10phone2 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Interesting post: I will without a shadow of a doubt hire a transgender person to work on my team, sit right next to me, and have my team's performance based on there's. I would even attend there wedding. I would openly and willingly have a conversation about how there weekend was with their spouse and even help them to create initiatives to create support groups in the company. Growing up on a military base watching all the mental health/family issues and being the child of the highest ranking army psychologist in the army... the army can barely support the mental well being of a soldier going through a bad break-up let alone dealing with anything else at the end of the day. What is being swept under the rug, is the military already discriminates against gender, height, weight, medical conditions, credit score, and IQ. It's role is to provide highly trained individuals with the least amount of medical or mental support to kill others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Wow! Can't wait to post an article and quote you on this. Why so we can have a 5 page conversation about how you can't tell the difference between writing that is bound by the code of ethics and writing that is not? There is nothing wrong with reading opinion pieces as long as you know going in it's an opinion and not strictly news reporting.you have to treat them differently but again if it is well written and cites specific sources that you can verify there is no reason you shouldn't read it to try to gain understanding from the other sides perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Why so we can have a 5 page conversation about how you can't tell the difference between writing that is bound by the code of ethics and writing that is not? There is nothing wrong with reading opinion pieces as long as you know going in it's an opinion and not strictly news reporting.you have to treat them differently but again if it is well written and cites specific sources that you can verify there is no reason you shouldn't read it to try to gain understanding from the other sides perspective. No. You can't have a conversation about opinions. You always have to argue about citing factual data then when it comes to opinions and feelings from the liberal side, all of the sudden you become an advocate for opinions. Pathetic. Simply pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Interesting post: I will without a shadow of a doubt hire a transgender person to work on my team, sit right next to me, and have my team's performance based on there's. I would even attend there wedding. I would openly and willingly have a conversation about how there weekend was with their spouse and even help them to create initiatives to create support groups in the company. Growing up on a military base watching all the mental health/family issues and being the child of the highest ranking army psychologist in the army... the army can barely support the mental well being of a soldier going through a bad break-up let alone dealing with anything else at the end of the day. What is being swept under the rug, is the military already discriminates against gender, height, weight, medical conditions, credit score, and IQ. It's role is to provide highly trained individuals with the least amount of medical or mental support to kill others. This. People need to stop treating the military like it's a regular job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 The military will only pay for someone's gender reassignment if a military doctor deems it medically necessary. This is not considered an elective or a cosmetic treatment.We shouldn't be paying for any of it. Including the meds that are involved. The stupidity around .2% of the population is out of control. If they are are walking around with tits and want to shower at the gym they need to go wash up in the ladies room. If they have a dick but mentally thunk they are a girl and want to piss they need to use the mens room. If available use the single toilet family one if available. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Can I get a definition here, is it transsexual or transgender? I thought transsexual have the SRS and transgender just "identifies" as the other gender. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 We shouldn't be paying for any of it. Including the meds that are involved. The stupidity around .2% of the population is out of control. Should the military not pay for any medical treatments for conditions that affect .2% of the population? If they are are walking around with tits and want to shower at the gym they need to go wash up in the ladies room. If they have a dick but mentally thunk they are a girl and want to piss they need to use the mens room. If available use the single toilet family one if available. The current DoD policy is quite limited in its scope, especially when viewed in the greater social battle for transgender acceptance. This is a solved issue, and has been in place for over a year. Can I get a definition here, is it transsexual or transgender? I thought transsexual have the SRS and transgender just "identifies" as the other gender. Honestly I have no clue. The important thing, to me at least, is to understand the current policy treats this like any other medical issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 No. You can't have a conversation about opinions. You always have to argue about citing factual data then when it comes to opinions and feelings from the liberal side, all of the sudden you become an advocate for opinions. Pathetic. Simply pathetic Do you know what the words mean that you use? Let's break this down - a fact is something that is verifiable. An opinion is an expression of feelings and logical (regardless of soundness) conclusions. They can be based in fact but are not required to be. Where people (like you) get into trouble is where your opinion states an unverifiable piece of information (like a misinterpretation, falsehood, unknown quantity, or lie) as a fact as justifiable support for your opinion. It's completely your right to do so just as it is someone else's complete right to point out that you have adopted someone else's dishonesty as your own. A good example of this is the lie that "poor people are poor because they are lazy". This is not only an unverifiable piece of information but has been shown to be false by many scientific studies for well over 100 years. When you assert this lie as a truth you open the door for people to challenge you on this assertion. When they do they are challenging your intellect, knowledge, credibility, and integrity - and guess what you are not going to pass. It's fine you have that opinion just as it is fine for others to have the opinion of you that you are ignorant and not-credible. the cost of a bad opinion is you get called ignorant or a liar. When discussing politics, the general expectation is that you and your sources are knowledgeable and well researched (or you not do it at all). You are discussing the differences in logic between the facts at point A, and the conclusions you have drawn at point b, and whether the logic is sound, based on principles of morality, theory of government, ideology, problem solving, etc..., the point being to keep emotional bleed at bay and to be open and not defensive.If you just state your irrational feelings not based on fact then so what? all there is left is for someone to decide whether they want to continue conversation with you or just dismiss it all together. We have a whole group of people, who call themselves forgotten people because they don't take the time to educate themselves about the means reasons political policy affects their lives. The people who are most affected by government action are in the least possible position to understand it, so they make assumptions and draw conclusions and get angry and do stupid things like elect a sentient yam with all the mannerisms of Ren and Stimpy to the highest position in the executive branch, and rally against intellectualism because they feel marginalized by it. There is a huge difference between traditional conservationism and what passes for the garbage getting thrown around today. William F. Buckley never called the poor lazy. He recognized that poverty was a real problem in this country and he was sympathetic to the plight - he just didn't see how an overarching one size fits all federal government program was the best solution to the problem. He was more an advocate of the states taking the burden of solving the issue because they were better suited to legislate efficiently to their markets in the least intrusive way, to act quicker, and to know how to address the root cause factors rather than treat the symptoms. You see the difference between a real well reasoned conservative viewpoint based on knowledge and fact and one that is illogical and emotional? here is the thing, if you want to base your opinions on lies, falsehoods, misinformation, etc....you have to be honest with yourself and know that it is ok for people to call you uninformed, ignorant, and a liar, because by the technical definition of those words you are those things. If you are insulted by it, then you have the power to change it by becoming knowledgeable and challenging your own logic. Be honest with your self for why your opinion is the way it is - don't get angry that people can see though the lie you have told yourself. If you don't like what vanity fair wrote then challenge it based on the sources they cite and the soundness of their logic in forming their opinion. Don't just rail against them because you "feel" differently from them, put your back into it and find the flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Should the military not pay for any medical treatments for conditions that affect .2% of the population? Not in the case of transgender freaks. Time to draw a line when it comes to shit like this. the greater social battle for transgender acceptance. This is a solved issue, and has been in place for over a year. Acceptance of disorders like this is one thing but there's zero benefit in committing resources for it in the military. We dont need to change all of society for weirdness crap like this to create a charade so people who are clearly abnormal feel they aren't. Stop the bullshit already. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Kerry, there's a lot of studies that show obese people tend to have a lower IQ. Well, I guess since studies back this up, is it fair to call you a fucking dumbass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Not in the case of transgender freaks. Time to draw a line when it comes to shit like this. you know Tim, talking like this doesn't make you sound tough, it makes you sound like an asshole, and it makes it much harder to take what you say seriously. I know you aren't one so how about knocking off the fake tough guy act. Acceptance of disorders like this is one thing but there's zero benefit in committing resources for it in the military. Not true. The military trains physicians, same a civilian medical schools. they have to meet the same requirements as other schools in being able to provide relevant training. they have long recognized the link between elective cosmetic surgery and reconstruction surgery, and that there is a benefit and a need to providing that training to their physician students. While some can go to civilian residency programs it is often more difficult to match to them than it is to military programs if you are a military physician. To that end there is a benefit to the military to this issue. How much of one it is? difficult to quantify. This isn't the only benefit either by the way...there are plenty of areas where the military is experiencing personnel shortages and limiting the applicant pool though discrimination isn't helping that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Kerry, there's a lot of studies that show obese people tend to have a lower IQ. Well, I guess since studies back this up, is it fair to call you a fucking dumbass? Call me whatever you want, you opinion is of inconsequential value to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 you know Tim, talking like this doesn't make you sound tough, it makes you sound like an asshole, and it makes it much harder to take what you say seriously. I know you aren't one so how about knocking off the fake tough guy act. Kerry, if you want to think I'm playing tough guy then that's on you. I don't expect you or others to perhaps agree or like my blunt opinion on the matter. Call me an asshole for it even, that's okay. You might be right, I'm an asshole in terms of my opinion vs yours but it's not something I'm going to apologize for because it's what I believe. We as a country need to end the bullshit pansy playing when it comes to trying to mold an entire society around a fraction of a percent of our population that has a disorder like this. It's not discriminatory, it's just plain practicle. Not true. The military trains physicians, same a civilian medical schools. ......To that end there is a benefit to the military to this issue. How much of one it is? difficult to quantify. This isn't the only benefit either by the way...there are plenty of areas where the military is experiencing personnel shortages and limiting the applicant pool though discrimination isn't helping that situation. I think in a country of 350M we'll be fine if we don't cater to the 6,500 or so that they "say" are enlisted. I'll also leave the value of them being in the military to those that they serve with to decide. Their "coworkers" who have to live and die and trust their lives to them and have to put up with the challenges that come with them hold more of a value to the decision than liberal elites that think there's a reason to spend money on GI Jane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Russian corruption, murder, New York real estate, and frozen assets... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/?utm_source=fbb Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 Russian corruption, murder, New York real estate, and frozen assets... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee/534864/?utm_source=fbb Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk great read. It's mind blowing what is allowed to even possibly take place at that financial level of wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 Can I get a definition here, is it transsexual or transgender? I thought transsexual have the SRS and transgender just "identifies" as the other gender. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk It's "Tranny." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted July 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 My dog underwent gender reassignment surgery https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/28/my-dog-molly-underwent-gender-reassignment-surgery Holy shit :lolguy: Fake news but funny headline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 My dog underwent gender reassignment surgery https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/28/my-dog-molly-underwent-gender-reassignment-surgery Holy shit :lolguy: Fake news but funny headline Are you saying it is fake news because it is the guardian? or because you think it's actually a joke article? Because Molly the dog appears to have actually had surgery. Although a matter of semantics since the dog was Intersex it could be considered gender assignment surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted July 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 You'll argue with literally ANYTHING I say won't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 You'll argue with literally ANYTHING I say won't you? I'm not arguing, I'm asking you to clarify. You said fake news but it looks like the dog actually had the surgery. So what's fake? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/pet-dog-has-sex-change-rare-operation-vets-discovered-hermaphrodite/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ntersex-pet-dog-molly-recovers-rare-gender-reassignment-surgery-jack-russell-hermaphrodite-male-a7703006.html https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/915307/dog-sex-swap-jack-russell-terrier-gender-reassignment-surgery-glasgow-ross-allan/ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39703329 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted July 28, 2017 Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 My dog underwent gender reassignment surgery https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jul/28/my-dog-molly-underwent-gender-reassignment-surgery Holy shit :lolguy: Fake news but funny headline The headline is funny and fake, you are correct. The dog had a Cyrptorchid castration and a Urethrostomy, both are extremely common veterinary procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 Trump supports our troops... Except the old and disabled ones http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/01/proposed-va-benefit-cut-angers-elderly-disabled-vets.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 Trump supports our troops... Except the old and disabled ones http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/01/proposed-va-benefit-cut-angers-elderly-disabled-vets.htmlUnemployabilty benefits? Theyre probably just too lazy to find jobs. Trump has proven over and over that his word means nothing. He will say whatever it takes to get support from a particular group. Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 And the Mooch has been fired by the new Chief of Staff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 10 days. I believe it is a record. To put this in perspective, the average life span of a press secretary for any president in the modern age is 3 years. The short term press secretary leaderboard prior to the mooch's firing: - Jonathan Daniels: 19 days. Appointed by FDR right before his death in office, and continued to serve under Early's temporary appointment to replace him until Truman could find another. - Jerald terHorst: 31 days. Quit in Protest of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon - James Brady: 69 Days. Shot in the head during an assassination attempt on Reagan - Jake Siewert: 112 days. Post Election Fill in under the last days of Bill Clinton - Roger Tubby: 124 days. Post Election Fill-in under the last days of Truman - George Stephanopoulos: 138 days. was the defacto press secretary under Dee Dee Myers until removed by Myers for misstatements, was never officially appointed. - Sean Spicer: 182 days. Resigned, suspected in protest of Anthony Scaramucci all others after that are a year and a half or longer. It isn't unusual for a president to remove a press secretary from office, but usually the ones that last a short term are tied to extenuating circumstances. In this case it's kind of a no brainer as to why, the Mooch was an absolute train wreck of a Press Secretary. Trump was right about one thing: he is setting all kinds of records, unfortunately they are the kind of records you don't really want to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.