|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 29, 2021 23:09:48 GMT
So you're saying that anyone who wants sovereign nations to exert their sovereignty, Nope, other than upgrading the walls, they're pretty much a waste of money and do damage to the environment. This could be done much better with more people and technology. Immigration is how this country came to be, and it keeps our country alive and working. Cutting immigration as much as we have is not a good thing. You're wrong here, and you're a piece of shit as well for all of this, but mostly for the last one. It doesn't effect the military readiness. Any more than allowing women to serve on ships and submarines does. Are you too retarded to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration? He didn't say anything about cutting immigration. Nothing at all. Cutting illegal immigration is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 30, 2021 0:05:52 GMT
Nope, other than upgrading the walls, they're pretty much a waste of money and do damage to the environment. This could be done much better with more people and technology. Immigration is how this country came to be, and it keeps our country alive and working. Cutting immigration as much as we have is not a good thing. You're wrong here, and you're a piece of shit as well for all of this, but mostly for the last one. It doesn't effect the military readiness. Any more than allowing women to serve on ships and submarines does. Sovereign nations that don't exercise their sovereignty aren't nations. Why should the US be treated any differently than any other nation exercising their sovereignty by establishing border controls and requirements for immigration? Fuck you're being stupid. I NEVER said that we don't need borders, jackass. I said that the walls are an inefficient way of doing it. Oh, please, there's a fuckload more to being trans than just throwing on a fucking dress, jackass.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 30, 2021 0:27:32 GMT
... sacred indigenous lands and critical watersheds... I don't give a fuck about indigenous "sacred" lands. Fuck everyone's "sacred" lands their magical thinking bullshit needs to get paved over. This include Rome and Jerusalem, put up a parking lot. And pipelines are safer for the environment than shipping via the ocean or by train or truck. The left just want us dependent on foreign sources for energy to force the bullshit "green" energy solutions which are all more polluting than fucking coal. The only green solution that is actually green is nuclear, but Lefties are terrified it will end foreign reliance. This right here tells me that you're a piece of shit. So you want less border control*, more immigrants dragging their country's problems here (Islamism, crime, welfare state, etc)†, and more trans people committing suicide? That makes you a piece of shit in my book. That last one especially. * Yes, I see your later response, but you have to realize that that has never happened. Even Obama, The Great Savior, just built more walls, because its cheaper to put up walls than to hire people to man drones and patrol the border. † Unrestricted immigration is a drain on our economy and no other nation is entitled to what we have built. If they are such a great people, why have they not built their own countries up? I'll give you a hint... How will transgenders in the military affect military readiness? If you can shoot straight and the full-fill physical and mental requirements, your sexuality shouldn't matter. They cannot fulfill the physical and mental requirements. They require constant, necessary medication, that's a physical disqualification for anyone else, and as a group they have the highest suicide rate, thus they do not meet standard military mental requirements for anyone else. If they were to have to uphold the same standards as the average joe, they would get drummed out for those two disqualifications. All Trump did was let the military handle trans like they handle everyone else and not give them special exemptions (thanks for that fucking can of stupid worms Obama). And for some reason this pisses of the Left because y'all would rather have trans suicide rates jump to near 66% instead of hovering down near 27%* (yes, trans military suicide rates are almost 2 in 3, rather than the non-military standard of standard of 1 in 3). * Which is just under the suicide rate for females in the military. If a military psychiatrist deems that you exceed the standard suicide risk for healthy males (females are around 29%, males are around 32%, being trans basically doubles those numbers) and you cannot be successfully treated, you get discharged. Trans cannot be successfully treated for their mental disorder at this time, because they cannot. Even if they transition successfully, the suicide rate for trans doubles if they are veterans. You fucking assholes. Stop using marginalized people's lives in your fucking political wars.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 30, 2021 0:41:44 GMT
Are you too retarded to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration? He didn't say anything about cutting immigration. Nothing at all. Cutting illegal immigration is a good thing. Personally I'm all about cutting immigration to near zero. We do not need more people, we are actually good where we're at. If unemployment drops to below 3%, then sure, I can see relaxing the sphincter a bit, allowing a broad mix of immigrants from all societal levels, but with strict vetting. The kind of immigrants who want to integrate, not ghettoize* themselves. * On that note, we need to start revoking "indigenous" lands. Force integration. The biggest reason our indigenous population is so near the poverty line and you don't see amerind ceos and business leaders is they are ghettoized. Many don't need to succeed, they live off that pittance from the casino and do not dream of more, or they feel pushed into remaining secluded on 'ancestral' lands, working the territory businesses, not broadening out. Amerinds have a poverty rate of 28% compared to blacks at 26%, but we never hear about their woes do we†? Also never hear about them getting gunned by the cops, hmmm.... I wonder why? † Except when someone wants to cross their lands with a pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 30, 2021 3:12:30 GMT
As to military readiness: Joe Smith joins the marines and becomes an infantryman. Joe needs to pass the PFT's 3 mile run, pushups, pullups, crunches, and a body composition test every year. Joe fails a PFT because he's overweight with a 24% body fat and only managed 2 pull-ups. Joe throws on a dress and lipstick and declares he's transitioning. Does he now pass because he's within the standard for females of his age? What do the others in his platoon (men and women) think of Josephine's integrity and trustworthiness? How much ridicule will be thrown at Joe? At what point does the command reassign Joe or someone else when they express unease serving with someone who's cheating a PFT and isn't carrying their own load? Or the holy rollers in the platoon who are going to constantly evangelize to Joe that he's going to hell. Joe can't take it anymore and eats a bullet. Now the command has a safety stand down and everyone has to take additional sensitivity training. But that isn't enough, so the brass relieves the CO, XO, and Cmd Sgt Maj. Tell me again how that doesn't affect readiness? Let me see if I understand your example:
- Joe wants to be a Marine
- Joe can't pass the male Personal Fitness Test (PFT)
- Joe, wanting to still be a Marine, decides to transition to skirt the male PFT requirements?
You premise seems to depend that the only reason to be transsexual is to pass the PFT. The process of switching genders is much more difficult that putting on a dress and wearing lipstick. It requires a mental health evaluation, for starters. What about trans males (those that switch from female to male)? In that case, it would be making the test more difficult, not less. The real problem here is not the test, but intolerance. What was once (white) male only, allows African Americans since 1942 and allows women as well (in all capacities wince 2016). Is the Marine Corp diminished with their inclusion? Women have also suffered from intolerance (toxic masculinity), yet many remain in the Corps. The Corps already has sensitivity training, and officers are learning to cope with the change in times.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 30, 2021 3:48:52 GMT
We do not need more people, we are actually good where we're at. If unemployment drops to below 3%, then sure, I can see relaxing the sphincter a bit, allowing a broad mix of immigrants from all societal levels, but with strict vetting. The kind of immigrants who want to integrate, not ghettoize* themselves. * On that note, we need to start revoking "indigenous" lands. Force integration. The biggest reason our indigenous population is so near the poverty line and you don't see amerind ceos and business leaders is they are ghettoized. Many don't need to succeed, they live off that pittance from the casino and do not dream of more, or they feel pushed into remaining secluded on 'ancestral' lands, working the territory businesses, not broadening out. Amerinds have a poverty rate of 28% compared to blacks at 26%, but we never hear about their woes do we†? Also never hear about them getting gunned by the cops, hmmm.... I wonder why? † Except when someone wants to cross their lands with a pipeline. The farming industry (which isn't included in the national employment figures) has a significant percentage of illegal immigrants within its workforce. The farming industry also includes a sizable prison workforce as well. Otherwise, many crops would be higher priced. I'm curious about what you know about Native American history and politics. President Ulysses S. Grant had pursued a forced integration "Peace Policy" for 20 years that was considered a failure. After which the 1887 Dawes Act reduced reservations lands even more. Accounts of Native American police brutality is a significant issue. Unfortunately, it does not get reported in the media as often as the black community. Perhaps they should be recording and uploading their attacks also. But in large cities, the likelihood of having bystanders recording these events is probably far greater. Perhaps we should first "force integrate" those of the sovereign citizen movement? Or do those individuals get a pass?
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 30, 2021 9:34:55 GMT
Let me see if I understand your example: Funny how you're more than willing to beat down 3cat's shitty reason, but skip right past the very good reason trans should not be in the military. The farming industry (which isn't included in the national employment figures) has a significant percentage of illegal immigrants within its workforce. The farming industry also includes a sizable prison workforce as well. Otherwise, many crops would be higher priced. Illegals should be legalized or booted. Prisoners should be paid minimum wage. Food should cost more. From what I've read, fruits and veges would go up about 25%. I'm fine with that. You willing to pay people what they're worth? Or like the Democrats are you happier with an illegal immigrant slave class? A lot. Yes, point to the idiocy of a shortsighted and bigoted federal government as an example of how integration should work. Okay, I say that as though Grant personally* was the reason acculturation of the 'savage' amerind tribes was 'shoddy' at best. It wasn't at all Grant's fault, and his policy would have very far successful had the congress not shorted funds to the project, had the government not still been basically at war with several tribes (see Custer and Last Stands), and had the fed not been savagely bloodthristy in pursuit and treatment of the tribes on the side of the Confederacy†. * Grant's policy as implemented by the Quarkers had incredible success at 'civilizing', industrializing, and bringing modern agricultural to the tribes they worked with. Every other attempt at his project was a complete and bloody failure. † You think good ole boys in Georgia have a "the South shall rise" fever? You haven't talked to amerinds whose tribes had no choice of which side of the divided country they were on, were sold a bill of goods by the South, and then treated worse than the Confederacy after after the war. Whoo-hoo, now there is some simmering animosity. They make inner city black youths look like law-abiding, cop-loving, pillars of society by comparison. They've got the rage going on. If it's occurring they definitely should. Sovereign citizens are a bit weird. They aren't "unintegrated", they just have a strange take on how the laws are supposed to apply to themselves. Which, generally does not go the way they want it too, as it shouldn't. But SCs don't have large chunks of land that are treated differently under the law. They have private property subject to all the same laws as the rest of us, despite what they magically think.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Jan 30, 2021 15:17:28 GMT
I don't give a fuck about indigenous "sacred" lands. Fuck everyone's "sacred" lands their magical thinking bullshit needs to get paved over. This include Rome and Jerusalem, put up a parking lot. ...We do not need more people, we are actually good where we're at....On that note, we need to start revoking "indigenous" lands. Force integration. Yay!
Let's start by our genocide by sterilizing all the white evangelicals and demolishing their churches! We need to pave over their magical thinking bullshit and prevent their contributing to the overpopulation of the US! We need more parking lots!
Buffoon.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 30, 2021 15:32:11 GMT
Let me see if I understand your example: Funny how you're more than willing to beat down 3cat's shitty reason, but skip right past the very good reason trans should not be in the military. I was responding to 3cat's poor example. Go ahead and discuss the very good reason why trans should not be in the military (particularly the Marines). I want to hear it explicitly stated from you. The farming industry (which isn't included in the national employment figures) has a significant percentage of illegal immigrants within its workforce. The farming industry also includes a sizable prison workforce as well. Otherwise, many crops would be higher priced. Illegals should be legalized or booted. Prisoners should be paid minimum wage. Food should cost more. From what I've read, fruits and veges would go up about 25%. I'm fine with that. You willing to pay people what they're worth? Or like the Democrats are you happier with an illegal immigrant slave class? I agree with all your points here completely (except perhaps the last statement). I was trying to illustrate how the farm industry is overlooked when it comes to employment and wages. Food should cost more and I support the price increase as long as it goes into the pockets of the workers who need it and not the executives who don't. Most industries seem to have an absurd payout difference between executives and the lowest paid (the working class). Funny how you phrased Democrats as being "happy" with an illegal immigrant slave class as if they are the sole proprietors of this situation. The way you worded that was masterfully manipulative. Kudos to you! A lot. Yes, point to the idiocy of a shortsighted and bigoted federal government as an example of how integration should work. Okay, I say that as though Grant personally* was the reason acculturation of the 'savage' amerind tribes was 'shoddy' at best. It wasn't at all Grant's fault, and his policy would have very far successful had the congress not shorted funds to the project, had the government not still been basically at war with several tribes (see Custer and Last Stands), and had the fed not been savagely bloodthristy in pursuit and treatment of the tribes on the side of the Confederacy†. * Grant's policy as implemented by the Quarkers had incredible success at 'civilizing', industrializing, and bringing modern agricultural to the tribes they worked with. Every other attempt at his project was a complete and bloody failure. † You think good ole boys in Georgia have a "the South shall rise" fever? You haven't talked to amerinds whose tribes had no choice of which side of the divided country they were on, were sold a bill of goods by the South, and then treated worse than the Confederacy after after the war. Whoo-hoo, now there is some simmering animosity. They make inner city black youths look like law-abiding, cop-loving, pillars of society by comparison. They've got the rage going on. It wasn't just the tribes located in the Confederacy that were moved but many tribes in the Great Lakes and Midwest regions as well (Sioux, Cheyenne, Fox, Sauk, Winnebego, Ottowa, Miami, Potawatomi, Wea, and the Shawnee to name a few). These nations weren't sold a bill of goods from the South, but from the U.S. federal government as a whole. Small wonder why some have distrust (at best) and even animosity toward a nation that has exploited them repeatedly. If it's occurring they definitely should. "If"? Perhaps you misspoke, but police brutality is "definitely" happening. Sovereign citizens are a bit weird. They aren't "unintegrated", they just have a strange take on how the laws are supposed to apply to themselves. Which, generally does not go the way they want it too, as it shouldn't. But SCs don't have large chunks of land that are treated differently under the law. They have private property subject to all the same laws as the rest of us, despite what they magically think. Perhaps we have arrived at the crux of the matter: land ownership and eminent domain.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 30, 2021 15:37:58 GMT
As to military readiness: Joe Smith joins the marines and becomes an infantryman. Joe needs to pass the PFT's 3 mile run, pushups, pullups, crunches, and a body composition test every year. Joe fails a PFT because he's overweight with a 24% body fat and only managed 2 pull-ups. Joe throws on a dress and lipstick and declares he's transitioning. Does he now pass because he's within the standard for females of his age? What do the others in his platoon (men and women) think of Josephine's integrity and trustworthiness? How much ridicule will be thrown at Joe? At what point does the command reassign Joe or someone else when they express unease serving with someone who's cheating a PFT and isn't carrying their own load? Or the holy rollers in the platoon who are going to constantly evangelize to Joe that he's going to hell. Joe can't take it anymore and eats a bullet. Now the command has a safety stand down and everyone has to take additional sensitivity training. But that isn't enough, so the brass relieves the CO, XO, and Cmd Sgt Maj. Tell me again how that doesn't affect readiness? Let me see if I understand your example:
- Joe wants to be a Marine
- Joe can't pass the male Personal Fitness Test (PFT)
- Joe, wanting to still be a Marine, decides to transition to skirt the male PFT requirements?
You premise seems to depend that the only reason to be transsexual is to pass the PFT. The process of switching genders is much more difficult that putting on a dress and wearing lipstick. It requires a mental health evaluation, for starters. What about trans males (those that switch from female to male)? In that case, it would be making the test more difficult, not less. The real problem here is not the test, but intolerance. What was once (white) male only, allows African Americans since 1942 and allows women as well (in all capacities wince 2016). Is the Marine Corp diminished with their inclusion? Women have also suffered from intolerance (toxic masculinity), yet many remain in the Corps. The Corps already has sensitivity training, and officers are learning to cope with the change in times. As someone who has served, I fully understand how the law of unintended consequences applies and my hypothetical example *will* eventually occur given sufficient tolerance of transgenderism in the military. Cyphersmith mentioned women in submarines to counter my argument. What he didn't mention was the actual reality of women serving in the navy. dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/A *significant* number of women, when assigned to a ship getting ready to deploy, would somehow become pregnant just in time to not be deployable. So - the navy did the only thing they could do - they transferred them to shore billets and either deployed short-handed or pulled someone else from the squadron to take their place at the last minute. Either way, forcing others in the ship to pick up your load, or forcing someone currently on a shore tour (which is the "reward" after a sea tour) to be double-pumped back to a sea tour for the 6-9 month deployment so their 30-36 month shore tour gets chopped. Currently the USN rotations are typically 48-54 month sea tours followed by 30-36 month shore tours before going back to a sea duty posting. So - you end up with a significant number women in the navy who never finished a sea duty billet or who ended up sucking up shore duty billets that should have been open to sea returnees. It pisses off everyone else in their unit (both men and other women). Even something as innocuous as shipping a pregnant sailor off the ship in the middle of a deployment - now the ship has to come off station to facilitate the helo transfer, not to mention how much it actually costs the taxpayers every time someone needs to be helivac'ed. Did I mention how, in the Navy's desire to increase readiness by addressing out of shape sailors, they decided that anyone failing 3 PFTs in a row would be separated from the service? It didn't have the intended effect - we had a significant number of sailors who engaged in the "Food for Freedom" program - healthy in- shape sailors eating themselves to be fat enough to fail the body fat portion of the PFT three times in a row, all while doing everything they were instructed to do, to ensure they got honorable or medical discharges to keep their VA benefits. And that's what this is about - the law of unintended consequences which creates incentives to abuse the regulations for someone to give themselves an unfair advantage. Trans will abuse whatever system is put in place because a percentage of *all* personnel in the military abuse the system. In addition, the taxpayer will be on the hook to pay for gender-change surgery, medications, counseling, etc. It may not be now, but it will be.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 30, 2021 15:55:15 GMT
Let me see if I understand your example:
- Joe wants to be a Marine
- Joe can't pass the male Personal Fitness Test (PFT)
- Joe, wanting to still be a Marine, decides to transition to skirt the male PFT requirements?
You premise seems to depend that the only reason to be transsexual is to pass the PFT. The process of switching genders is much more difficult that putting on a dress and wearing lipstick. It requires a mental health evaluation, for starters. What about trans males (those that switch from female to male)? In that case, it would be making the test more difficult, not less. The real problem here is not the test, but intolerance. What was once (white) male only, allows African Americans since 1942 and allows women as well (in all capacities wince 2016). Is the Marine Corp diminished with their inclusion? Women have also suffered from intolerance (toxic masculinity), yet many remain in the Corps. The Corps already has sensitivity training, and officers are learning to cope with the change in times. As someone who has served, I fully understand how the law of unintended consequences applies and my hypothetical example *will* eventually occur given sufficient tolerance of transgenderism in the military. Cyphersmith mentioned women in submarines to counter my argument. What he didn't mention was the actual reality of women serving in the navy. dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/A *significant* number of women, when assigned to a ship getting ready to deploy, would somehow become pregnant just in time to not be deployable. So - the navy did the only thing they could do - they transferred them to shore billets and either deployed short-handed or pulled someone else from the squadron to take their place at the last minute. Either way, forcing others in the ship to pick up your load, or forcing someone currently on a shore tour (which is the "reward" after a sea tour) to be double-pumped back to a sea tour for the 6-9 month deployment so their 30-36 month shore tour gets chopped. Currently the USN rotations are typically 48-54 month sea tours followed by 30-36 month shore tours before going back to a sea duty posting. So - you end up with a significant number women in the navy who never finished a sea duty billet or who ended up sucking up shore duty billets that should have been open to sea returnees. It pisses off everyone else in their unit (both men and other women). Even something as innocuous as shipping a pregnant sailor off the ship in the middle of a deployment - now the ship has to come off station to facilitate the helo transfer, not to mention how much it actually costs the taxpayers every time someone needs to be helivac'ed. Did I mention how, in the Navy's desire to increase readiness by addressing out of shape sailors, they decided that anyone failing 3 PFTs in a row would be separated from the service? It didn't have the intended effect - we had a significant number of sailors who engaged in the "Food for Freedom" program - healthy in- shape sailors eating themselves to be fat enough to fail the body fat portion of the PFT three times in a row, all while doing everything they were instructed to do, to ensure they got honorable or medical discharges to keep their VA benefits. And that's what this is about - the law of unintended consequences which creates incentives to abuse the regulations for someone to give themselves an unfair advantage. Trans will abuse whatever system is put in place because a percentage of *all* personnel in the military abuse the system. In addition, the taxpayer will be on the hook to pay for gender-change surgery, medications, counseling, etc. It may not be now, but it will be. First, thank you for your service.
This was the explanation I was looking from you. It is the issue of rule exploitation throughout the armed forces regardless of gender. How do we address the potential for pregnancies and how they are handled, "Food for Freedom" discharges, tour management logistics. Again, thank you for spotlighting the crux of the matter: regulation abuse.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 30, 2021 17:17:59 GMT
As someone who has served, I fully understand how the law of unintended consequences applies and my hypothetical example *will* eventually occur given sufficient tolerance of transgenderism in the military. Cyphersmith mentioned women in submarines to counter my argument. What he didn't mention was the actual reality of women serving in the navy. dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/A *significant* number of women, when assigned to a ship getting ready to deploy, would somehow become pregnant just in time to not be deployable. So - the navy did the only thing they could do - they transferred them to shore billets and either deployed short-handed or pulled someone else from the squadron to take their place at the last minute. Either way, forcing others in the ship to pick up your load, or forcing someone currently on a shore tour (which is the "reward" after a sea tour) to be double-pumped back to a sea tour for the 6-9 month deployment so their 30-36 month shore tour gets chopped. Currently the USN rotations are typically 48-54 month sea tours followed by 30-36 month shore tours before going back to a sea duty posting. So - you end up with a significant number women in the navy who never finished a sea duty billet or who ended up sucking up shore duty billets that should have been open to sea returnees. It pisses off everyone else in their unit (both men and other women). Even something as innocuous as shipping a pregnant sailor off the ship in the middle of a deployment - now the ship has to come off station to facilitate the helo transfer, not to mention how much it actually costs the taxpayers every time someone needs to be helivac'ed. Did I mention how, in the Navy's desire to increase readiness by addressing out of shape sailors, they decided that anyone failing 3 PFTs in a row would be separated from the service? It didn't have the intended effect - we had a significant number of sailors who engaged in the "Food for Freedom" program - healthy in- shape sailors eating themselves to be fat enough to fail the body fat portion of the PFT three times in a row, all while doing everything they were instructed to do, to ensure they got honorable or medical discharges to keep their VA benefits. And that's what this is about - the law of unintended consequences which creates incentives to abuse the regulations for someone to give themselves an unfair advantage. Trans will abuse whatever system is put in place because a percentage of *all* personnel in the military abuse the system. In addition, the taxpayer will be on the hook to pay for gender-change surgery, medications, counseling, etc. It may not be now, but it will be. First, thank you for your service.
This was the explanation I was looking from you. It is the issue of rule exploitation throughout the armed forces regardless of gender. How do we address the potential for pregnancies and how they are handled, "Food for Freedom" discharges, tour management logistics. Again, thank you for spotlighting the crux of the matter: regulation abuse.
At one point, you had people with critical skills (nuclear power, primarily) doing the food for freedom - getting to keep their reenlistment bonus and getting severance money. And their admin discharge was upgraded to honorable a year after they got out. Eventually, those in charge figured out the scam and just fucked with them without kicking then out until the end of their contract. Now, the big thing is all of the people who get training in networks and computing get out after their first enlistment because they can command $100k+ salaries right out of the gate, with no college debt and several years of practical experience. So the navy had to fix that loophole by not sending them to the advanced schools during their first enlistment. For every loophole that gets closed, people will find another one to exploit.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 30, 2021 18:17:45 GMT
First, thank you for your service.
This was the explanation I was looking from you. It is the issue of rule exploitation throughout the armed forces regardless of gender. How do we address the potential for pregnancies and how they are handled, "Food for Freedom" discharges, tour management logistics. Again, thank you for spotlighting the crux of the matter: regulation abuse.
At one point, you had people with critical skills (nuclear power, primarily) doing the food for freedom - getting to keep their reenlistment bonus and getting severance money. And their admin discharge was upgraded to honorable a year after they got out. Eventually, those in charge figured out the scam and just fucked with them without kicking then out until the end of their contract. Now, the big thing is all of the people who get training in networks and computing get out after their first enlistment because they can command $100k+ salaries right out of the gate, with no college debt and several years of practical experience. So the navy had to fix that loophole by not sending them to the advanced schools during their first enlistment. For every loophole that gets closed, people will find another one to exploit. It seems to be that way in all things (as far as I can tell), sadly. There lies the issue between the spirit of codes vs the letter of codes and which is more important when conflicting has always been a subject of debate.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 30, 2021 23:15:25 GMT
I was responding to 3cat's poor example. Go ahead and discuss the very good reason why trans should not be in the military (particularly the Marines). I want to hear it explicitly stated from you. Or you could scroll up six posts and realize I already posted it, you just apparently skipped it. Hmmm... is it Democrats or Republicans who keep trying to push for open borders, lessened penalties fot illegal aliens, and keep creating "asylum cities"? I wonder where I could possibly be getting the idea that Democrats in particular are working very hard to keep an illegal immigrant workforce in the US? Granted, Trump dumping the path to citizenship didn't help, but to be fair he was trying to send them all back home. Not just working to help keep them illegal. I didn't misspeak. If it's happening to them in greater percentage than to others based on criminality, then it should definitely be documented. Yeah, I waffle on eminent domain. It's a necessary evil to be sure, and I respect it being fought at all turns, but sometimes the justifiable needs of the government must be put above the rights of the people. Sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 16, 2021 6:55:50 GMT
Get ready for Operation Chokepoint 2.0 Build Back Betterer Edition! More discrimination against sex workers and the gun industry, yahoo!
"... preventing banks from discriminating against certain industries violates their right to free association..." Fuck that, I've come to the conclusion that businesses aren't people, they don't get to a right to 'free association'. A baker has to make cakes for gays, a bank has give loans to sex workers and the gun industry.
|
|