Democrats will not rest until they destroy our military

[Savannah_Dawg]

Just like they do EVERY single thing they control.

DOD: Military Spent 6 Million Man-Hours on Woke Training Under Biden

The military spent nearly six million man-hours on an extremism stand-down and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training under Biden.

www.breitbart.com

Better @Moosefish ?

 

[Moosefish]

Better @Moosefish ?

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're referring to your previous thread that seemed to be taking shots at service members' appearance (and was incorrectly confusing UK troops w/ US...accuracy matters, dude)

Beyond that...you can critique policy all day. There is plenty to critique. That's what the Chat is for.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

I have no idea what you're talking about, unless you're referring to your previous thread that seemed to be taking shots at service members' appearance (and was incorrectly confusing UK troops w/ US...accuracy matters, dude)

Beyond that...you can critique policy all day. There is plenty to critique. That's what the Chat is for.

That goes hand in hand with the whole woke military theme.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

That’s six million PERSON hours people! The brain washing will continue until non-binary adjectives improve.

 

[Moosefish]

That goes hand in hand with the whole woke military theme.

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself: Please go after bad policy. Don't attack those that choose to serve. There is a huge difference.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself: Please go after bad policy. Don't attack those that choose to serve. There is a huge difference.

Ok. I think it is bad policy to let someone with a mental issue to serve much less have a leadership position in the military.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself: Please go after bad policy. Don't attack those that choose to serve. There is a huge difference.

I believe it was none other than the Commander In Chief that called someone a Dog Face Pony Soldier. If that’s not attacking one’s appearance, I don’t know what is.

Seriously, Moosefish, cross dressers and people pretending to be a different gender from what they actually are have no place in the military, because it’s mental illness, and they are by definition unfit for service. It’s both sad and comical that something like this is not only allowed but now promoted by our military.

 

[Moosefish]

Ok. I think it is bad policy to let someone with a mental issue to serve much less have a leadership position in the military.

Why do you keep trying to argue w/ me about this? I'm not going to take a "public" stance (as an admitted Field Grade Officer in the AF) on DoD policy. My issue was with:

1. You used a picture of UK troops to criticize US troops. That's beyond stupid.
2. They're legally serving. They made a choice that 98% of US citizens never do. They deserve praise, not derision. What good does mocking appearance (vs. debating the policy that allows it to happen) do? It's counter-productive.
3. If you think they're unfit to serve, that's a legitimate discussion point. But, cheap gutter-level derision says more about you than them, imo. If they have a 'mental issue', then they need help...not mockery.

I'm NOT defending the policy that allows them to serve. As I've been crystal-clear from the beginning: mocking the individuals (who were UK...not US) appearance is both non-productive & a really cheap way to argue policy.

I believe it was none other than the Commander In Chief that called someone a Dog Face Pony Soldier. If that’s not attacking one’s appearance, I don’t know what is.

Seriously, Moosefish, cross dressers and people pretending to be a different gender from what they actually are have no place in the military, because it’s mental illness, and they are by definition unfit for service. It’s both sad and comical that something like this is not only allowed but now promoted by our military.

Ok, you seem to be really confused as to my point on this subject. I've been clear about since the beginning: I'M NOT DEFENDING THE POLICY. I have only taken issue w/ mocking people for appearance (and the error of mistaking UK w/ US), when they made the choice to serve. That's it.

There are smart ways to disagree/debate policy. It's middle-school level mockery to make fun of appearance. If they need help to deal w/ a 'mental issue'....then mockery isn't the correct medicine. I'd argue that if your position is from a Judeo-Christian belief system...it's in violation of that, too. You love people that need help...not mock them.

It's just, imo...a really cheap way to argue against a policy-level issue. Disagree w/ the policy? Great. Debate that. Want to argue that it's a mental illness? Great, debate that. But, the fact is that as policy currently stands, it's NOT considered a mental illness. I may or may not agree w/ that...but, I for damn sure am not going to just allow cheap shots to be taken against those that do more than 98% of US citizens....and if I DO think they have a mental illness & need help...I'm certainly not going to mock them. That's just not the right avenue to address this issue.

/soapbox

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Why do you keep trying to argue w/ me about this? I'm not going to take a "public" stance (as an admitted Field Grade Officer in the AF) on DoD policy. My issue was with:

1. You used a picture of UK troops to criticize US troops. That's beyond stupid.
2. They're legally serving. They made a choice that 98% of US citizens never do. They deserve praise, not derision. What good does mocking appearance (vs. debating the policy that allows it to happen) do? It's counter-productive.
3. If you think they're unfit to serve, that's a legitimate discussion point. But, cheap gutter-level derision says more about you than them, imo. If they have a 'mental issue', then they need help...not mockery.

I'm NOT defending the policy that allows them to serve. As I've been crystal-clear from the beginning: mocking the individuals (who were UK...not US) appearance is both non-productive & a really cheap way to argue policy.




Ok, you seem to be really confused as to my point on this subject. I've been clear about since the beginning: I'M NOT DEFENDING THE POLICY. I have only taken issue w/ mocking people for appearance (and the error of mistaking UK w/ US), when they made the choice to serve. That's it.

There are smart ways to disagree/debate policy. It's middle-school level mockery to make fun of appearance. If they need help to deal w/ a 'mental issue'....then mockery isn't the correct medicine. I'd argue that if your position is from a Judeo-Christian belief system...it's in violation of that, too. You love people that need help...not mock them.

It's just, imo...a really cheap way to argue against a policy-level issue. Disagree w/ the policy? Great. Debate that. Want to argue that it's a mental illness? Great, debate that. But, the fact is that as policy currently stands, it's NOT considered a mental illness. I may or may not agree w/ that...but, I for damn sure am not going to just allow cheap shots to be taken against those that do more than 98% of US citizens....and if I DO think they have a mental illness & need help...I'm certainly not going to mock them. That's just not the right avenue to address this issue.

/soapbox

One of the 3 people in the photo was in a US mikitary uniform. So if you are going to call me stupid at least get it correct

 

[Moosefish]

One of the 3 people in the photo was in a US mikitary uniform. So if you are going to call me stupid at least get it correct

You're 100% incorrect. Please show the photo again (and I never called you "stupid", only the decision to use that picuture)

 

[Moosefish]

You're 100% incorrect. Please show the photo again (and I never called you "stupid", only the decision to use that picuture)

Here, found it for you. None of those uniforms are US:

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

You're 100% incorrect. Please show the photo again (and I never called you "stupid", only the decision to use that picuture)

No idea where picture is but he/she was in the picture

Dr. Rachel Levine is sworn in as the nation's first transgender four-star officer

Levine leads the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

www.npr.org

 

[Spe77]

You're 100% incorrect. Please show the photo again (and I never called you "stupid", only the decision to use that picuture)

1. You used a picture of UK troops to criticize US troops. That's beyond stupid.🙄

Accuracy matters.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

1. You used a picture of UK troops to criticize US troops. That's beyond stupid.🙄

Accuracy matters.

Dr. Rachel Levine is sworn in as the nation's first transgender four-star officer

Levine leads the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

www.npr.org

thought he/she was in picture.

 

[Moosefish]

1. You used a picture of UK troops to criticize US troops. That's beyond stupid.🙄

Accuracy matters.

It does, if you know how language works. "Using a picture is stupid" does not equal "You are stupid".

Just like saying "that post is stupid" is not the same as "you are stupid".

Accuracy matters.

 

[Moosefish]

Dr. Rachel Levine is sworn in as the nation's first transgender four-star officer

Levine leads the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

www.npr.org

thought he/she was in picture.

Well, as has been said above "accuracy matters". If you're going to attempt to slam US troops, please make sure they're actual US troops...or better yet, don't slam them. Debate policy.

 

[Spe77]

It does, if you know how language works. "Using a picture is stupid" does not equal "You are stupid".

Just like saying "that post is stupid" is not the same as "you are stupid".

Accuracy matters.

You’re interpretation of how language works is beyond stupid.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

It does, if you know how language works. "Using a picture is stupid" does not equal "You are stupid".

Just like saying "that post is stupid" is not the same as "you are stupid".

Accuracy matters.

Sorry I didn’t study up on how the tranny looks. My point remains. They are bragging about putting him/her in charge as a 4 star general. Bad idea

 

[Moosefish]

You’re interpretation of how language works is beyond stupid.

I've demonstrated the difference. You're deflecting.

Edited for my typo. Also: "Your"

 

[JackRussellDawg]

Here, found it for you. None of those uniforms are US:

Bless your heart, they are sporting early spring Euro fashions.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Well, as has been said above "accuracy matters". If you're going to attempt to slam US troops, please make sure they're actual US troops...or better yet, don't slam them. Debate policy.

Yeah my side of the aisle is not the side that hates the military moose.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

Well, as has been said above "accuracy matters". If you're going to attempt to slam US troops, please make sure they're actual US troops...or better yet, don't slam them. Debate policy.

Ah yes, our newest in the rear admiral.

 

[Moosefish]

Sorry I didn’t study up on how the tranny looks. My point remains. They are bragging about putting him/her in charge as a 4 star general. Bad idea

1. Your point was based on bad info
2. The individual was a 4 star Admiral
3. The individual was never & is not in the military, as I explained previously.

Accuracy matters (again)

...the really stupid thing here is some of you keep arguing w/ me like I disagree w/ your point re: whether or not this serves the military in a positive way.

All I've taken issue w/ is how you're doing it. That's it.

 

[deadduckdawg]

OK, the policy allowing even one soldier in a sundress and pumps is bad policy. Paying for gender reassignments with my tax money is bad policy. Training military not to laugh at a soldier in sundress and pumps instead of how to kill the enemy with a Bic pen is bad policy. Policy makers endorsing this ridiculous shit should be sent back to California.

 

[Moosefish]

Yeah my side of the aisle is not the side that hates the military moose.

1. Do you really think you know what "my side of the aisle" is, based on these posts? I'm simply calling how poorly you're making your point & have made it a point not to take a stance, for reasons stated more than once

2. What does your statement have to do w/ anything w/ the specifics we're "debating"?


If you want to make a valid point, make a valid argument.

 

[deadduckdawg]

Here, found it for you. None of those uniforms are US:

I still think the QuentinTarantino transvestite in the middle has that come hither look.

 

[Spe77]

I've demonstrated the difference. You've deflecting.

The grammar in this response is stupid.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

Fellers, Fellers and Fellatios! Enough of this madness! Please, let’s all give our undivided attention to the only person who can give us true guidance on this issue, none other than Corporal Maxwell Klinger of Toledo:

corporal klinger - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Moosefish]

OK, the policy allowing even one soldier in a sundress and pumps is bad policy. Paying for gender reassignments with my tax money is bad policy. Training military not to laugh at a soldier in sundress and pumps instead of how to kill the enemy with a Bic pen is bad policy. Policy makers endorsing this ridiculous shit should be sent back to California.

That's all I was asking Savannah to do, discuss policy.

Here's the thing that some of you are missing: I led over 1000 Airmen in a Deployed location for more than a year. Some (very few) were dealing w/ this. Some were dealing w/ other issues that you probably disagree with. That's fine...they were in alignment w/ policy.

They all served admirably & were a vital part of the mission. I may or may not agree w/ the policy...but, I for damned sure am not going to be two-faced & sit here & allow mockery to happen w/ out pushing back. That would make me the worst kind of leader: One that says one thing & does another.

I just want to make clear that the policy issue is far-different than the individuals that continue to serve admirably (and some well-above average). I think it's hypocritical to slam them, when they are deemed by the military to be service members in good-standing.

Again: (for the 69th time...) Debate the Policy. Don't attack the individuals. If you think they have mental issues, you should want to help them & not mock them.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

1. Do you really think you know what "my side of the aisle" is, based on these posts? I'm simply calling how poorly you're making your point & have made it a point not to take a stance, for reasons stated more than once

2. What does your statement have to do w/ anything w/ the specifics we're "debating"?


If you want to make a valid point, make a valid argument.

My post about the “side of the aisle” had nothing to do with your politics one way or the other. I’m very pro military. Didn’t like you insinuating that I wasn’t.

 

[Moosefish]

The grammar in this response is stupid.

Well-played. But, you'RE still deflecting.

 

[Moosefish]

My post about the “side of the aisle” had nothing to do with your politics one way or the other.

Then why bring it up? I'm not here to debate either side of the aisle.

 

[Moosefish]

If any of you care re: my opinion on the training cited in the original article above:

1. Yes, lots of wasted time.

2. Even if you assume that the original training is valid, the application at the unit-level never matches the "author's" intent.

3. Like 98% of ALL ancillary training we're forced to sit through...it's a waste of time.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Then why bring it up? I'm not here to debate either side of the aisle.

I’m very pro military. Didn’t like you insinuating that I wasn’t.

 

[Moosefish]

I’m very pro military. Didn’t like you insinuating that I wasn’t.

Pro-Tip: Then don't personally attack those that serve, even if you disagree w/ them & believe they're mentally ill. That seems like a really poor way to support them. Those individuals have literally put their lives on the line to protect you & what you believe in, served admirably, & continue to serve now...even though you disagree w/ their lifestyle.

This is a policy/political issue. "Going after" the individuals doesn't solve the issue(s) you have & ultimately hurts the end-state you want.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Pro-Tip: Then don't personally attack those that serve, even if you disagree w/ them & believe they're mentally ill. That seems like a really poor way to support them. Those individuals have literally put their lives on the line to protect you & what you believe in, served admirably, & continue to serve now...even though you disagree w/ their lifestyle.

This is a policy/political issue. "Going after" the individuals doesn't solve the issue(s) you have & ultimately hurts the end-state you want.

Without their pushing for it to begin with it would not have been made a policy so I think they are fair game.

 

[deadduckdawg]

That's all I was asking Savannah to do, discuss policy.

Here's the thing that some of you are missing: I led over 1000 Airmen in a Deployed location for more than a year. Some (very few) were dealing w/ this. Some were dealing w/ other issues that you probably disagree with. That's fine...they were in alignment w/ policy.

They all served admirably & were a vital part of the mission. I may or may not agree w/ the policy...but, I for damned sure am not going to be two-faced & sit here & allow mockery to happen w/ out pushing back. That would make me the worst kind of leader: One that says one thing & does another.

I just want to make clear that the policy issue is far-different than the individuals that continue to serve admirably (and some well-above average). I think it's hypocritical to slam them, when they are deemed by the military to be service members in good-standing.

Again: (for the 69th time...) Debate the Policy. Don't attack the individuals. If you think they have mental issues, you should want to help them & not mock them.

I prefer our policy to be to turn our military into well-trained killers with pride in being so. Not overly sensitive sisterpants worried about hurting somebody’s feelings. That’s just what I wish our military policymakers would focus on, mostly to the exclusion of all social issues. Units who were confident in their ability to win in battle would be proud units, as opposed to troops indoctrinated with fake history and social nonsense. The Secretary of Defense is black, the military is covered up with black flag officers, Colin Powell for gosh sake. Just how much diversity training do they need? Teach them to blow something up.

 

[Spe77]

Pro-Tip: Then don't personally attack those that serve, even if you disagree w/ them & believe they're mentally ill. That seems like a really poor way to support them. Those individuals have literally put their lives on the line to protect you & what you believe in, served admirably, & continue to serve now...even though you disagree w/ their lifestyle.

This is a policy/political issue. "Going after" the individuals doesn't solve the issue(s) you have & ultimately hurts the end-state you want.

What’s your opinion on discharging those who served for refusing the Covid shot?

 

[Moosefish]

I prefer our policy to be to turn our military into well-trained killers with pride in being so. Not overly sensitive sisterpants worried about hurting somebody’s feelings. That’s just what I wish our military policymakers would focus on, mostly to the exclusion of all social issues. Units who were confident in their ability to win in battle would be proud units, as opposed to troops indoctrinated with fake history and social nonsense. The Secretary of Defense is black, the military is covered up with black flag officers, Colin Powell for gosh sake. Just how much diversity training do they need? Teach them to blow something up.

There is not much for me to disagree w/ here. I think we both want the same thing.

However, the characterization of the 'diversity training' you're referencing here is not really what has been assigned, from my experience. I don't remember any 'fake history' or any focus on specific race. It's mostly been super-generic.

I do agree w/ what (I think) you're saying: The military has long-been a great example of race/religion relations. The vast majority of us don't care who you are or where you're from or what you believe: Can you do the job? Awesome. That's literally all we care about.

 

[Moosefish]

Without their pushing for it to begin with it would not have been made a policy so I think they are fair game.

This is so wrong on so many levels.