Well obviously, he posted a pic of them hugging, so you know they're bff. Anytime people embrace, they're best friends.
I know. Same thing as GWB holding hands with the Saudis who are 100% responsible for 911.
It's all a crooked game.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I know. Same thing as GWB holding hands with the Saudis who are 100% responsible for 911.
It's all a crooked game.
Right now if someone went into the wrong restroom they could easily be charged with voyeurism. If they exposed their genitals, indecent exposure. If minors are involved, unlawful transaction with a minor.
Being trans isn't a valid defense. Sure they could hope for jury nullification, but not based on the law.
So this notion that it's a-ok right now is just false.
None of what you suggest that is illegal now would become legal with the Charlotte law.
Curious, have you ever been in a restroom...the right one or wrong one where someone was "exposing their genitals"?
Perhaps when you are standing at the urinal you've taken a peek at the dude beside you...I mean you could if you were into things like that. How many women use urinals? How many urinals have you seen in women's restrooms?
If you are "exposing your genitals" then you could be charged with indecent exposure regardless if you are a man in a men's room, a woman in a woman's room or a transsexual in either room. Nothing in the Charlotte ordinance changed any of that. Getting a glimpse of someone's pecker while you stand next to them with your pecker in your hands isn't them "exposing" their genitals. If a pervert, straight or trans is pulling his out and saying "look at me, look at me"...that's indecent exposure same as it has always been.
People who are transsexual aren't going around trying to bring attention to their birth sex. Remember, they identify and live their life as the other sex. People who do so are clearly not transsexual. You want a dead giveaway for who is not transsexual?...there you go.
BTW, my wife read the last couple of pages of this thread last night and really got a good chuckle out of some of you dimwits. She commented that if a man came into a women's restroom that they would be deeply disappointed in what they saw. They might get a thrill out of someone adjusting their bra or doing their makeup but other than that about 99.9% of the exposure takes place in the stall out of sight to everyone not in that stall.
I guess youre content just to repeat the same defeated, ridiculous arguments. In a perfect world, yes. But the law as the liberals want it is no holds barred. No objective standard. Nothing. Just the individuals word. Its completely counterintuitive, or stupid; whichever you prefer. Its so bad, that Im fairly certain you don't actually believe what youre saying. You just believe, in some manner, if you keep repeating it that maybe one poster on here will be converted to a blind supporter of all things liberal; and then it will all be worth it.
Bizarre.
As another poster pointed out, odds are you've never actually been in a mens lockerroom if you've never seen genitals exposed. For whatever reason, men (especially older men) love getting naked for their entire duration of the lockerroom stay. Maybe your lockerroom has stalls. But I can assure you most do not.
Ted Cruz defended a ban on sex toys arguing that "you have no right to stimulate your genitals". ![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
There goes the lesbian and horny housewife vote.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
There goes the lesbian and horny housewife vote.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
Ted Cruz defended a ban on sex toys arguing that "you have no right to stimulate your genitals".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
All the people showing polls of how bad Trump will lose to Hillary (which is probable). Do you really think Cruz has a better shot? Cruz is probably the worst candidate I can recall in my lifetime of nearly 40 years.
What a mess.
Cruz wouldn't hurt down-ticket republicans as much.
But yeah, Cruz would get rocked.
I saw a quote (can't remember the context or the speaker) that was something along the lines of "Republican voters are ready to give up the White House, SCOTUS, the Senate, and possibly the House all because of the Ohio Medicaid expansion". I don't think that's totally accurate, but it definitely points to the heart of the issue.
If the GOP is going to rob Trump at the convention, I sure hope that they do it for the benefit of someone other than Cruz. He is just terrible.
Agree with both. If the establishment was going to sabotage its front runner, you would think it would've been for a much better candidate. Now its too far gone. Epic self destruction.
And you will repeat the same false, defeated arguments.
Where is "this law that the liberals want"? The closes thing I have seen is the Charlotte ordinance that simply says that you cannot discriminate against transsexual and that they were allowed to use the restrooms of their identity. None of that repeals any indecent exposure laws, any sexual predator laws, any pedophile laws.
Dude, I've been in more locker rooms than you've thought about in your lifetime. I've been in one almost daily for the past near 50 years. I was last time was in one about 7am this morning. If you come in a men's locker room then you may see someone's junk. What, are you scared some tranny is going to see your junk and laugh? Do you think you have something that nobody else has ever seen? Not to worry. Most gyms now have "family dressing rooms" so for the modest you have your little safe space where you can sh!t, shower and shave all by your lonesome.
Again, transgender folks would just assume that you never knew that they weren't what they wanted to be.
So what locker room should Caitlyn Jenner use? How about Shuyler Bailar?
Circular again. Noone argues that people with hormone replacement, etc shouldn't be allowed to use the bathroom they identify with. But there are no standard. Until there are objective standards, that can be clearly followed/enforced, nothing should change.
If you feel the need to regurgitate something from your previous ramblings, feel free. But I wont waste anymore time pointing out your deficient arguments until you present something new on this point.
Won't do any good. This is only delaying the inevitable.
Hope does some funny things to people. Hope often clouds reality, but doesn't change it.
"Psssshhhh....who me? Son, I've seen more penis than a 45 year old whore in Thailand. As a matter of fact, I can identify most of my locker room buddies simply by the yaw of their shaft."
- fuzz
- fuzz
People not being reasonable and backing such a shitty candidate and giving him legitimacy created the mess. And no one is robbing said shitty candidate of anything. You don't get 70% disapproval any other way than being a POS.
If you saw a pic of fuzz it would be immediately clear why this is a passionate subject.
No one is buying his bullshit. Not even the most liberal place in the world would subject underage children to transgendered kidss. I don't know who he thinks he is fooling, but it sure as shit isn't anyone in this thread.
I am no big Trump fan but he absolutely got screwed by the Colorado GOP. They cancelled the voting and just handed all the delegates to Cruz. I would support anyone but Cruz on the GOP side. He is a complete nut. Trump is just a jerk.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. After the Charlotte ordinance, a genuine trans person could use the restroom they identify with, and trans would be a defense to trespass only. Still no defense for voyeurism, which North Carolina defines as: "Anyone who peeps secretly into any room occupied by a female is guilty of secretly peeping." To me that reads as a dude in a wig going into the ladies room is not charged with this crime (but would be charged with others, like trespass). I'm not going to comb through NC case law to find the elements, but I don't see how a law that prohibits discrimination in public accomodations based on gender identity provides a defense to voyeurism to a non-trans person. Illicit activities are still illegal.
Ted Cruz defended a ban on sex toys arguing that "you have no right to stimulate your genitals".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/ted-cruz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
This is amazing.
Really Ted?
a ban on sex toys? Ridiculous. For a smart guy, he sure is a moron when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I wish I had his home address, I would send him a box of multi-colored dildos.
a ban on sex toys? Ridiculous. For a smart guy, he sure is a moron when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I wish I had his home address, I would send him a box of multi-colored dildos.
repeat what I've said before, the GOP lacks the imagination and the testicles to deny the nomination to the guy who got the most votes, most states won, most delegates. the creativity of some saying the convention will be contested and a Kasich or Paul Ryan will get nominated on the 5th or 10th ballot is just a fantasy.
I have always thought this would be a winning ticket, in spite of Rubio's weaknesses.
Fn hate Cruz. Every time he smiles I just want to punch him in the face. Can see why everyone hates the guy. He will get throttled in a general. GOP has no choice but to ride Trump and pray he can pull a rabbit out of the hat. He will cut a deal with Kasich to get his delegates which should put him over the amount needed and put him on the ticket. Only reason Kasich has stayed in is because he knows he has leverage with his delegates.
From the solicitor general of Virginia (which had a similar law: "Having had the experience of answering questions about oral sex from a female State Supreme Court Justice who is also a grandmother," Thro wrote Cruz, "you have my sympathy.
" These oral argument transcripts must be pretty great.
That hurts Kasich I guess, but illegal immigration still seems to me to be the main issue that's driving voters to Trump and Cruz.
This is a pretty good examination of why outsiders like Trump and Sanders are doing so well this election cycle. You are right about it being immigration for Trump but its also blue collar whites who are angry over free trade agreements.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/roots-of-revolt/
If Trump gets the nomination, his VP choice will be huuuuuuuge. I know it's largely a meaningless decision, but perception is reality oftentimes, and he needs somebody who will cause 'nevertrumpers' to reconsider their position. Me, being in that group.
That ticket should logically win the GOP ticket, but in a national election, that ticket loses.
Rubio is awful, but Kasich could prolly pull some libs and Independents votes. The problem is, that Trump is getting more votes than the both of them combined.
I dunno what to think. I'm so disgusted with this presidential race, that I've given up. I don't care who wins anymore. Screw it.
No, the hatred of the 'establishment' in Washington begging to be voted into power in the House/Senate promising to stop Obama but then failing to do so is the main issue driving those who vote/support both of them
If any brightside, at least Repubs will prolly keep Congress and may keep senate. which hopefully is a deterrent to Hilldawg.
Not holding my breath on that. GOP 'might' put up some resistance to 'Hilldawg', but they didn't do much of that with Obama.
Obama's lameduck supreme pick is dead in his fracking tracks, and no national outrage or protests about it. so that is one successful resistance. Obamacare, that was a newly created entitlement, ain't nothing just a GOP congress could do to get rid of that without also holding the White House. immigration, what could anyone do when Obama decides to use the Constitution to wipe his ass & executive actions a bunch of illegals to be legal.
I think youre right.
Trump/Kasich wouldve been strong; had the GOP not turned on Trump.
While true, Garland is probably a far sight better than what we'll get with Hillary. Best bet wouldve been to just confirm him. All these 4-4 decisions are basically liberal victories anyway.
confirming him would have depressed GOP vote and guaranteed Dem takeover of Senate, probably would have put House in serious danger. if the worst occurs & Hillary sweeps to victory in Nov they can always pick this back up & confirm Garland. and that would put into place some strange strategery...would he bow out? would Obama pull him? would senate Dems filibuster his nomination, to be complete hypocrites & demand Hillary be the one to fill the slot?
for now declaring this guy DOA is smart politics that isnt hurting them once iota.
In hindsight, you are correct. At the time of the decision to completely refuse to consider him was extraordinarily risky. Most assumed this would backfire. It hasnt....yet.
Odds are Hillary, once she inevitably wins, she'll have a nominee. Will that be worse than Garland? Probably. They will almost certainly have a strong anti gun stance.
Ted's old Princeton roommate responds to Ted's stance on stimulating one's genitals. https://www.google.com/amp/m.mic.co...-cruz-s-stance-on-masturbation?client=safari#
