Sad day for america

[Klingsor]

What was the specific ordinance that started it all?

You know as well as I do. You started a thread about it.

Except you go it wrong. The North Carolina statue wasn't just about men who "self-identified" as female. It banned ANYONE from using a restroom that didn't correspond to the sex on their birth certificate.

While I agree that transgender people should be able to use the facility of their choice, saying that they're being treated as "second class" citizens is just hyperbole.

Flashback to 1964:

While I agree that black people should be able to use the facility of their choice, saying that they're being treated as "second class" citizens is just hyperbole.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Oh christ. This troll is going to get yet another thread locked because of his hysteria.

You don't argue with mouth breathers like him.
You put them on ignore.

This forum is already much more pleasant with him on ignore. I suggest others do the same.

 

[RedDick]

View attachment 492576

You know as well as I do. You started a thread about it.

Ha ha. True. Ok, I stand corrected when I said the left started it. My apologies.

However, I still disagree with the part about letting non-transgender men being license to share the showers with women.

 

[RedDick]

The most recent law was HB 2 in NC which also banned a city from banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In Maryland republican nut jobs tried to pass a similar law and were laughed out of town. It's the latest wedge issue conservatives, like yourself are using to keep voters angry. They lost on gay marriage, they lost on religious freedom to discriminate when they sell pizza, they see the future and are trying to cling to power. That is what it is all about.

I'm all for gay marriage, gay adoption and transgenders using whatever facility they like. I oppose conservatives that oppose the aforementioned. My only digress is the overreach wherein heterosexual men get to shower with women.

 

[RedDick]

Oh christ. This troll is going to get yet another thread locked because of his hysteria.

You don't argue with mouth breathers like him.
You put them on ignore.

I support the right of gay people and transgenders to be able to do anything and everything that heterosexual people can do. My only objection is allowing non-transgender men in the women's shower and, for that, I have earned the disdain of this guy. He hates intolerance yet, he himself is extremely intolerant.

 

[Klingsor]

However, I still disagree with the part about letting non-transgender men being license to share the showers with women.

And this is not what anyone intends when they advocate for transgender rights. Nor do I think it's likely to be much of a problem. After all, we've both acknowledged it wasn't a big issue before this whole controversy started--and now we've both agreed who started it.

 

[RedDick]

And this is not what anyone intends when they advocate for transgender rights. Nor do I think it's likely to be much of a problem. After all, we've both acknowledged it wasn't a big issue before this whole controversy started--and now we've both agreed who started it.

Ok, so let's just leave it at "transgendered" and leave the part about "self-identifying" out. Problem solved.

 

[Klingsor]

Ok, so let's just leave it at "transgendered" and leave the part about "self-identifying" out. Problem solved.

As I've already pointed out, "transgendered" IS a kind of "self-identifying," so you'd have to make a clearer distinction than that.

If it actually becomes a real issue (and no doubt some conservative zealots will try to make it one by barging into the wrong restroom), some clarifications and restrictions may become necessary. But I'm not inclined to belabor the legalities further until and unless that happens.

 

[622675]

In order to refocus the discussion and move toward some new understudying--.

According to what I can find it is a class E felony under United stated Code Title 18, Section 871 to threaten the President of the United States. A class E felony carries sentence of 1-5 year in jail and money fine.

Now, frankly I think my life is just as important (if not more so) than is the Presidents. After all he/she is supposed to simply be a regular citizen serving in the office.

So lets just place the words US President in the justice systems of those Muslim/Islamic cultures/nations where the word homosexual is now exists.

There are at least ten nations that sanction or promote the killing of gays. What is more these intentions have been regularly carried out in their own countries as well as the US. We know they will do it.

So how should the US vet individuals tying to come to this country and who have affirmed the right and obligation to kill the US President (gays)?

-- First, (agree with Trump) all entry should be halted until the individual can be assessed as a threat. No one comes here agreeing with the right or requirement to kill US Presidents (or gays).

-- Any individual or group leader voicing plans or agreement that the US President (or gays) should be killed should be incarcerated (Class E felony) as a practical safety matter.

--All institutions, groups, or movements in the US (including Christian) that support the idea that the US President (gays) should be killed should be disbanded and leadership prosecuted.

--All countries supporting death to the US President (or gays) should be placed on an enemies list.

--Individuals who attempt to kill US Presidents (or gays) should be stopped at all cost to include the termination of the aggressor(s).


There would be nothing reactionary about these steps if the US President and gays (regular citizens) were seen in same light.

 

[RedDick]

As I've already pointed out, "transgendered" IS a kind of "self-identifying," so you'd have to make a clearer distinction than that.

If it actually becomes a real issue (and no doubt some conservative zealots will try to make it one by barging into the wrong restroom), some clarifications and restrictions may become necessary. But I'm not inclined to belabor the legalities further until and unless that happens.

Yea, I think we beat the shit out this subject.

 

[bigbull29]

We've have Evangelical Christians trying to convert Catholic Christians all over the world.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches proclaim they have the truest of the Christian faiths (as do Catholics and many Conservative Protestant denominations).

People of the same religion can't get along, let alone those of different religions.

 

[StormfrontFL]

In order to refocus the discussion and move toward some new understudying--.

According to what I can find it is a class E felony under United stated Code Title 18, Section 871 to threaten the President of the United States. A class E felony carries sentence of 1-5 year in jail and money fine.

Now, frankly I think my life is just as important (if not more so) than is the Presidents. After all he/she is supposed to simply be a regular citizen serving in the office.

So lets just place the words US President in the justice systems of those Muslim/Islamic cultures/nations where the word homosexual is now exists.

There are at least ten nations that sanction or promote the killing of gays. What is more these intentions have been regularly carried out in their own countries as well as the US. We know they will do it.

So how should the US vet individuals tying to come to this country and who have affirmed the right and obligation to kill the US President (gays)?

-- First, (agree with Trump) all entry should be halted until the individual can be assessed as a threat. No one comes here agreeing with the right or requirement to kill US Presidents (or gays).

-- Any individual or group leader voicing plans or agreement that the US President (or gays) should be killed should be incarcerated (Class E felony) as a practical safety matter.

--All institutions, groups, or movements in the US (including Christian) that support the idea that the US President (gays) should be killed should be disbanded and leadership prosecuted.

--All countries supporting death to the US President (or gays) should be placed on an enemies list.

--Individuals who attempt to kill US Presidents (or gays) should be stopped at all cost to include the termination of the aggressor(s).


There would be nothing reactionary about these steps if the US President and gays (regular citizens) were seen in same light.

So bar someone because of the country they come from? Forget that people are individuals. Since you seem to like lumping everyone together let's condemn all Christians because a few have been insensitive, evil jerks.

I think you're late for a tRump rally.

 

[Klingsor]

Yea, I think we beat the shit out this subject.

As Morgan Freeman says in Se7en, "For the first time, you and I are in complete agreement."

 

[RedDick]

We've have Evangelical Christians trying to convert Catholic Christians all over the world.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches proclaim they have the truest of the Christian faiths (as do Catholics and many Conservative Protestant denominations).

People of the same religion can't get along, let alone those of different religions.

There's some truth to that. There are intolerant believers just like there are intolerant non-believers, as evidenced by this community.

 

[622675]

So bar someone because of the country they come from? Forget that people are individuals. Since you seem to like lumping everyone together let's condemn all Christians because a few have been insensitive, evil jerks.

I think you're late for a tRump rally.

I am sorry that you would rather be sarcastic (makes you look real cool) than to discuss meaningful and practical ways to approach a real problem

 

[RedDick]

I am sorry that you would rather be sarcastic (makes you look real cool) than to discuss meaningful and practical ways to approach a real problem

Unfortunately, all he has posted has been hate, insults, rhetoric and sarcasm. Perhaps it's because he knows his arguments cannot withstand the light of day. Perhaps it's because he adheres to an ideology that is illogical.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I am sorry that you would rather be sarcastic (makes you look real cool) than to discuss meaningful and practical ways to approach a real problem

If you want a meaningful discussion you first need to make a suggestion not based on bigotry and discrimination.

 

[RedDick]

If you want a meaningful discussion you first need to make a suggestion not based on bigotry and discrimination.

Says the most intolerant, hate-filled guy on the forum, and that's saying something!

 

[622675]

If you want a meaningful discussion you first need to make a suggestion not based on bigotry and discrimination.

Once again you have replied with a sarcastic and unintelligent response.

Not only have I laid out the logic for approaching individuals who have avowed and demonstrated a willingness to do Americans harm. Further I have provided the legal basis for enacting it.

Bigotry is not a primary issue when someone is planning to kill you.

Please decline from responding if all you are going to do is look in the mirror and sing, “am I pretty”.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Once again you have replied with a sarcastic and unintelligent response.

Not only have I laid out the logic for approaching individuals who have avowed and demonstrated a willingness to do Americans harm. Further I have provided the legal basis for enacting it.

Bigotry is not a primary issue when someone is planning to kill you.

Please decline from responding if all you are going to do is look in the mirror and sing, “am I pretty”.

You have not "laid out the logic for approaching individuals who have avowed and demonstrated a willingness to do Americans harm". What you stated was that there are countries in which gays are treated horribly and put forth a hypothetical that people from those countries should be banned. It's fair to ask you why you think it's okay to penalize someone because of the country he, or she, comes from.

Your "thinking" is that anyone seeking to immigrate isn't vetted.

Some of ISIS members are from Canada. They are blond, blue eyed, and educated. Canada isn't an enemy country so would you be calling for Canadians to be banned if some former Canadians came in and committed acts of terror? By your logic all people are products of their country so if a Canadian is a terrorist then all Canadians can't be trusted.