POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Big deal about Europe. I'm talking about here. That's happening here in 100 to 200 years.
By the way, is Europe allowing transexuals to pee with minors?
Last edited:
I'm not going to do a back and forth with you. I don't have the time. There's enough info on the web to support my original statement. If you don't want to believe then so be it. Peace.
If you don't have the time to post the data to back up a statement, perhaps you should just keep the statement to yourself. You're posting in a political thread, people are going to call you out on what you post.
Probably. But those that have, did so voluntarily. Not by having to share a dressing room with a man in a wig.
Even worse, flip the scenario. Its much worse a man can go in and view naked underage girls against their will. Or women in general for that matter.
Then......to try and save your ridiculous point....you try to claim we should all just become nudists and be comfortable with nudity everywhere. Quite the reach, even for you.
I bet Fuzz has a dong that hits the ground. He has to wear it in a diaper because his bulge could be charged for sexual battery.
At least that would explain some of his posts. Too much blood flowing away from his brain lol
Perhaps you would like to frame a calming argument for those of us who have daughters and grand-daughters. Innocent and virtuous. The general "fear" is that we find the idea that a human being with a penis, a human organ with the ability to become erect and functional, should not be allowed to enter a facility designated as a place for where our little girls to do their business, to pee, to poop, wipe their bottoms, change clothes, including their little panties.
It seems that persons on your side of the equation are willing to say this: "men" and "boys" should not be allowed to enter a girls or ladies facility unless they are willing to "claim" identity with the female gender. Thus qualifying them for transgender "status". And if such sexually misaligned persons - which I'm sure you would say is natural for them - were to enter the facility, then whatever exposure our daughters might have to endure would just have to be. So please ensure your calming argument covers this circumstance also, please: Daddy, why did that happen? Any statement along the lines of that has probably already happened and has resulted in nothing or the likelihood that your daughters would experience anything negative is too remote for it to be a concern is simply not going to satisfy the fear. The fear is not based on ignorance. It is based on love, and a natural requirement to protect. I am sorry if your process of nurturing did not allow you to experience and understand these fundamentals. Regretful, but not my concern.
But when you do what you have posted earlier, you are also infringing on the rights of others as well by exposing your children to something I think they are not prepared for.
Well then I guess we're just going to have to take you word for it that red states have more welfare recipients than the likes of California and New York. I find that surprising and hard to believe.
Per a fifteen second google search, California has one third of the nations welfare recipients.
I think CA is blue, right?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/
I think CA is blue, right?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/
Agre. What do we define as indecent as a society kind of question? Kind of I know pornography when I see it. I haven't come to a conclusion.
Really wish freaks and wierdos like Fuzz would come to terms with the fact that a man using a restroom with little girls and women is not acceptable.
I don't give a shit what that weirdo self identifies himself as.
If your son wants to use the girls restroom he's a weirdo or a creep. So spend your time and money getting your son counseling to fix your shitty parenting and save the legal fees trying to force the rest of society to put up with your little brat's wants.
I don't give a shit what that weirdo self identifies himself as.
If your son wants to use the girls restroom he's a weirdo or a creep. So spend your time and money getting your son counseling to fix your shitty parenting and save the legal fees trying to force the rest of society to put up with your little brat's wants.
You sure can buddy. Just keep showing everyone what a douche you are. Carry on!
I really starting to wonder if non tax payers should be able to vote.
LOL classic.
Indecency is enough to override their desire to use the bathroom/dressing room of their choosing. But safety is the even stronger argument.
Probably. But its about to get even worse. In a very recent SCOTUS decision, they decided (correctly) that voting districts should be based on total population, not just registered voters. Granted, this is the correct logical conclusion. But....you can clearly see whats next. Next, it will be argued that voting districts should be based on total population, including illegals, and theyll cite the logic/rationale in this case.
Liberal left with their ridiculous fight against voter IDs, and the obvious table setting for amnesty are continuing to try and steal this country from the producers and give it to the takers. But their ultimate play is the intent to remove power from individuals and give it to the state.
Without wading into the what is meant by "welfare" argument (because it's not clear, and that's a whole other argument), here are some lists:
States with the highest percentage on food stamps: 7) Louisiana; 6) Tennessee; 5) Oregon; 4) West Virginia; 3) New Mexico; 2) Mississippi; 1) DC. 4 red states (LA, TN, WV, MS), 2 blue (OR, DC), and 1 purple (NM). http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-sheet-states-with-most-food-stamps/21877399/ But food stamp eligibility is based on income and does not appear to be indexed for location (except HI and AK), so should we expect poorer states (lower incomes) to have more participation?
The Census Bureau put out a survey of "Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months by State and Puerto Rico: 2012," which shows the highest percentages in AK, CA, OR, WA, VT, PR, and ME. That public assistance includes TANF and General Assistance, and does not include SNAP (food stamps) and other non-cash distributions. This includes federal and state managed money, which means there may be differences in eligibility between states, and the information comes from American Community Surveys: "Eighteen states and the District of Columbia had higher public assistance participation rates than the national average of 2.9 percent in the 2012 ACS. These states were concentrated in the West (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) and the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont). The remaining states were Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee." http://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...ml=gd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
But comparing these things is tricky. States eligibility, variances in cost of living, variances in state budget revenue (SD has 0% state incomes tax and takes in more federal money than ND, which has a top state income tax rate of ~ 2.3% and has substantial oil revenues), etc... This article explains some of the issues with trying to make an "a-ha!" argument on this: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/230371-2-map-shows-red-states-rely-federal-aid-looks-can-deceiving/. As is almost always true, sound bites both ways are misleading, and big issues like "welfare spending" are complex.
Here's what we know for sure - poor people take in the most welfare, followed by the marginally poor, followed by scammers.
States with the highest percentage on food stamps: 7) Louisiana; 6) Tennessee; 5) Oregon; 4) West Virginia; 3) New Mexico; 2) Mississippi; 1) DC. 4 red states (LA, TN, WV, MS), 2 blue (OR, DC), and 1 purple (NM). http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-sheet-states-with-most-food-stamps/21877399/ But food stamp eligibility is based on income and does not appear to be indexed for location (except HI and AK), so should we expect poorer states (lower incomes) to have more participation?
The Census Bureau put out a survey of "Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months by State and Puerto Rico: 2012," which shows the highest percentages in AK, CA, OR, WA, VT, PR, and ME. That public assistance includes TANF and General Assistance, and does not include SNAP (food stamps) and other non-cash distributions. This includes federal and state managed money, which means there may be differences in eligibility between states, and the information comes from American Community Surveys: "Eighteen states and the District of Columbia had higher public assistance participation rates than the national average of 2.9 percent in the 2012 ACS. These states were concentrated in the West (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) and the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont). The remaining states were Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee." http://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...ml=gd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
But comparing these things is tricky. States eligibility, variances in cost of living, variances in state budget revenue (SD has 0% state incomes tax and takes in more federal money than ND, which has a top state income tax rate of ~ 2.3% and has substantial oil revenues), etc... This article explains some of the issues with trying to make an "a-ha!" argument on this: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/230371-2-map-shows-red-states-rely-federal-aid-looks-can-deceiving/. As is almost always true, sound bites both ways are misleading, and big issues like "welfare spending" are complex.
Here's what we know for sure - poor people take in the most welfare, followed by the marginally poor, followed by scammers.
You've been to law school, worked on accounting, and now you're a psychiatrist. Pretty sweet if you ask me. Next, do engineering or a hard science.
Maybe you addressed it in you essay, but the point is, trying to vilify "red states" because of the amount of federal dollars that go to the people that live in those states is stupid.
No matter what state you live in, you're in the United States. The left LOVES federal government programs. So it's stupid to say the people of one state are bad because CA has like a trillion people paying federal income tax to support the federal programs that benefit citizens of the United States, and MS has far fewer people paying federal income tax to support the federal government programs. Do away with the federal programs and federal income tax if you don't want the people that live in "red states" benefiting.
It not just welfare they're looking at when they do these stupid "red states depend on the federal government more" comparisons.
But hell, maybe every single person on food stamps in KY voted D. I don't know, somebody can analyze the stats or whatever.
No matter what state you live in, you're in the United States. The left LOVES federal government programs. So it's stupid to say the people of one state are bad because CA has like a trillion people paying federal income tax to support the federal programs that benefit citizens of the United States, and MS has far fewer people paying federal income tax to support the federal government programs. Do away with the federal programs and federal income tax if you don't want the people that live in "red states" benefiting.
It not just welfare they're looking at when they do these stupid "red states depend on the federal government more" comparisons.
But hell, maybe every single person on food stamps in KY voted D. I don't know, somebody can analyze the stats or whatever.
Didn't read the whole opinion yet, but didn't they already find that illegals count for voting districts? That was the gist I saw a few places. Vote was 8-0 for the result, with the 4 liberals and Roberts and Kennedy signing on to RBG's majority opinion. Alito and Thomas agreed in the result but did not join the majority opinion.
Edit: a link http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/4/supreme-court-illegals-count-apportionment/
That was the gist, yeah. Just can't boil something complex down to derp level.
this whole transsexual bathroom think is complete bizzaro land for me. And how has it become a political stance adopted so vigorously by the left, those who also push the whole "War On Women" "Rape Culture" issues? How is insisting on an individual who was born & is still biologically a male can enter a female bathroom, a female locker room protecting female's rights?
look I'm all about freedom and to do what you want, if you are psychotic/mentally disturbed and wish to willingly mutilate your body to change yourself from male to female, go right ahead (better pay for that shit yourself, why would I be not surprised if this weren't covered under Medicaid after 7 yrs of Obama). But until then you are a MALE, this is not the same GD thing as sexual orientation choice, you are either born with twig & berries or you are born with an ax wound. Don't care if you slam a wig on your dome & throw a skirt around your waste, until a doctor has chopped you off pillars & post you should not enter the same bathroom as my daughters.
for gods sake I can't think of a more winning issue to run around the country saying than for any & all Republicans running from every office from the White House to local dog catcher than "I want to protect your young daughters/grand daughters/nieces from entering a public rest room or gymnasium locker room with men, I will keep those places for biologically females only".
Why would all the feminist icons object to that? Sandra Fluke, Lena Dunham, Hillary, they want little girls mixed in with men? how is that possibly femenist, explain how that is equal rights, how does that defeat male patriarchy?
look I'm all about freedom and to do what you want, if you are psychotic/mentally disturbed and wish to willingly mutilate your body to change yourself from male to female, go right ahead (better pay for that shit yourself, why would I be not surprised if this weren't covered under Medicaid after 7 yrs of Obama). But until then you are a MALE, this is not the same GD thing as sexual orientation choice, you are either born with twig & berries or you are born with an ax wound. Don't care if you slam a wig on your dome & throw a skirt around your waste, until a doctor has chopped you off pillars & post you should not enter the same bathroom as my daughters.
for gods sake I can't think of a more winning issue to run around the country saying than for any & all Republicans running from every office from the White House to local dog catcher than "I want to protect your young daughters/grand daughters/nieces from entering a public rest room or gymnasium locker room with men, I will keep those places for biologically females only".
Why would all the feminist icons object to that? Sandra Fluke, Lena Dunham, Hillary, they want little girls mixed in with men? how is that possibly femenist, explain how that is equal rights, how does that defeat male patriarchy?
I havent read it either. I hadn't seen that part of it discussed, but it's the same logic. So it wouldn't surprise me. Even if not, the next case will.
If you can talk yourself into HRC supporter like fuzz has you can assuredly contort yourself to support whatever cause of the moment is being put forth.
^ not sure, but from what I understand the trans movement sees gender as more fluid, and more holistic, than just genitalia. It's all the hormones/chemicals/biology of it moreso than just genitalia. So to them, I think it's not so much that twig and berries or axe wound identifies one's gender, but all the other stuff that we've only recently discovered or still just don't know (the psychological side as well).
BTW - in a two week span in 2010 I went from only working/hanging with (98% male) military types for ~ 10 years, to a law professor that was transgendered and worked at a clinic that exclusively worked for low-income incarcerated HIV positive transgendered (pre and post) persons, almost exclusively minority. Talk about a targeted practice! Anyway, it's jarring to read/hear about trans experiences in prison. Whatever your take on trans people, it's abhorrent the way many/most are treated in prison (by guards, the system, and inmates) for being trans. Even if you think it's just a mental illness, no one deserves to be routinely raped solely for their identity/condition.
BTW - in a two week span in 2010 I went from only working/hanging with (98% male) military types for ~ 10 years, to a law professor that was transgendered and worked at a clinic that exclusively worked for low-income incarcerated HIV positive transgendered (pre and post) persons, almost exclusively minority. Talk about a targeted practice! Anyway, it's jarring to read/hear about trans experiences in prison. Whatever your take on trans people, it's abhorrent the way many/most are treated in prison (by guards, the system, and inmates) for being trans. Even if you think it's just a mental illness, no one deserves to be routinely raped solely for their identity/condition.
Yet it will take generations for that mindset to come about for the society majority.
Have felt for awhile now that should be the case. Just too many people who have no real skin in the game who do not have a clue what they are voting for dictating the direction of this country. Of course, will never happen since these folks are the ones politicians prey the most on.
Even assuming that it is the correct view, change is happening so fast nowadays regarding what we know about biology and life, and it's no wonder that society struggles to keep up. Institutions do not like change. We need more David Attenborough narrated documentaries shot in HD, frankly.
On the lighter side, enjoy this Norwegian old lady bird:
I pay a ton in taxes (although I bought a house in December, so that will help), and I think those paying X% or $Y less than me should not have the vote. Their consistent theft through distorting schemes like child tax credits, lower sales tax in terrible (where I don't live) areas, and property taxes for their crappy kids to have a crappy education and fail at life are ruining my financial security. Don't even get me started on their parks they build that are not across the street from me (which would increase my private property values) that I pay for, or the parking projects I don't use, but poorer tax payers do. They have no skin in the game because their lower percentage and total taxes paid are more than made up for in the benefits that almost exclusively target home owning families with disgusting kids, and probably a cat. Must be nice to lower your income tax rate because you can't figure out the rhythm method (I live in a very Catholic area).
example 97,823,686 of college social justice insanity.....having a party with Kentucky Derby theme is racist & offensive
KDE vice president Nikol Oydanich ’17 said that after speaking to last year’s protestors as well as individuals in the Afro-American Society, the sorority wanted to change the theme because of its racial connotations.
“[It is] related to pre-war southern culture,” she said. “Derby was a party that had the power to upset a lot of our classmates.”
The Civil War & slavery ended in 1865. The first Kentucky Derby was May 17, 1875. college kids, kids who allegedly graduated high school who are there to get even smarterer!
KDE vice president Nikol Oydanich ’17 said that after speaking to last year’s protestors as well as individuals in the Afro-American Society, the sorority wanted to change the theme because of its racial connotations.
“[It is] related to pre-war southern culture,” she said. “Derby was a party that had the power to upset a lot of our classmates.”
The Civil War & slavery ended in 1865. The first Kentucky Derby was May 17, 1875. college kids, kids who allegedly graduated high school who are there to get even smarterer!
I believe their catch phrase is "Hearts Not Parts".
My daughter, who is 17, has a close friend (they've been friends for 10 years or more) who just "trans-gendered" to a male (what the hell did I just type lol?) about 2 years ago. No surgery/hormone therapy or anything, just woke up one day and decided "I'm a guy".
Now shows up at our house with short hair, boys clothes, wants to be called "Aiden" instead of "Madison".
Its beyond bizarre; all I can do is laugh.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)- Latest: BigBlueFanGA
-
