| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| [noose] transgenders not allowed in military |
| << < (38/51) > >> |
| ultimamax:
--- Quote from: Rally on July 26, 2017, 05:38:52 PM ---In what way are you disabled if you're an amputee? If you're wearing long pants and you didn't show anybody, no one would know - not only that but you can get a prosthetic leg so you can still walk. Is this what the conditioning seriously gets people to say? forget me. We're really not far off from normalizing BIID aren't we --- End quote --- Well the obvious effect is that you'd be wheelchair-bound or forced to use a prosthetic leg. Prosthetic legs are not 1:1 perfect solutions for having a missing limb. They offer limited mobility and they don't have nerve endings. Having kids is something you may or may not do in your entire lifetime, and if you do you're not likely to have more than three. Undergoing a love change doesn't make it impossible for you to still have kids, it just makes it a bit more logistically involved. Having limited mobility is something that effects how you move for the rest of your life. I don't know what you mean by "conditioning". Is it the fluoride in the water or something? Chemtrails? Do pray tell. |
| Rally:
--- Quote from: ultimamax on July 26, 2017, 05:45:52 PM --- --- End quote --- --- Quote from: Pecon on July 26, 2017, 05:44:13 PM ---Last I checked being sterile doesn't have any affect on your physical or mental performance. Amputees are not even remotely relevant here. --- End quote --- Hey man (sorry if I just mis-gendered you), wherever you gotta move them goal posts to include permanently obliterating certain natural processes of the body and not your liberal-protected ones. The GMOs must've really done a number on y'all. |
| Tactical Nuke:
--- Quote from: Johnimiester on July 26, 2017, 02:27:32 PM ---EDIT: 2015's military budget as compared to every other facet of government spending as well as the specific amount of spending dedicated to the military is displayed in the picture below. As compared to the military budget in 2015 (It's doubtful that military budget has decreased or even increased by that much), $8.4 million is .001% approximately of $598.5 billion. It would be extremely insignificant to even pay ten times that (the amount paid for ED pills as indicated), which itself would translate into .01% percent of 2015's military budget. --- End quote --- nope here's a more accurate graph --- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on July 26, 2017, 01:35:46 PM ---"we spend too much on the military" oops --- End quote --- |
| ultimamax:
--- Quote from: Rally on July 26, 2017, 05:46:16 PM ---Hey man (sorry if I just mis-gendered you), wherever you gotta move them goal posts to include permanently obliterating certain natural processes of the body and not your liberal-protected ones. The GMOs must've really done a number on y'all. --- End quote --- "Did you get your wisdom teeth removed? Why would you obstruct that totally natural process? It's absolutely barbaric!" |
| Johnimiester:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on July 26, 2017, 05:46:55 PM ---nope here's a more accurate graph --- End quote --- Discretionary spending on the military in 2015 is still over $500 billion and amounts overall to $1.1 trillion. This presumably accounts for spending when mandatory spending is added on. Give me a source and I'll review your argument further. edit: Also I see no numbers or any kind of reference point alluded to in that graph. Pure percentages don't really mean much. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |