Let's think about Trumps LGBTQ ban in the Military 03 25 2018
Essentially doesn't it really give LGBTQ people greater rights and privileges than your John Q. Public?
What am I getting at? You are asking a warm blooded American son to go and risk his life for the LGBTQ people living in the United States that will not have to serve! It reminds me a lot of the wealthy Iraqi-ans dancing in a disco as a War was going on in their country.
Is that really fair to White America? Nothing has been fair to White America!
Are there two or three parts to the issue?
1. Ban them from serving which means they have been deemed unfit to serve. Why? Increased resources needed for them. Moral low for those fighting alongside them? That type of activity present on the battlefield not only a distraction but also depressing for the heterosexual male to have to put up with.
2. Essentially it means that those who are going to war, labeled normal, are risking their lives to protect the lifestyle of the LGBTQ. There is no way that you can rationalize that as being fair. The population of the normal being reduced in War in order to protect the growing population of the abnormal. Who wins that argument by the way? The one who asserts they are abnormal or the abnormal who assert they are normal? Science, if it really matters anymore, sides with the normal.
3. The forced issue. Anyone see this one coming? Is it eugenics?
To be clear I don't disagree with the ban.
© 2018 Thomas Murphy
And don't we really face the same issues in number one in every aspect of our competitive adult lives in this form of Capitalism?
*****'
Off topic? Life insurance? Who do we insure and why? If the concept is really valid then our Government should really be offering life insurance to the most mentally and physically fit members of our society for free. Insurance companies really don't want to insure the unfit because they are a high cost to them. So that whole business model is tanking? And the taxpayer will get stuck with the bill in a bailout. Your banking industry is another prime example of Government resources being monopolized and hoarded. But back to the off topic issue. Who should the Government offer life insurance policies to? Those whom they truly find most valuable? And who is that really today? Isn't that the person whose mind is in very high demand? Isn't that really the person labeled schizophrenic in medical fraud? So on the one hand you have truism with regard to government resources and on the other hand you have squandering of them out of fear.
*****'
But back to the main issue. So a jughead enlists in the service and believes the liberal propaganda religious machine. And admits wholeheartedly that he is willing to sacrifice his life for an LGBTQ person. Am I going to be the one to stop someone who thinks like that from doing so? Someone like that is a liability to me to. So now we get into the boil down scenario of considering it to really be a theater of War. My father served in two of them. So I really don't like that idea either. Why not? Because he could have been killed and I therefore never been born, and I like myself.
Essentially doesn't it really give LGBTQ people greater rights and privileges than your John Q. Public?
What am I getting at? You are asking a warm blooded American son to go and risk his life for the LGBTQ people living in the United States that will not have to serve! It reminds me a lot of the wealthy Iraqi-ans dancing in a disco as a War was going on in their country.
Is that really fair to White America? Nothing has been fair to White America!
Are there two or three parts to the issue?
1. Ban them from serving which means they have been deemed unfit to serve. Why? Increased resources needed for them. Moral low for those fighting alongside them? That type of activity present on the battlefield not only a distraction but also depressing for the heterosexual male to have to put up with.
2. Essentially it means that those who are going to war, labeled normal, are risking their lives to protect the lifestyle of the LGBTQ. There is no way that you can rationalize that as being fair. The population of the normal being reduced in War in order to protect the growing population of the abnormal. Who wins that argument by the way? The one who asserts they are abnormal or the abnormal who assert they are normal? Science, if it really matters anymore, sides with the normal.
3. The forced issue. Anyone see this one coming? Is it eugenics?
To be clear I don't disagree with the ban.
© 2018 Thomas Murphy
And don't we really face the same issues in number one in every aspect of our competitive adult lives in this form of Capitalism?
*****'
Off topic? Life insurance? Who do we insure and why? If the concept is really valid then our Government should really be offering life insurance to the most mentally and physically fit members of our society for free. Insurance companies really don't want to insure the unfit because they are a high cost to them. So that whole business model is tanking? And the taxpayer will get stuck with the bill in a bailout. Your banking industry is another prime example of Government resources being monopolized and hoarded. But back to the off topic issue. Who should the Government offer life insurance policies to? Those whom they truly find most valuable? And who is that really today? Isn't that the person whose mind is in very high demand? Isn't that really the person labeled schizophrenic in medical fraud? So on the one hand you have truism with regard to government resources and on the other hand you have squandering of them out of fear.
*****'
But back to the main issue. So a jughead enlists in the service and believes the liberal propaganda religious machine. And admits wholeheartedly that he is willing to sacrifice his life for an LGBTQ person. Am I going to be the one to stop someone who thinks like that from doing so? Someone like that is a liability to me to. So now we get into the boil down scenario of considering it to really be a theater of War. My father served in two of them. So I really don't like that idea either. Why not? Because he could have been killed and I therefore never been born, and I like myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment