DSM.
NO, it won’t because there is absolutely no federal law on this subject. Homey the clown issued an executive order on the subject, which Trump can now issue to say Transsexuals and fake transgenders are out.
Bingo.
Federal policy can indeed be changed by Executive Order, or on the order of a lower official of the executive branch empowered to make policy in a given area. They implement authority granted in law to those officials by virtue of their positions within the Executive Branch.
Changing current Federal law requires action by Congress.
I cheerfully wish all the male fake journalists at WaPo a very painful priapism.
I do NOT believe that taxpayers should be expected to pay for this twaddle.
I self-identify as a 4-star Michelin-rated chef, whether les Crapeaux like it or not. I will invite the Michelin Tire Man to my house for dinner to confirm my self-delusion.
This is becoming more and more ridiculous with each passing hour.
I seem to remember that Rod Damon suffered from priapism.
It takes surgery to relieve that condition.
Might wanna try ry amyl nitrite inhalant ampules first, I.V. Sodium Nitroprusside or needle decompression first.
fekkin typos
Wait, there were typos in that medical jargon?
All pinkies day, IDC_SARC?
delerium tremens
Glad I don’t eat or drink while reading TAH.
I sometimes drink when reading TAH, depending on the comments from 2 of the posters that sometimes show up here.
That’s drinking after reading, not drinking while reading.
Drink while reading TAH and you’re liable to spill some good booze or coffee on your keyboard.
“And you wanna stick a needle in my what?” says the priapic paratrooper.
Well, PT – if it’s a choice between that and Fourier’s gangrene . . . .
After seeing your recipes, I will cheerfully attest that you probably ARE a 4 star chef. I’m built like the Michelin Man nowadays… does that mean I get a dinner invite?
They aren’t all mine. I always credit my sources. I’ve begun hunting for a place where I can get the pork belly for that porchetta sandwich recipe that I posted yesterday.
if you got an asian store close bye you, they normally have the best. Chinese or Vietnamese ones are the best, Filipino are normally good too. I have to drive up to Albany for my PB needs.
Thank you for letting me know that. There are some of those around here. I will look for them. There’s also a butcher shop north of me about 20 miles. I don’t expect to do anything with this until fall, but I can work on finding resources now.
Love ya Ex – always teaching me new words.
“priapism” – I had to look it up.
Me too. giggidy!
Yeah, but, you REALLY don’t want one.
I always thought it was drawn from the name of Priam, a randy fellow, the king of Ilium, who had 50 sons, 19 of which were Hecuba’s. Such a stud. But it’s actually drawn from Priapus, Roman god of Fertility, who had to carry his “thing in a sling”.
I read Garden Gnomes got their start as Priapus idols.
I only knew because of the constant viagra commercials and that guy and his wife who had the big smile because of his ED problem commercial.
If it lasts more than 4 hours, find more ladies!
I wonder how badly the WaPo would get their panties in a collective wad if they found out much was spent on Motrin.
And also consider that bringing in a bunch of folks who are non-deployable just creates that much more stress and a higher op tempo for those men and women who aren’t confused about their sexuality.
Whoops, old intolerant me. Thank God my DD214 blanket protects me from all this bullshit.
The US Military doesn’t allow Asthmatic, Epileptic or Diabetic people to serve either, since when is the honor of serving supposed to be handed out like a feel-good participation trophy? When I first enlisted, I did so with the understanding that I was to make myself conform to US Army Standards and serve according to the needs of the Army, NOT screech and bawl for the Army to bend to my every desire and want!
You are totaly right. I also served knowing that I was to make myself conform to US Military Standards and serve according to the needs of the Military. Transitions can be put on hold while serving or leave time saved up and pay to cover the cost and time for transition and paid for by the service member so the service member and taxpayers don’t have to. Those that say it can’t work then here is proof it can and does work without harming the Military or taxpayers wallet.
I’m Transgendered and Served 12 Years Honorably in the Navy from 1979 – 1991 and have a Letter of Commendation & Combat Action listed on my DD-214, With 5 Western Pacific Deployments under my belt.
Correction on typo: paid for by the service member so the service and taxpayers don’t have to.
Did you serve before, during, or after transitioning?
Don’t cloud Marci’s agenda with pertinent details.
btw Marci…there are numerous vets here that know you could have gotten that CAR sitting on the shitter…so don’t expect it to be proof of anything on its own.
I could say “I was curious”, but the repercussions of doing so -here- are … terrible to contemplate.
Thank you….
Out of curiosity, what Combat Action did you participate in between 1979-1991 as a West Pac sailor?
And did you run around in female sailor clothes on duty? Or did you get modified after you got out of the Navy? If so, then your argument isn’t even in the ball park here.
Probable the centerpiece during Shellback initiations.
But you didn’t serve in Army or USMC Combat Arms during open hostilities – therein lies the problem. You can get away with it on a ship or airbase – a lot harder on a COP with a very small group of people.
You’ve obviously never been aboard a naval vessel with that statement.
And you’ve never been on a COP
Admittedly, I have never been on, in, or around a COP.
Then again, I wasn’t the one that made an ignorant remark regarding privacy or space aboard a naval vessel.
I made no such assumption regarding a COP.
I sure miss Momma’s fruitcake. She had a simple wisdom about things.
https://youtu.be/iNjxDJzpRbE?t=2m17s
Very smart lady. I hope to be just like her if I ever grow up.
I’m Transgendered and Served 12 Years Honorably in the Navy from 1979 – 1991 and have a Letter of Commendation & Combat Action listed on my DD-214, With 5 Western Pacific Deployments under my belt. So telling people that they can’t serve their country because they are different is just straight BS.
I served without needing or asking for anyone to pay for my transition or asking for any special treatment/accomidations because I served proudly with honor. But I did serve so the reasoning behind a full Ban on Transgender doesn’t hold up. Since they are saying the cost of paying for the transgenders transition would be to high for the service and taxpayers to have to pay. If that was the truth then all he would have had to do was ban the military from footing the bill for transitions which I totally agree with. If people in the military want to transition whil in save up the money from your pay and save up leave time then transition that way the cost is ZERO to the Military and taxpayer. The UCMJ (UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE) would deal with all other issues since that’s why it there. Since this is just a total ban on just a certain group of people which is just purely dicriminating against transgenders all this shows is that the only reason for the full ban is hate and bigotry.
I disagree “hate and bigotry”. One doesn’t “hate or bigot” against diabetics when one says “not suitable for service”. Ditto for nay number of acquired or hereditary conditions. The purpose of the armed forces it to kick the enemy’s ass so he quits, in other words produce Victory. That which enhances achieving Victory is good. That which hinders Victory is bad. And there is a whole lot of ugly reality wrapped up in that. Yup. I will leave them medical commentary to the folks on this forum with all the related skill-sets. If one waits until discharge or retirement to transition, so what? Lots of folks get old, crippled, or just fat after leaving service. Zero impact. If one transitions before joining up, and there is no handicap or ongoing support, I would think no big deal. I am reliably informed that there are -no- zero-support post-transition folks, and the support is often seriously impactful. If the medical art ever advances to wher there is no ongoing support or deficiencies, then I would reconsider. Trans -during- service? You are not allowed to -tattoo- yourself outside regs. You a re not allowed to render yourself non-capable. So -no way- is this acceptable. And before anyone flips me the “hate” or “bigot” middle fingers, I think that as free people in a free country, we can re-arrange our anatomy as we see fit, at our own cost. I have acquaintances who are trans,and I 100% support their right to live life as they chose. People in the -armed forces- are not “free’ in the sense of everyone else. They are agreeing to be -not- free for a while, so that everyone else -can- be free. It isnt -supposed- to be “fair”. it is supposed to be -Victorious-. Fighting a damn -war- without intending to be as Victorious as possible is not just stupid, but -obscenely- evil. That means the volunteer conforms to the needs fo the service, not the other way around. No “body mods” that hinder service, no weird philosophies that prevent or hinder service, no jack-wagon behavior that hinders service.… Read more »
Well said 11B
Fighting wars without doing everything feasible to be “Victorious” is not only obscenely evil because more people will die and be wounded, it is obscenely stupid because it impairs your ability to win as soon as possible.
But it’s a plank in the Democrat party platform…
Well Marci, you may be a full transgender now, but not while you were serving. So your point is moot. Your argument about saving your money and using leave time to accomplish a transition is absurd. No one can save up, take leave and have their foot amputated in Thailand for whatever reason they would do that and come back expecting to continue their service. You don’t just take leave, get your genitals reversed and come back happy and healthy with no further issues, medical, mental or performance. Just doesn’t happen. The ongoing lifetime of hormone therapy will not work on sea deployment or in the field.
You’re posting the same argument as many who served and then upon release decided to have their physical sex altered. It’s an after the fact, doesn’t hold water argument such as, “I served honorably and oh by the way, I got a dog when I got out”.
And the obvious extension of your hypothetical is, now everyone with a dog should be allowed to enlist with his dog; and the military should accommodate everyone wanting to serve with their dogs, plus the taxpayers should pay for it.
Aah, yes, the old “the only reason for not pandering and giving us what we want is hate and bigotry” slur. The decision to TG is a PERSONAL one. Why should that PERSONAL decision be pandered to via the US Military and the fucking taxpayer? How does that PERSONAL choice enhance military readiness? Those who want to TG do so before you enlist or after you either separate or retire. Then its a non-issue. But that’s not what this is about. Just like all the other LGBT WTF ever shit, its about being designated a protected class and being pandered to. President Trump is acting in the best interests of the US Military. The next step is to remove TG support from the VA system as it has NOTHING to do with serving in the uniform and said support takes resources away from actual service related conditions/issues, especially on the mental health side.
I was expecting “Marci” to not whip out the ‘ole “hate and bigotry” card until at least xher second reply post, but xhe went for it on xher initial posting. Damn, that was quick…
Seems to remind me of a posting a couple weeks ago someone wrote up claiming to be a book character? Similar subject here on TAH.
And what combat action happened in the “western pacific” between 1979 and 1991?
I wonder if this individual had this same attitude about a man, who never served a day in military uniform, making a decision to allow transgendered personnel to serve in a military he didn’t serve in. What part of “In consultation with the generals”, did this individual not understand?
Yeah, how about someone having to “walk a mile in our boots” before deciding to push this social justice warrior nonsense, or other kinds of BS, down our throats because he also had not been in the military.
You mean, actually enlist and do military stuff? Are you insane? Mess up their nails and have to sweat outside an airconditioned gym? YGTBFSM.
It was perfectly fine when Bill Clinton or Barack Obama made decisions that impacted severely the military, but it is unacceptable for Donald Trump to make any military decisions?
You wrapped the arguments of the left in one sentence, MSG Eric. Nicely done.
+250
I have my moments.
I’ve worked hard to reduce my “comparison” responses between left and right, but sometimes you just gotta let it out.
Seems like the most vocal about this fall into two categories: 1- Never served and have absolutely zero idea about what it takes to get into the military let alone what being deployed entails; or 2- Have absolutely zero interest in serving or the military in general and are just in love with the sound of their own voices (which all tend to be that caterwalling screech of the SJW in the wild). I think a lot of this was about transgenders wanting to get the snip-snip done on the government dime; having had to manage Class 8 supplies while deployed for a BAS I can only imagine what a nightmare it would have been with keeping up with the mess they would have entailed with the addition of hormones to a pharmacy block…
I’m fed up with these screeching harpies of the media hyperventilating over everything Trump says or does.
It really chaps me to see reports of their antics, their misinterpretation of what he says or does, and their constant negative outflow.
I try to control my responses on FB and in person, but I’m close to going off on the next idiots who act like a flock of guinea-hens.
(And if you’ve never been around a flock of guinea-hens: that ain’t no complement.)
Oh, come on, Graybeard!!
They have to have something to chew on.
Trump just threw them an entire set of bones, meat and all. My guess is that he is laughing up his sleeve about the howling right now.
I’m sure there will be breaking news where the Russians forced him to do it…surprised they haven’t tied the two stories together yet.
I guess what chaps me most is the folks who believe their hysteria.
And the fact that they are engaging in willful obstructionism, which damages all U.S. citizens.
When I’m in a better mood, I just laugh at their inanity.
I’m familiar enough with poultry to know exactly what you mean.
Just don’t get it about Logan Ireland and Laila Villanueva:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-airman-defies-trump_us_59794d34e4b0da64e876901b
Logan was born a woman. Laila was born a man. They are engaged.
It reminds me too much of a scene from the movie Tropic Thunder
Kirk Lazarus: Me? I know who I am. I’m a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.
Kevin Sandusky: What?
Kirk Lazarus: You a dude that don’t know what dude he is!
Tugg Speedman: Or are you a dude who has no idea what dude he is and claims to know what dude he is?
Kevin Sandusky: Man the insecurity with you guys is staggering!
Kirk Lazarus: You got somebody waiting for ya back in the world?
Alpha Chino: Yeah–no…I like to think it coulda been something, but I never had the courage to ask.
Kirk Lazarus: This sweet li’l thing have a name?
Alpha Chino: Yeah. Lance.
Kirk Lazarus: Well, when you get back you just tell Lance–wait, LANCE??!! WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST HEAR???!!!
And on what Jonn wrote:
“That angry old queen, George Takei piled on Trump, along with a bunch of other Hollywood has-beens (never-weres).”:
Alpa Chino: Yeah… but those dudes was trained soldiers.
Kirk Lazarus: Yeah! And we trained actors, MF! Time to man up. And I ain’t gonna sugarcoat.
So where was the outrage from the left when the two most recent Democrat presidents never served a day in uniform between them made decisions that destroyed military readiness?
Oh, wait. Just answered my own question.
Oh, and Joe, Lars, et al: I don’t give a rat fuck how much time the president, regardless of party, has in uniform. He has the JCS and SECDEF advise him for that very reason. So long as those decisions don’t result in degraded readiness or good people getting killed, zero fucks given.
When they do affect the mission, stand the fuck by.
Okay, to stop that line of BS before it starts, here’s a list of presidents who did NOT serve in the military.
12 presidents did not serve.
John Adams,
Thomas Jefferson,
John Quincy Adams,
Martin Van Buren,
Grover Cleveland,
William Taft,
Woodrow Wilson,
Warren Harding,
Calvin Coolidge,
Herbert Hoover,
Franklin Roosevelt,
Bill Clinton,
Barack Obama
… and Trump makes 14.
Fourteen who did NOT serve, who managed, somehow, to do their jobs including declaring war on enemies of the United States.
So much for all that ‘never served’ blather from the foggy miasma of Nutball Country.
Never looked at that list before. I don’t want to spend much time on it, but if you consider prime age of military service 20-30 years old, almost all of those Presidents would have served during peacetime. With two glaring exceptions.
Better have a good definition for peacetime, since 1900 we have had conflicts in literally every decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations I know it’s Wikipedia but it’s a decent list and shows armed conflict almost continuously.
For recent conflicts the VA has a definition:
World War I (April 6, 1917 – November 11, 1918)
World War II (December 7, 1941 – December 31, 1946)
Korean conflict (June 27, 1950 – January 31, 1955)
Vietnam era (February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975)
Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – through a future date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation)
Which works okay. Don’t feel great about Gulf War and Post-9/11 blending together, but other than that…
Point is, a young man of military service age makes a choice during those periods to serve in a war, with a high likelihood of serving in one of those particular wars. Every President from 1950-1992 had chosen service in WW2 (big * for Carter, but…).
That’s skipping a few:
– Philippine Insurrection, 1899-1909
– Boxer Rebellion, China 1900 (Dan Daly’s first Medal of Honor)
– Santo Domingo Crisis, Dominican Republic, 1904
– Cuban intervention, 1906-1909
– Border Campaign, Mexico 1910-1919, including the Tampico Affair and Veracruz Landing of 1914 and Pershing’s Punitive Expedition against Villa in 1916
– Cuban Rebellion, 1912
– Occupation of Nicaragua, 1912-1933
– Haiti, 1915 (Dan Daly’s
second Medal of Honor)
– Dominican Republic, 1916-1924
– “Sugar Intervention,” Cuba, 1917-1922
– Operations in China by the Army, Marines, and Navy, 1902-1941
– Lebanon Crisis, 1958
– Dominican Civil War, 1965
– Lebanon peacekeeping operation, 1982-84
– Grenada, 1983
– The confusing shitshow that was the Persian Gulf in the 80s
– Somalia, 1992-1993
– The Balkan Wars, 1994- (have they stopped?)
Most periods of “peacetime” in the 20th Century involved US troops in combat somewhere that nobody cared about.
I just copied & pasted the VA’s definition of wartime service. Minus the Mexican border campaign which they list.
I think there is a way to distinguish conflicts for which the military actively drafted and recruited additional men to serve in combat versus the actions of the standing military on your list.
For example, the demand for men for WW2 was so strong, every Presidential candidate (and most failed ones, and VP candidates) served in some capacity for decades. The demand in Vietnam was high enough that every candidate served or had to explain why they didn’t.
FDR was never challenged on his lack of participation in the campaigns of Gunboat Diplomacy.
FDR contracted poliomyelitis in 1921, which he picked up while swimming at Campobello. He kept it hidden while campaigning, but everyone knew about it.
FDR was 39 when he was diagnosed in 1921…he could have served in either or both the Spanish-American War or WWI. But the press was less hypocritical then.
He was Undersecretary of the Navy then. He could have resigned his position to go fight like Teddy, but I can understand not wanting to begin military service at 35.
He was prime fighting age for Santo Domingo Crisis though.
Whitey, you missed Panama.
So I did, Poe. Apologies. I suppose Cambodia and Laos could be listed separately as well. Plus the various times when the Libyans got frisky in the southern Med, circa ’86. And the Mayaguez Incident. And the occasional skirmish along the Korean DMZ since 1953. And the deployment of Marines to Rwanda.
I’m sure there’s a few others I overlooked as well.
Somalia went into 1994, into 1995 by other accounts:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm
You assume that those 18th century presidents were too old to serve during the War of Independence. They did not do so. There were no upper or lower age limits on military service at that time. Here is a list of US Presidents from that postwar period. George Washington, 1789-1797. John Adams, 1797-1801. Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809. James Madison, 1809-1817. James Monroe, 1817-1825. John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829. There were no age limits. Boys as young as 12 served in the infant US Navy as powder monkeys for the cannoneers. The following were volunteers in the Continental Army: Andrew Jackson, 9 – yes, THAT Andrew Jackson (Major) Thomas Young, 12 Deborah Sampson, 15 James Armistead, 15 Sybil Ludington, 15 Joseph Plumb Martin, 15 Peter Salem, 16* Peggy Shippen, 16 Marquis de Lafayette, 18 James Monroe, 18 Charles Pinckney, 18 Henry Lee III, 20 Gilbert Stuart, 20 John Trumbull, 20 Aaron Burr, 20 John Marshall, 20 Nathan Hale, 21 Banastre Tarleton, 21 Alexander Hamilton, 21* John Laurens, 21 Benjamin Tallmadge, 22 Robert Townsend, 22 George Rogers Clark, 23 David Humphreys, 23 Gouveneur Morris, 24 Betsy Ross, 24 William Washington, 24 James Madison, 25 Henry Knox, 25 John Andre, 26 Thomas Lynch, Jr., 26^ Edward Rutledge, 26^ Abraham Woodhull, 26 Isaiah Thomas, 27 George Walton, 27*^ John Paul Jones, 28 Bernardo de Galvez, 29 Thomas Heyward, Jr., 29^ Robert R. Livingston, 29 John Jay, 30 Tadeusz Kosciuszko, 30 That’s the younger crowd, although that list continues past Kosciuskzo. These are the some of the OLDER participants in the War of Independence: George Wythe, 50*^ Guy Carleton, 51 John Morton, 51*^ Comte de Rochambeau, 51 Lyman Hall, 52^ James Rivington, 52* Samuel Adams, 53^ Comte de Grasse, 53 John Witherspoon, 53^ John Burgoyne, 54 Johann de Kalb, 55 Roger Sherman, 55^ Thomas Gage, 56 James Smith, 56^ Israel Putnam, 58 Comte de Vergennes, 58 Lewis Nicola, 59* George Germain, 60 Philip Livingston, 60^ George Taylor, 60*^ Matthew Thornton, 62^ Francis Lewis, 63^ John Hart, 65*^ Stephen Hopkins, 69^ Benjamin Franklin, 70^ Samuel Whittemore, 81 You are applying current age and standards to a period in… Read more »
Yeah, I am. Though I respect a 9 year old and an 81 year olds’ desire to serve, I’d never hold it against them for not serving.
Its the same standard I hold myself too. If our country invades North Korea I’d keep my feet up and lazy, but if we found ourselves military attacked by Russia or China, I’d look into polishing off the old tanker boots and getting into fighting shape.
Those 9-year-old and 81-year-old people DID serve. Was that not plain?
The only reason the US would have to invade North Korea will be prompted by the Norks physically crossing the DMZ and invading South Korea. If that should happen, I would personally go off to the nearest recruiter and ask them to take me back, even if only as a desk jockey so that others can be released to the combat zone.
Are we miscommunicating? I understand they served, I am saying I wouldn’t consider it a black mark on their character not to have served.
Good for you. I’m now fat, lazy, and have full confidence in the existing armed forces and reserve to handle little Kim and his army without the need for an additional influx of men.
Don’t worry about it. We girls will go in your place.
Ahh, wish I’d known you in 2006, and 2007, and 2008.
Its not the “war” we are worried about. It is the cleanup after. People thinking Iraq or Afghanistan were tough to fix don’t understand how screwed up North Korea is.
It will take decades to get the North even to the 1950s level of South Korea as far as infrastructure, government, education, health, etc.
Yup, and on top of that militia service was automatic for men in specific age ranges during the colonial period and the beginning run of the U.S. This transferred from common law to federal statute with the passing of the Militia Acts of 1792. Today, all able bodied males from 17 to 44, U.S. Citizens and Legal Aliens intending to become U.S. Citizens, are classified into one of the militia categories. Each state also has a state version of the militia law.
When I looked I was surprised to read about Lincoln’s military service. I didn’t think he had any, but apparently he did as a Militia Captain during the Black Hawk War. He even mocked his own service while a member of Congress.
You learn something new everyday.
The US Military does not accept obese people either. Does that mean that it “Fat Shames” as well and now it should accept clones of the Round Ranger?
Stop making sense, it ruins the liberal’s argument.
Only if they feel discriminated against and have hurt feelings from it.
We still have the perfect opportunity to grab all these fakers and “re-enlist” them to go serve in Syria right now.
See how fast they admit they were just faking and cry like little children about not being able to go to war because they’re fakes.
The Guard is going to give me the old heave-ho in March when I turn 60. Should I pitch a red ass fit because they are discriminating against me because I am old? Age discrimination is discrimination after all. I will ets in Decemberthough, and I guess I am ready. I was thinking about extending until March in order to avoid the gray area cobra rates for tri-care, but I think the wife will just have to be careful until March.
This is descending to the level of 7th and 8th grade boys finding out that they can see into the girls’ bathroom at school.
This obnoxious obsession with sex is not just unhealthy. It is rude, it is crude, it borders on obsessive compulsive disorder, and the ONLY reason politicians are running their mouths about it is pandering to people they think will vote for them. It is NOT about civil rights. It is politics and nothing else.
I’m just a cook. Just a lowly, lowly cook.
It is more than that. It is another opportunity for the progtards to attack Trump, which the have decided should be the new national pastime.
Lots of things have become solely a purpose to get someone elected/re-elected.
Anything a politician gets their grubby hands on becomes a fight for rights and what people deserve or don’t deserve.
What the SJW’s don’t understand is service in the military is a privilege…not a right. Put aside your personal feelings about trans people and think about this:
High rates of depression and suicide…the personal, internal struggle they must be going through is probably hell.
Now add the stress of military operations and even combat? Do you want to put a person like that in harm’s way with the other troopers/sailors/marines/airman lives hanging in the balance? Would they trust someone like that?
They need help dealing with their situation, but they shouldn’t be doing on Uncle Sam’s time and on the taxpayer’s (that’s you, me, & everybody reading this) nickel.
You do know that if the draft were revived (which I think should happen), these same SJWs would be out protesting in the streets against the draft and everything connected to it, right?
As with all things, Ex, it’s okay when THEY do it.
Even the Selective Service Registration became an “its not fair!” fight because they didn’t want women to have to register.
Frankly, Selective service is useless and according to US Code any and every citizen of the US can be “mobilized” to support the nation in a time of crisis or total mobilization for war. Most don’t realize that and if it did happen, they’d wet their pants and find every excuse NOT to serve, regardless of what gender they think they are.
People from broken homes suffering high rates of depression & suicide as well. As do prior service.
I’m sure you’ve admonished snowflakes once or twice. These are the folks that know they’ll be mercilessly ridiculed and many don’t want them there, and still want to sign-up.
When I say high, I mean astronomically high. According to the Williams Institute/UCLA (from liberal as hell Cali) it says:
Trans Men 46% attempt a suicide
Trans Women 42% attempt a suicide
The whole summary of page 2 really paints an awful picture…kind of feel sorry them.
That’s slightly less than HALF of trans people attempt suicide people. I think the world’s finest military can do fine without this type of distraction. How say you?
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
Not to mention that many male-born trannies resort to homosexual prostitution to pay for their feminizing hormones and transitioning surgeries. Even the liberal media acknowledge this as true. Do we really want to open our barracks up to those accustomed to giving blowjobs for cash?
Talk about serving members…
Just wait till it happens and the clown on the receiving end finds out that not all is as it appears.
Think colossal beatdown (if not worse) and the subsequent fallout and issues with respect to UCMJ, etc.
Higher than average, maybe.
Not even close to the TG community. Not even on the same fucking ballpark.
Oh, and previous suicidal thoughts/attempts are a bar to service, so there’s that, too.
Don’t need to change that, but, half is half. Previous suicide attempts being a discrete personal action that disqualifies, a blanket ban seems unnecessary since it excludes the half that will not attempt suicide and may never have had a suicidal thought.
That has to be the dumbest reasoning I’ve heard. So how do we determine the half that are or will be suicidal and the half that won’t? Toss a coin in the recruiter’s office.
Sparks is right, Tex, that is truly dumb. By your reasoning it is incumbent upon the military to take the risk by inducting those from a group with a known 50% risk rate.
Ask an insurance company to do that…
Each incoming recruit is given individual health screening that includes the question and other appropriate question to determine the individual recruits risk for suicide.
Just like determination of asthma as a disqualifying condition is circumstantial on the individuals medical history and no a blanket ban.
Apples and oranges, Tex. There are subtle physical signs of latent asthma that can be detected by physicians. How do you ACCURATELY determine whether an inductee has SERIOUSLY contemplated suicide?
They currently deal with that NOW for people that have had diagnoses or treatment for mental health conditions.
I don’t think there is a perfect screening method for depression either. I’d just prefer the individualized decision by a professional instead of a blanket ban based on that statistic.
But once you are already in the service there are different rules.
Further, any medical condition you get that could be a hindrance is grounds for a medical board to release you from service. It doesn’t always happen, but you have to go through the process still.
And as far as doing a pre-screening, well lots of homosexual people used to join and when asked, “are you homosexual?” would say no and keep it to themselves. In 1993 when I went to the recruiter’s office they still had the “old” forms that had that question on it in fact.
For what it is worth, I ran a few minor numbers. One of us commented that he had to undergo 2 hours TG training annually – extending that service wide across about 1.3 service members yields 2.6 MILLION training hours lost. That is 1250 man-years, every year. Even at a nominal $15/hour cost (using their popular minimum wage number) that is $39 million dollars annually. As a comparison, assume the Pentagon pays about $.15/round for 5.56 (I pay double that for a box so I am thinking in billion-round lots they have to be doing better.) That is 260 million rounds – lost, inaccessible, gone.
The Pentagon says less than 2500 TGs ij service, the TG community claims 15,000 – so call it 10,000 for a round number. EVERY ONE OF THEM costs the service $39,000 a year out of the box in addition to normal pay and allowances. Who says they are cheap?
$39,000.00 x 10,000 (for sake of argument) = $390 million. Even in the DoD budget, that’s nothing to sneeze at!
And David, you didn’t even factor in that every time there’s an “incident” involving a trannie, there will be X-number of additional hours of trans training required throughout the offending command, perhaps the entire service(s).
all those zeroes… I’m just a country boy and have problems with that. Or senile, no one can seem to tell.
I was just talking about NOW… additional costs due to incidents etc. would just add incrementally.
One more time: The purpose of the Armed Forces of the United States is -Victory- over any and all enemies.
Support and defend the Constitution, etc, -Victoriously- over all enemies foreign and domestic.
If your demand hinders Victory, it is very likely wrong.
If your demand puts -yourself- above Victory, you are -definitely- wrong.
Are the people actively serving who are trans-gendered going to be booted out?
Nothing from DoD or Mattis on this new policy affects those currently serving yet.
JCS Gen. Joe Dunford says not change to policy based on tweet.
I think I’m having trans-gendered policy dysphoria.
He is correct. It will come down through the chain of command, and be implemented like any other significant policy change. Nothing unusual about that.
I think a Presidential proclamation that effects the status of active duty servicemembers by tweet is unusual. Particularly since it took almost 24 hours for someone in uniform to state how the policy would effect those currently serving in the short term.
I can imagine a transgendered soldier waking up today and thinking “I’ve never been so confused in my life.”
I cannot imagine a transgender soldier waking up and NOT being confused.
Maybe they are just policy-curious?
“Are the people actively serving who are trans-gendered going to be booted out?”
Let’s hope so.
Today 95% of them went to the personnel office to fix their DEERS account to make sure it showed their biological gender.
This is a all a big social experiment by the liberals. You want to dress up like a woman? Fine, do it on your off-duty time. Better yet, get some mental health treatment.
Well-written and true.
George Takei, a homosexual American of Japanese ethnic extraction, would have everyone, especially homosexuals, completely dependent upon the government for protection. The same government which has historically not been terribly sympathetic to homosexuals except–and only–for political expediency. The same government that stripped his family of their rights and property and shipped them off to an internment camp because they were ethnically Japanese. Never mind the realities of such things like response times, just focus on this for a moment.
Pink Pistols, in cooperation with the NRA, promotes responsible gun ownership and firearms training for among the homosexual community. They encourage homosexuals to excercise their Second Amendment rights as Americans in order to be able to defend themselves on the spot from whatever threat they may encounter.
Two words: Pulse Nightclub. Who is really looking out for gay rights? George Takei, or Pink Pistols and the NRA?
NRA, all the way!*
*Bonus gold star to anyone who catches that reference.
I don’t watch war movies.
They give me PTSD.
Remember this… George backs the Democrats – the party that put him and his family in “relocation centers” during WWII.
You can celebrate mental illness and continue to spiral down the drain of poor life choices all you want, but the military doesn’t have to accept you or pay for it.
All the children are upset adults are finally back in charge is all.
Personally, I think the draft should be reinstated, and for both men and women. I say this because it would bring a complete halt to this nonsense once and for all. If they really want to serve, a requirement of AD for a minimum of one year, plus 5 in the reserves would solve the problem of should/should not.
Since one year AD plus 5 Reserves is what my brother did – Vietnam was winding down – I see this as a useful way to weed out those who want to be taken seriously and those who are just kicking up a tempest in a teapot.
It is not going to happen until maybe WWIII, which we all hope won’t happen. The overwhelming majority of the populace is opposed to mandatory military service.
If WWIII kicks off, we won’t have enough time to draft anyone, let alone put them into combat.
I’d say that when that occurs, millions of veterans will be lined up outside recruiting offices asking to get back to work and go kill bad people.
“because it would bring a complete halt to this nonsense”
Doubtful. You’ll just be chasing a lot of AWOLs and the privileged kids will still get privileged assignments/deferments.
It’ll cause major ass pains for the troops that would rather be serving instead of dealing with the draftees.
Having to deal with someone that regrets signing the contract and decides to find a way out is bad enough without having a surplus of draftee shenanigans.
It is always easier when they just don’t come back for 30 days. “Dropped from Rolls” and you go on with your unit’s business.
Too often they come back at 25-28ish days and that is a tougher process to deal with. Little bastards.
Too bad draft dodgers would never be punished.
Automatic felon? That might make a few think twice, and no Carter to pardon all the pussies.
Back in 2004-2006 there was an Army Reserve IRR call-up for mobilization. (Individual Ready Reserve) which is basically a group that aren’t in a unit, most were put there because they were fat, couldn’t pass PT, didn’t show up for drill weekends, etc.
However, even that small “draft” of about 6000 personnel was a failure. Most didn’t show up (about 4000) and ignored their orders. Army HRC went to the extent to send teams out to track them down and find them. But even if they were found they still didn’t report as ordered.
Of the ones that didn’t show up for orders, NONE were punished. They were just “separated” from service as if nothing happened, which is what most wanted to do anyway.
So, in a sense, we did have a mini-draft and those that didn’t show, who were already IN the military did not get punished.
I think if the draft was to be reinstated, the minimum AD time should be two years, not one year.
If you think about it, two months for basic training, then three or four months of advanced MOS training, then 30 days back home before reporting to your first unit only leaves about six months left on active duty. Couple more weeks to inprocess and draw field gear and get organized. Takes time to separate the summer gear from the winter gear, and if the unit is preparing to deploy for a six to nine to maybe a year tour to somewhere, that individual would have to be shipped back early to meet the discharge date.
They would just barely be able to integrate themselves into the unit before it’s time to start outprocessing to hit the separation point.
I know I’m rambling on, but a one year commitment of AD time is just too short, IMO.
If two years on active duty was the standard for the prior draft and it worked, don’t try to fix something that ain’t broke./smile
Yeah, one year is logictiacally a waste of dollars, IMO.
I think that since the minimum activity tour for anybody right now is 24 months, that should be the standard for service, if we actually went there. 24 months on station after training.
Logistically….FFS
Having a bad day, IDC_SARC? Want some ice cream? Do you need a hug?
Not a bad day at all. Training barrels chested freedom fighters all day and posting on the fly.
America:Fukk Yeah!!!
**but Ice Cream would be awesome….mmmmmmmmmmmm
auto corrupt…pffft
Just for you….
https://www.brit.co/ice-cream-sundaes/
**THUD!**
Oh, you guys! It’s just an idea!
If Trump tweeted out ‘May reinstate military draft!’, just watch how fast the twitterpating would clog the internet. The horror!
And all genders must register.
Heads be a-splodin.
Of course the New York Times gave Private Manning the op-ed page to respond to the ban. Next week, John Podesta on e-mail security and Jared Kushner explains how to fill out an SF-86.
If the trans community is looking for someone to champion their cause, their go-to-guy probably shouldn’t be a convicted traitor. The fact that they do shows the lack of situation awareness that is rampant on the left.
It just proves they hate this country and its traditional values. But since they have felt self-hatred for years, it is normal for them.
The fact that they defend him so vehemently is astounding. If you even call Manning “him” they whine and cry about it. Try to bring, “why are you defending a traitor who uses ‘transgender’ as an excuse for what he did?” they lose their shit all together.
To be fair, if Manning were one of my soldiers I’d probably have called her Chelsea anyway, long before learning about her gender identity.
By calling that traitor bastard her, you are showing your secret progtard slip, dear.
Oh, you had to mention Jared Kushner. You could not miss an opportunity to backstabb the legitimately elected President of the United States.
Let me splain it to you.
ANYTHING that even remotely undermines the ONLY person to ever do anything good for these United States since Ronald Reagan is a fuckin TRAITOR to me and my children.
I assume you mean Jared is undermining the POTUS being being grossly unqualified to render advice on matters that backfire, and by traitor you mean his inability to be remotely honest about deals he may have tried to cut in exchange for bailing out his failing real estate ventures.
I hope you don’t mean he is beyond criticism because he fucks the President’s favorite daughter and got a West Wing office out of it.
As previously mentioned:
“Transgender People Can Still Serve for Now, U.S. Military Says”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/transgender-military-trump-ban.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-exclusive-idUSKBN1AC2FN?il=0
“The military’s policy permitting transgender individuals to serve remains in place, the country’s highest military officer said on Thursday, clarifying some of the confusion surrounding President Trump’s announcement on Twitter that transgender people would no longer be accepted or allowed in the military.
In a letter to the military service chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the policy on who is allowed to serve will not change until the White House sends the Defense Department a rules change and the secretary of defense issues new guidelines.
“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,” General Dunford said in the letter, first reported by Reuters. “As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions.”
You can’t change your chromosomes. Transgender is a misnomer. But I guess it’s easier to say then something like man pretending to be woman by becoming drug-addled female hormone consumer to grow tata’s like his mommy and stealing her panties.
By the way, nothing like a drug dependent,walking definition of psychosis reporting for duty in a state where they could never be deployed.
Boy, that such an addition to the mission.
But I guess Green Welfare is a better way to pay for lopping off those man parts and hormone cocktails. You know, because those dollars couldn’t be spent better anywhere else.
“to grow tata’s like his mommy”
add that to the misnomer…hormones will not cause a male to grow breasts. They only have breast tissue around the nipple, so estrogens just cause rather strange lumps of tissue under and around the nipple(Gynecomastia). Like a bodybuilder converting excess testosterone to estrogen because he didn’t take the time to buy and use an aromatase inhibitor when he bought his anabolics.
A male will inevitably require breast implants to give the impression of a female breast.A procedure considered purely cosmetic and not offered routinely free of cost to active genotypic females that simply desire the enhancement.
Sensei…have learned alot of medical knowledge from you..too bad you can’t meet in person Jan “Viet of the Nam Nurse” Lowry/Spann/Hartmann and talk S!@T, uh, I mean, Medical Jargon with her, cuz you know, you both have sooo much in common, being in the Medical Field (sarc on the latest on Jan Spann)
Yes, thank you Dr. Frankenstein, and the Journal of Medicine thanks you as well. I was actually referring to the gynecomastia that is misinterpreted as being a real tata’s (AKA Man titties) before any reconstructive breast enhancement is performed.
I was trying to avoid throwing up in my mouth while rapidly typing. But since that ship has now sailed thanks to your post. I now have an excuse to quaff a beer or four.
I was just agreeing with you.
I guess since you also mentioned psychotic behavior you could add Risperidone for a synergistic effect on the moobies.
Oh I know that. I was just reacting to the wretching the medical reality induced.
But thank God you didn’t describe that reconstructive mangina that looks like a peach cobbler exploded.
In case you think breast cancer is a women’s disease, Shaft had it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/story?id=4028791
The lack of reality about this is strange.
and what increases the risk of such cancer in normal men? Obesity. Why? Because fat cells aromatize testosterone into estrogen which increases the incidence of breast cancer.
So what’s a great way to increase a guy’s chance at developing breast cancer? That’s right…give him estrogen.
Added bonus …it might decimate his bone density, but hey, go ahead and put him on bisphosphonates…what’s another medication when his endocrine axes have already been thrown off center?
Yeah, we really need some male to female Trannies in the infantry with brittle bone disease trying to ruck-up with body armor, weapons, and ammo. That will work out swimmingly in the Stan of the Afghan.
I’m sure that just their getting orders to go there will give them PT of the SD.
The further this goes, the more I learn about what NOT to do.
Thank you for your info, IDC_SARC.
“WELCOM TO FT. BRAGG
WHERE MEN ARE MEN
AND SOME OF THE WOMEN ARE TOO”
Having served at Ft Bragg, I not only heard this many times but experienced it a couple times too. Luckily I was never THAT drunk….
I have to say, since it’s the end of the day, that Trump really knows how to play the libertards like Asian carp in a river.
They are so gullible and so dumb, they actually fall for every thing he tweets.
If you haven’t figure out yet that a good portion of his stuff is meant to make them go up in smoke and quickly, too, like that annoying dog down the street that barks at its own shadow almost all night long, you aren’t paying attention, because you got snookered, too.
At least this part was fun. Got some useful health care stuff from IDC_SARC, some interesting info from others, and the moon is only at the quarter-full stage right now.
Funny thing, at one point they were even talking about this on more than one news channel. Explaining what he’s doing to keep them strung along and how they were playing HIS game.
Even after talking about it, they are STILL like a fish on his line swimming along like they wanna jump in that boat and become dinner.
Offer the medical procedure with/in exchange for a 10-year enlistment. Nothing else. No bonus, no GI Bill, no nothing. Oh, and the individual in question must complete service with an Honorable Discharge. No medical unless in extreme circumstances. And no “gender dysphoria” disability.
They do the same thing (with variations) for Law School, Medical School, PhD programs, College Tuition Repayment, certain nuclear programs, etc. This is not rocket science.
With a minimum of four years overseas or two-tear hardship tour. Think Korea.
And also include women for selective service.
Curious to see how far this goes then…..