I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.

ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don’t seem to want to do that.

If you sit down and think about it, this is the easiest way for the federal government to increase revenue without directly increasing taxes.

Except that when tariffs are this high, they discourage imports and purchasing. It’s self-defeating.

It is always easier to destroy than to build, or to protect.

So you don’t want our opinions, do you? You just want people to agree with you.

His thoughts seem to be that they share almost no characteristics, no philosophical underpinnings, and that there seems to be no direct path from the one to the other.

What do you think a discussing of “proto-X” is going to look like, if not comparing it to other things looking for similarities and possible links?

Not before time.

His life has been too long, and his reign not short enough.

Sure, but that’s not a service weapon.

Because the US Army is planning to deliver parts and ammo for 70 different custom rifles to all its bases and outposts.

The logistics challenges would be incredible.

He may be, but this is a very US centered post.

You know they don’t let us take our guns home, right?

On this, I think we can agree.

Indeed.

Of course, they are doing all the other for you mentioned, too. Morally, even if not legally. IANAL, so I can’t speak with authority.

If words matter, I’m curious to know what definition of “deporting” you are using to claim that what they are doing is not deporting people.

The one does not flow directly from the other. A better world requires some protecting from each other, which means giving up some freedoms. A system of complete and total freedom would not be good for most people.

However, as Franken said, it is important not to give up essential freedoms. What freedoms, exactly, count as “essential” ones? Hard to say. We should have a thread to discuss it.

No, it isn’t.

What does that have to do with my claim?

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a lot of the trouble in the US was caused by people using their freedom to do terrible things to people, and to set the stage for more of the same.

Provided they don’t touch freedom to not breed, and we don’t put racist ducks in charge, I think that works be the easiest for me to bear.

But I don’t want kids, so it’s not much of a sacrifice.