They were wrong

[The Derp]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

 

[Hossfly]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

What's wrong?

They didn't ask the grunts and that's how the custom of "fragging" came to be. Grunts don't like wusses.

 

[The Derp]

What's wrong? They didn't ask the grunts and that's how the custom of "fragging" came to be. Grunts don't like wusses.

Which is why they should hate the biggest pussy of them all, Donald Trump. Who just so happens to be transgender himself; he's a gigantic pussy and a huge dick.

 

[jillian]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

they are almost always wrong.

trump loons are certainly almost always delusional.

 

[Hossfly]

What's wrong? They didn't ask the grunts and that's how the custom of "fragging" came to be. Grunts don't like wusses.

Which is why they should hate the biggest pussy of them all, Donald Trump. Who just so happens to be transgender himself; he's a gigantic pussy and a huge dick.

Trump ain't in the foxhole with a grunt.

 

[The Derp]

Trump ain't in the foxhole with a grunt.

And never has been and never will be. He skipped out on military service. What was the reason? Diarrhea or something?

He is the Commander-in-Chief, though.

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

On the last one we haven't been in a full scale conventional war with women in combat roles yet, so the jury is still out on that one.

 

[Hossfly]

Trump ain't in the foxhole with a grunt.

And never has been and never will be. He skipped out on military service. What was the reason? Diarrhea or something?

He is the Commander-in-Chief, though.

WTF does that have to do with Chicks With Dicks?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

Because tyrannies can enter the military and then demand that we pay for transgender surgery. Then recovery time..
That is not why we have a military.

 

[The Derp]

On the last one we haven't been in a full scale conventional war with women in combat roles yet, so the jury is still out on that one.

We won't be fighting those kinds of wars anymore. And women have been serving in combat since 2013, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[The Derp]

WTF does that have to do with Chicks With Dicks?

Nothing. Just like the skin color of soldiers had nothing to do with their ability to do their job. Just like the sexual orientation of soldiers had nothing to do with their ability to do their job. Just like the gender of soldiers has nothing to do with their ability to do their job.

So dysmophia shouldn't either.

 

[The Derp]

Because tyrannies can enter the military and then demand that we pay for transgender surgery. Then recovery time..That is not why we have a military.

So fucking what? You think non-trans soldiers don't have ridiculous procedures we pay for? How much did we spend on viagra in the military last year anyway?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Because tyrannies can enter the military and then demand that we pay for transgender surgery. Then recovery time..That is not why we have a military.

So fucking what? You think non-trans soldiers don't have ridiculous procedures we pay for? How much did we spend on viagra in the military last year anyway?

You lost, get over it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trump ain't in the foxhole with a grunt.

And never has been and never will be. He skipped out on military service. What was the reason? Diarrhea or something?

He is the Commander-in-Chief, though.

His reason was better then Clinton, Clinton ran away Trump got deferments for medical reasons as I understand it. Remind me how you hated Clinton for lying and then skipping the Country.

 

[The Derp]

His reason was better then Clinton, Clinton ran away Trump got deferments for medical reasons as I understand it. Remind me how you hated Clinton for lying and then skipping the Country.

Clinton got a Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford. That's why he didn't serve. You get those because you are smart. They are notoriously hard to get. Trump wasn't smart enough to get one, so he came up with a medical excuse not to go. What was that excuse again? Diarrhea or something, right? Or was it because his pinky toe was bigger than one of his middle toes? I forget what it was exactly, but I know it was bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

On the last one we haven't been in a full scale conventional war with women in combat roles yet, so the jury is still out on that one.

We won't be fighting those kinds of wars anymore. And women have been serving in combat since 2013, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How do you know?

 

[The Derp]

You lost, get over it

As of today, the Pentagon says the trans policy hasn't changed.

So why did Trump tweet that? Probably to distract from the mess that is Obamacare repeal.

 

[The Derp]

How do you know?

Because the Pentagon says so.

 

[martybegan]

How do you know?

Because the Pentagon says so.

They also thought Saddam wouldn't invade Kuwait, and their predecessors thought the Japanese were going to attack Guam or the Phillipines first.

 

[Hossfly]

Conservatives said 70 years ago that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 25 years ago that allowing gays to openly serve alongside heterosexuals was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

Conservatives said 5 years ago that allowing women to serve in combat roles alongside men was a social experiment that we shouldn't do and would harm the military...they were wrong.

So if they've been wrong about all that, why would they be right about transgenderism in the military today?

On the last one we haven't been in a full scale conventional war with women in combat roles yet, so the jury is still out on that one.

Women of the IDF, Yazidis and Peshmerga are battle tested and I have great faith in American military women. But I have no confidence of transgenders because of all their hangups and mental issues. And the military, especially combat arms, can't afford to experiment on the battlefield. That's my opinion.