100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: My Rant on the Gay Issue | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 06/30/16 05:28 AM
|
|
My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this. We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve? In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world. We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues. If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it. I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson. My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more. All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements. umm, Obama 'politics' is responsible for reversing the division by lifting bans on gay and transgender and passing equal marriage laws Obama isn't responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....same sex marriage was made legal in all 50 states through litigation in courts. By the appeal process it reached the SCOTUS and the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. It was a Supreme Court ruling, not a law, that made same sex marriage legal. well, if one can claim he is responsible for division with nothing to back up the claim I just provide the counterargument with examples cant claim its courts reversing decisions but not courts making them either courts were responsible for the division, and now the unifying,, or they weren't So your thinking is if someone says something that is OPINION based that you think is wrong it makes sense for you to counter it with something that is DEFINETLY wrong? Got it.  lol no,if someone posts an opinion without anything to back it up that I feel is 'wrong' when I counter with what I feel is 'right', I attempt to back it up with Reason and evidence of why I feel that way my thinking is opinions backed by some substance and proof, are stronger than those that are just opinion You said Obama politics was responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....there is NO SUCH LAW.....there is NO SUBSTANCE or PROOF in making a blatantly FALSE statement. Keep spinning.....I know it makes you feel good.  nah, it just tickles me sometimes reading the pedantic comebacks of those really believing their own nonsense I used a phrase that you used, ,just as loosely 'Obama politics' is responsible , as you put it, for the reversal of legislation not recognizing same sex marriage and the repeal of legislation not allowing homosexuals to openly serve all better? :laugh I DIDN'T say Obama was responsible for anything, I was saying that YOU incorrectly said he was responsible for something. He wasn't responsible for the SCOTUS ruling, it was private citizens who brought the case before the court, not the federal government. He agreed with the Court, but it doesn't make him responsible for the ruling. As for homosexuals openly serving, that wasn't a legislative issue, it was a policy issue. There was no legislation that was repealed, there was a reversal of the Clinton policy of "Don't ask. don't tell". You should know that since in order to repeal legislation there has to be congressional passage which would be blocked by those "evil" Republicans. oh come now,, don't be shy 'This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. ' its IMPLIED that OBama has direct effect on 'dividing' everyone and he had to sign legislation for repealing DADT point still being,, if one is going to place OBAMA politics in their accusations about divisiveness,,,, they are implying that OBAMA has responsibility,,,,,, so if they are challenged regarding that opinion,, they should put up or shut up,,,lol divisiveness, and the LGBT issues being the topic here,,, whoever holds the power , holds the power,, and if one claims it is the courts who hold the power,, it is the courts who had the power over the increase and decrease of 'divisiveness' Obama is one of the most divisive Presidents we have ever had. yeah,, and Nixon was one of the most honest presidents, and Einstein was one of the dumbest people ever, oh and hitler was one of the most compassionate figures,,,,,,,lol empty statements,, everyone is entitled,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
Nice change of pace from the extreme overuse of quotes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because someone's different than you like with their sexual orientation doesn't make them wrong. All of our labels for people are basically incorrect usually because there is so much diversity in the human race that the labels really can't fit. If they are silly enough to want to go to war for money or oil as most of our Wars are these days let them go
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our military shouldn't be a social justice experiment.... Nor should it be used by either political side as a tactic to gain votes.....which is what this "rant" is pushing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a fundamental logic error in this VERY popular anti-LGTB line of "reasoning." Declaring that the military should not be used as a "social justice experiment, " completely overlooks the glaring fact that if you DON'T change and adjust from the "old ways," you are insisting that the American Military SHOULD be a bastion of artificial segregation. That it should be a social INjustice experiment. This is the exact same argument which was used to declare that the laws of the land should be entirely based upon supporting racism, even after the end of slavery. And that in the military, we should not permit blacks and other non-whites to participate in every aspect of American military life, on the grounds that this would not be conducive to "unit cohesion." Apparently, many people want to believe that although our people in uniform are brave and valiant in the face of terrorism and hostile international tension, that they are entirely incapable of coping in any way at all with someone they aren't attracted to, seeing them in their skivvies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Fri 07/01/16 08:27 PM
|
|
There is a fundamental logic error in this VERY popular anti-LGTB line of "reasoning." Um...no. It is PRO military reasoning...period. These changes do NOTHING to improve our military. They are nothing but attempts to pony up on campaign promises... nothing more, nothing less. You stick with "logic'....I'll stick with common sense. Smh...someone with a dlck says he's a woman and everybody hugs and says " yay'. The inmates are running the asylum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this. We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve? In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world. We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues. If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it. I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson. My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more. All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements. Well, the foxhole phase of " cover my rear" will take on a whole new meaning.. that's for sure. Yea, when there is a gay soldier with another male soldier in a hot zone, under heavy fire all's he is thinking about doing is screwing the guy with him. why not do some research and then post what the general military population thinks of it. You know, the guys who have to not only work, but shower and live in that environment because of some PC mandate from some politicians and PC pro's What do they think?.. after all it is the quality if THEIR were talking about, not ours. Its easy for us to say.. go ahead.. let everybody in... we're not in that environment.. are we. Actually most of my friends have served or are serving and trust me we have discussed these issues. The funny thing is that it really didn't bother any of them. That is actually how I found out Israel has been allowing it for years and these guys fight side by side with them, train with them, share quarters, showers and mess with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this. We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve? In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world. We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues. If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it. I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson. My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more. All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements. umm, Obama 'politics' is responsible for reversing the division by lifting bans on gay and transgender and passing equal marriage laws Obama isn't responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....same sex marriage was made legal in all 50 states through litigation in courts. By the appeal process it reached the SCOTUS and the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. It was a Supreme Court ruling, not a law, that made same sex marriage legal. well, if one can claim he is responsible for division with nothing to back up the claim I just provide the counterargument with examples cant claim its courts reversing decisions but not courts making them either courts were responsible for the division, and now the unifying,, or they weren't So your thinking is if someone says something that is OPINION based that you think is wrong it makes sense for you to counter it with something that is DEFINETLY wrong? Got it. lol no,if someone posts an opinion without anything to back it up that I feel is 'wrong' when I counter with what I feel is 'right', I attempt to back it up with Reason and evidence of why I feel that way my thinking is opinions backed by some substance and proof, are stronger than those that are just opinion You said Obama politics was responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....there is NO SUCH LAW.....there is NO SUBSTANCE or PROOF in making a blatantly FALSE statement. Keep spinning.....I know it makes you feel good. nah, it just tickles me sometimes reading the pedantic comebacks of those really believing their own nonsense I used a phrase that you used, ,just as loosely 'Obama politics' is responsible , as you put it, for the reversal of legislation not recognizing same sex marriage and the repeal of legislation not allowing homosexuals to openly serve all better? :laugh I DIDN'T say Obama was responsible for anything, I was saying that YOU incorrectly said he was responsible for something. He wasn't responsible for the SCOTUS ruling, it was private citizens who brought the case before the court, not the federal government. He agreed with the Court, but it doesn't make him responsible for the ruling. As for homosexuals openly serving, that wasn't a legislative issue, it was a policy issue. There was no legislation that was repealed, there was a reversal of the Clinton policy of "Don't ask. don't tell". You should know that since in order to repeal legislation there has to be congressional passage which would be blocked by those "evil" Republicans. oh come now,, don't be shy 'This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. ' its IMPLIED that OBama has direct effect on 'dividing' everyone and he had to sign legislation for repealing DADT point still being,, if one is going to place OBAMA politics in their accusations about divisiveness,,,, they are implying that OBAMA has responsibility,,,,,, so if they are challenged regarding that opinion,, they should put up or shut up,,,lol divisiveness, and the LGBT issues being the topic here,,, whoever holds the power , holds the power,, and if one claims it is the courts who hold the power,, it is the courts who had the power over the increase and decrease of 'divisiveness' Obama is one of the most divisive Presidents we have ever had. yeah,, and Nixon was one of the most honest presidents, and Einstein was one of the dumbest people ever, oh and hitler was one of the most compassionate figures,,,,,,,lol empty statements,, everyone is entitled,,, Wow, it's amazing. I actually said we agree on something and you ignore that and go right into the negative. Shows what you really care about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 No one..but no one will surrender. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our military shouldn't be a social justice experiment.... Nor should it be used by either political side as a tactic to gain votes.....which is what this "rant" is pushing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a fundamental logic error in this VERY popular anti-LGTB line of "reasoning." Declaring that the military should not be used as a "social justice experiment, " completely overlooks the glaring fact that if you DON'T change and adjust from the "old ways," you are insisting that the American Military SHOULD be a bastion of artificial segregation. That it should be a social INjustice experiment. This is the exact same argument which was used to declare that the laws of the land should be entirely based upon supporting racism, even after the end of slavery. And that in the military, we should not permit blacks and other non-whites to participate in every aspect of American military life, on the grounds that this would not be conducive to "unit cohesion." Apparently, many people want to believe that although our people in uniform are brave and valiant in the face of terrorism and hostile international tension, that they are entirely incapable of coping in any way at all with someone they aren't attracted to, seeing them in their skivvies. Actually, Israel already did this as a social justice experiment and it worked! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Sat 07/02/16 01:43 AM
|
|
Our military shouldn't be a social justice experiment.... Nor should it be used by either political side as a tactic to gain votes.....which is what this "rant" is pushing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is a fundamental logic error in this VERY popular anti-LGTB line of "reasoning." Declaring that the military should not be used as a "social justice experiment, " completely overlooks the glaring fact that if you DON'T change and adjust from the "old ways," you are insisting that the American Military SHOULD be a bastion of artificial segregation. That it should be a social INjustice experiment. This is the exact same argument which was used to declare that the laws of the land should be entirely based upon supporting racism, even after the end of slavery. And that in the military, we should not permit blacks and other non-whites to participate in every aspect of American military life, on the grounds that this would not be conducive to "unit cohesion." Apparently, many people want to believe that although our people in uniform are brave and valiant in the face of terrorism and hostile international tension, that they are entirely incapable of coping in any way at all with someone they aren't attracted to, seeing them in their skivvies. Actually, Israel already did this as a social justice experiment and it worked! Good God at the utter LACK of courage to call a spade a spade....all for a vote. But congrats...you got your trannies in and women are in combat MOS's and "man" is being removed from the military vernacular. What a rousing victory for y'all to watch fireworks too this weekend and sing frickin kum bay a. As I said in the last thread.... Chesty Puller is rolling over in his grave. Now continue on with that repeating of stories from friends of friends who may or may not be this or that bull$hite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this. We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve? In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world. We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues. If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it. I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson. My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more. All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements. Well, the foxhole phase of " cover my rear" will take on a whole new meaning.. that's for sure. Yea, when there is a gay soldier with another male soldier in a hot zone, under heavy fire all's he is thinking about doing is screwing the guy with him. why not do some research and then post what the general military population thinks of it. You know, the guys who have to not only work, but shower and live in that environment because of some PC mandate from some politicians and PC pro's What do they think?.. after all it is the quality if THEIR were talking about, not ours. Its easy for us to say.. go ahead.. let everybody in... we're not in that environment.. are we. Actually most of my friends have served or are serving and trust me we have discussed these issues. The funny thing is that it really didn't bother any of them. That is actually how I found out Israel has been allowing it for years and these guys fight side by side with them, train with them, share quarters, showers and mess with them. Israel had everyone serving from its inception! No one was excused! The Idiots at the DOD are trying to change Boats while under way! To compare the IDF's Organization with the one of the US-Forces,is like comparing Cabbages and Pineapples! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My rant of the day, and I guarantee all of my Republican friends are going to blow me up for this. We need to get over this gay and transgender in the military issue and issue in general. If they want to serve and can pass all of the training required, why shouldn't they be able to serve? In Israel, the IDF, Mossad and Shin Bet have accepted gay, lesbian and transgender for years and they are regarded as one of the most bad a$$ militaries and special operators in the world. We as a party need to get past this social issue. Most gay and lesbian Americans are conservative but vote Democrat because of how the Republican Party treats them. Does it really affect your life so much if you see two men together or two women together? If it does then your the one with issues. If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it. I end this with part of a famous document written on July 4th 1776. Maybe you have heard of it? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson. My problem with your "rant" is there should be no "qualifiers" at all. This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. Why should a gay or transgender even "notify" the military of what sexual preference they are unless to receive "special treatment" which divides everyone even more. All men and woman should be able to serve regardless of any "preferences" as long as they can pass the requirements. umm, Obama 'politics' is responsible for reversing the division by lifting bans on gay and transgender and passing equal marriage laws Obama isn't responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....same sex marriage was made legal in all 50 states through litigation in courts. By the appeal process it reached the SCOTUS and the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States. It was a Supreme Court ruling, not a law, that made same sex marriage legal. well, if one can claim he is responsible for division with nothing to back up the claim I just provide the counterargument with examples cant claim its courts reversing decisions but not courts making them either courts were responsible for the division, and now the unifying,, or they weren't So your thinking is if someone says something that is OPINION based that you think is wrong it makes sense for you to counter it with something that is DEFINETLY wrong? Got it. lol no,if someone posts an opinion without anything to back it up that I feel is 'wrong' when I counter with what I feel is 'right', I attempt to back it up with Reason and evidence of why I feel that way my thinking is opinions backed by some substance and proof, are stronger than those that are just opinion You said Obama politics was responsible for "passing equal marriage laws"....there is NO SUCH LAW.....there is NO SUBSTANCE or PROOF in making a blatantly FALSE statement. Keep spinning.....I know it makes you feel good. nah, it just tickles me sometimes reading the pedantic comebacks of those really believing their own nonsense I used a phrase that you used, ,just as loosely 'Obama politics' is responsible , as you put it, for the reversal of legislation not recognizing same sex marriage and the repeal of legislation not allowing homosexuals to openly serve all better? :laugh I DIDN'T say Obama was responsible for anything, I was saying that YOU incorrectly said he was responsible for something. He wasn't responsible for the SCOTUS ruling, it was private citizens who brought the case before the court, not the federal government. He agreed with the Court, but it doesn't make him responsible for the ruling. As for homosexuals openly serving, that wasn't a legislative issue, it was a policy issue. There was no legislation that was repealed, there was a reversal of the Clinton policy of "Don't ask. don't tell". You should know that since in order to repeal legislation there has to be congressional passage which would be blocked by those "evil" Republicans. oh come now,, don't be shy 'This is the whole Obama "Identity politics" of dividing everyone into groups like white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight and on and on to create more division and such create more political power/unrest. I think our country is more divided now then anytime in modern history. ' its IMPLIED that OBama has direct effect on 'dividing' everyone and he had to sign legislation for repealing DADT point still being,, if one is going to place OBAMA politics in their accusations about divisiveness,,,, they are implying that OBAMA has responsibility,,,,,, so if they are challenged regarding that opinion,, they should put up or shut up,,,lol divisiveness, and the LGBT issues being the topic here,,, whoever holds the power , holds the power,, and if one claims it is the courts who hold the power,, it is the courts who had the power over the increase and decrease of 'divisiveness' Obama is one of the most divisive Presidents we have ever had. yeah,, and Nixon was one of the most honest presidents, and Einstein was one of the dumbest people ever, oh and hitler was one of the most compassionate figures,,,,,,,lol empty statements,, everyone is entitled,,, Wow, it's amazing. I actually said we agree on something and you ignore that and go right into the negative. Shows what you really care about. oh,, sorry ,,let me pat you on the back for agreeing,,, although you are far from the only one who agrees with me on things,,,, KUDOS to all the posters who ever agree with me   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runnin' through the jungle with their dlck in their hand
And squeezin' their tlts cause they're Recon Trans Oh yeah! Their Corps! Not my Corps! Trans Corp! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If two people want to be happy together then so be it. Be happy for them, life's to short to be negative. Don't give me the bible excuse, because if that is really the case they will be supposedly be going to hell not you, so get over it."
I can't believe anyone would even think of anyone's sexuality as an "Issue" still. Really? Someone's sexuality is really no one's bloody business to condemn. No matter what sex, if the individuals who are involved are happy & got-it-together; Bless their hearts-They're lucky  Personally, I've observed relationships that would be condemned as sick, distructive, & dysfunctunctional irregardless of their "politically correct" heterosexual label. "Do as thou wilt; Harm none." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because someone's different than you like with their sexual orientation doesn't make them wrong. All of our labels for people are basically incorrect usually because there is so much diversity in the human race that the labels really can't fit. If they are silly enough to want to go to war for money or oil as most of our Wars are these days let them go Yeah, just put them on the front line. Perfect solution. Two birds one bullet. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Manturkey1
on
Sat 07/02/16 06:54 PM
|
|
Just because someone's different than you like with their sexual orientation doesn't make them wrong. All of our labels for people are basically incorrect usually because there is so much diversity in the human race that the labels really can't fit. If they are silly enough to want to go to war for money or oil as most of our Wars are these days let them go Yeah, just put them on the front line. Perfect solution. Two birds one bullet. Well that was completely uncalled for. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Runnin' through the jungle with their dlck in their hand And squeezin' their tlts cause they're Recon Trans Oh yeah! Their Corps! Not my Corps! Trans Corp! Up from the sub 60 ft below Boobs brought em up, they're ready to go Penises ruddered 'em into shore Ru Paul shouted "Heyyyyy-ay! U.S. Trans Corps!!" High heels skirts and panty hose Oprah, The View, and The Ellen Show! They come on quick and on the run To hell with a rifle, they'll show you their 'gun'! Pin the collages upon their chests Go too deep and silicone you'll get! Bronze and Silver Stars are gone If wounded, they get a Purple Thong! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is virtue in compassion and honesty, even when it seems 'negative' merely by virtue of someone disagreeing
there are destructive and unhealthy relationships that people are 'happy' in nonetheless,,,,the only issue is those who try to advise from a place of love and concern vs those that try to do so from a place of hate certainly the 'whatever makes them happy' concept is popular, but it doesn't make it productive or correct ,,,back to the point,, though people can make poor sexual choices in private, that should have little to do with their careers ,,whether the choice is swinging from their chandaliers, cutting themselves, or laying with a relative, or having an affair these are all personal choices that should not factor into or weigh more than their actual job performance in whatever they were hired to do |
|
|
|
|
