I do not have an issue with banning TRansgender folk. But then I am am old dude, with old thinking. I don’t even agree with women in combat, but that is a personal opinion. I don’t like men marrying men either.I think it shows the $$ mind set in government. I read the accounting office has decided it ONLY costs the Government from 2.8 million to 5.8 million $ to have the transgenders in the military. I mean the word ‘only’ was used. Of course the person was comparing that to the 700Billion budget of the Military.When I read that I think of tax payers. How many john Smiths does ti take to pay that much in taxes????? ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
I think banning certain types of people with severe mental and emotional problems from positions where their job will be to use rather powerful weapons and from making decisions to defend the nation is probably a good idea. If someone has proven himself or herself (if he/she’s figured that out yet) to be confused and to make bad decisions about something very basic and fundamental, why should the government hire him or her?Suicide rates for transgenders are extremely high. The military doesn’t need the financial burden, either. If car insurance companies can charge men under 25 more, why can’t the government make a wise financial decision in this regard________________
Sure, and if someone shows certain serious problems (e.g. having had transgendered procedures done, razor blade scars on their arms, marks from shooting up, exhibiting paranoid behavior) the army should turn him or her down________________
Sure, and if someone shows certain serious problems (e.g. having had transgendered procedures done, razor blade scars on their arms, marks from shooting up, exhibiting paranoid behavior) the army should turn him or her down.
I can agree with a policy and not appreciate how it is accomplished. The jury is out in my mind of the ‘use of Tweets’ to govern. Not my kind of leadership, but this is a new world. I hope there is some success via Trump. I still say the conservative SC judge was just about worth all the present mess.But I do agree with the policy of no transgender. Personally I am not too thrilled with openly homosexuals in service, but I am from the old military.________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
I do not have an issue with banning TRansgender folk. But then I am am old dude, with old thinking. I don’t even agree with women in combat, but that is a personal opinion. I don’t like men marrying men either.I think it shows the $$ mind set in government. I read the accounting office has decided it ONLY costs the Government from 2.8 million to 5.8 million $ to have the transgenders in the military. I mean the word ‘only’ was used. Of course the person was comparing that to the 700Billion budget of the Military.When I read that I think of tax payers. How many john Smiths does ti take to pay that much in taxes????? ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
I think banning certain types of people with severe mental and emotional problems from positions where their job will be to use rather powerful weapons and from making decisions to defend the nation is probably a good idea. If someone has proven himself or herself (if he/she’s figured that out yet) to be confused and to make bad decisions about something very basic and fundamental, why should the government hire him or her?Suicide rates for transgenders are extremely high. The military doesn’t need the financial burden, either. If car insurance companies can charge men under 25 more, why can’t the government make a wise financial decision in this regard________________
Many more people have emotional problems than transgender. Shouldn’t they check out each person on an individual basis?
Klinger served just fine – never got kicked out – so what’s the problem________________
Sure, and if someone shows certain serious problems (e.g. having had transgendered procedures done, razor blade scars on their arms, marks from shooting up, exhibiting paranoid behavior) the army should turn him or her down________________
Sure, and if someone shows certain serious problems (e.g. having had transgendered procedures done, razor blade scars on their arms, marks from shooting up, exhibiting paranoid behavior) the army should turn him or her down.
I can agree with a policy and not appreciate how it is accomplished. The jury is out in my mind of the ‘use of Tweets’ to govern. Not my kind of leadership, but this is a new world. I hope there is some success via Trump. I still say the conservative SC judge was just about worth all the present mess.But I do agree with the policy of no transgender. Personally I am not too thrilled with openly homosexuals in service, but I am from the old military.________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/