Like I said in the post to which you’re responding, I agree that their status is literally the only reason you (or anyone else) are arguing that this action is appropriate. Not because of esprit de corps, or because of increased medical costs, or because of national security, but because of their status. It’s very…

“1) No, you’re kicking them out because they’re trans. That is the reason.”

Finally, a bit of honesty! Thank you, I agree that this is the reason that you are actually going for here, and the reason for the President’s position. Glad we could have this exchange.

“not wanting to bring Birds out of the greys i will reply to you...”
This was a wise decision that I should have heeded. It’s going about as well as you’d expect. 

1) You are still kicking out a fully-trained fully-capable person for no reason. (Remember, again, that the order does not say anything about waiting for the person to ask that their reassignment surgery be paid for before kicking them out.) Your point about rotating someone else in is meaningless and actually works…

1) “when it’s more cost-effective to simply bounce the soldier and get someone else in” It is? Great, look forward to reading your citation for that. But regardless, your answer here shows that your original question “If someone can point out how we’re safer as a country by paying for sexual reassignment surgery”…

1) Say, a SEAL Team 6 member.

“More to the point, and less antagonistic, is the simple point that if you can justify the expense, everyone would benefit by your doing so.”

Someone has Bannon and Young Nazi Miller have a list of things mostly Obama but also anyone else has ever tried to improve and they are going one by one to undo everything possible.

fart

Seriously, if someone told me this was a screenshot from The Road I’d believe them without hesitation.

They are fools themselves, so yes.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I had hoped to not have to explain to anyone that my comment was sarcastic because this very article does indeed contain that exact link.

I don’t understand why this is a response to my comment, but thank you nevertheless.

“Remember, soldiers are soldiers, literally their purpose is to be a fleshy machine to stand in between us and the enemy so the rest of us don’t have to.”

Then you’d think you’d want more of them. 

Also, this move isn’t being made because of cost in the first place - that’s the pretext being used to get people to say “well, maybe there’s a good reason [today’s group] shouldn’t be allowed to serve!” People who might otherwise exercise their brains about it.

This is a perfect reply, because in that moment we really needed someone to come by with the shape of an “L” on their forehead.

You are allowed to say “clusterfuck” on the Internet.

If only the article contained a link directly to the bill that includes a helpful summary of the changes!

“I personally have a large vocabulary and know tons of words that no one else does and I still have never heard of it. Basically if I haven’t heard of the word there’s a good chance 90%+ of people reading this article have never heard of it.”

Then surely you’d have been bright enough to know how this nonsense would be…

Agreed, yet you followed with “in order for the guy who actually committed the crime to have his birthdate and SSN, they had to have known each other pretty well, no?” Well, no, as you have now acknowledged.