Poll: What should women do about transdudes in female sports?

[Ame®icano]

NO, actually people COULD do that until 1978 in all 50 states. The concept of marital rape was not in American law until Nebraska became the first state to make it a crime. This was the point I was getting across, (which obviously, someone took the wrong way). Marriage was a license to rape in this country. A woman didn't have a legal right to refuse her husband sex.

This is one of the ways marriage changed legally. I also cited no-fault divorce and the end to miscegenation laws... We redefined marriage. ANd we redefined it again when we said gay people can do it.

Outlawing marital rape did not redefined the institution of marriage, it defined the rights within.

If marriage was "license to rape", why would women marry at all?

 

[JoeB131]

Outlawing marital rape did not redefined the institution of marriage, it defined the rights within.

If marriage was "license to rape", why would women marry at all?

Oh, I don't know, why would a woman put up with a patriarchal system that treats them like second class citizens? Oh, that's right. because they really didn't have much of a choice.

 

[lantern2814]

Depends how toxic your homophobia is.

If little Timmy is going to grow up to be a gay-basher, because of shit you are feeding him, um, yeah.

Just like they pull kids out of homes of white supremecists and crackheads.

I thought you put me on ignore no job Joe? More lies from the resident liar. Sorry asshole, you don’t get to take other people’s kids just because they don’t like your lifestyle. File that complaint and watch the police haul YOU off.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, I don't know, why would a woman put up with a patriarchal system that treats them like second class citizens? Oh, that's right. because they really didn't have much of a choice.

That wasn't a question, yet, you're answering to something that nobody asked. I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.

 

[JoeB131]

That wasn't a question, yet, you're answering to something that nobody asked. I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works.

I think you are getting confused to your own message.

Marriage has been, for most of history - and still is in some parts of the world - a patriarchal system that treats women as property. Not only was marital rape NOT a crime within my lifetime, but up until the 19th century, a man could avoid a rape charge by convincing his victim to marry him. The Bible even allows for a rapist to marry his victim, if he pays her father 30 Shekels. Up until 1969, one couldn't legally marry or have sex with someone of another race in some parts of the country. People couldn't get out of an unworkable marriage without showing proof of abuse or adultery.

In short, WE REDEFINED MARRIAGE. And frankly, everyone is better off for it. Just like everyone is better off for gays now being able to get married. Certainly better than them getting into loveless, sexless marriages, which is what was expected of gay people. (I had an aunt who fell into this category, it was miserable for everyone involved.)

You can't tell me how a straight marriage is diminished in any way by a gay couple getting married.

 

[Ame®icano]

I agree with you that it is not normal. Normal is defined as what most people do. And yes, a gay person can have physical relations with a person of the opposite sex, however they could never be happy or find fulfillment that way. Going back to my friends brother, I was told by a few older friends that he was a chick magnet in high school. He was dating the prom queen. They fell all over him. However what he told me is that anytime he was with a woman, he imagined he was with a guy, or he would have never been able to get off.

To understand my point, take gay out of the picture for a moment. What about guys that get off on being tied up and whipped, or being suffocated? What about guys who get off on a woman defecating on their face? How about guys who get off on women's feet? And I learned about this from the Howard Stern show, there are guys that get off on being treated like a baby. They found a company that sells oversized cribs, diapers, safety pins, pacifiers so there must be enough of them for companies to produce these products. What about women that like having sex with dogs?

Activity in these strange things are optional, but the desires for them are not. There is no possible way to change ones desires. Therefore their choice is not participating in these unusual desires and live a life of unhappyness, or satisfy these desires and lead a happy life. For gay people, I have no idea where these desires come from. What I do know is people that followed those desires are much happier pleasing themselves than they are pleasing society or their circle of associates.

I'm all for people being as happy as they can make themselves. Now that I'm nearing the end myself, I realize life is too short not to. As long as somebody doesn't shove their lifestyle up my ass, Do whatever it is that makes you happy as far as I'm concerned, just leave me out of it and don't affect my life or environment, and I'm okay with that.

What gays or straight doing behind their doors is not anyone business. Whatever they're doing, if that makes them happy, is fine with me. Problem arise when they try to make it everyone's business to the point that they are using education system, and government to indoctrinate my kids to accept their deranged lifestyle, and that doesn't make me happy, it makes me mad. Homosexuals, and LGBT as whole use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that they cannot see their "partners" in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of those examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word "woman" to mean "man" so that they could enter. Nor it is the job of the government to change hospital's policy. In the free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.

The LGBT and the left in general denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly and forcibly deviating from it's original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversions of that meaning? "Marriage" has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage, to what end? If definition of something that has a single meaning can be changed for one group, then another, how long before definition of marriage is gonna be changed for the next one? Sure, people should do what makes them happy, as long they don't infringe on right and happiness of other people.

The LGBT claims that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays do not reproduce. This again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose, breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, as they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn't.

The LGBT will argue that they "deserve" the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or non sexual relationships "deserve" said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits? Finally, the LGBT will argue that their ability to marry will "not effect" "gay marriage" or family values. However, this again does not prove anything about necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion-fallacious, in this case, or otherwise, that the majority won't be affected.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What gays or straight doing behind their doors is not anyone business. Whatever they're doing, if that makes them happy, is fine with me. Problem arise when they try to make it everyone's business to the point that they are using education system, and government to indoctrinate my kids to accept their deranged lifestyle, and that doesn't make me happy, it makes me mad. Homosexuals, and LGBT as whole use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that they cannot see their "partners" in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of those examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word "woman" to mean "man" so that they could enter. Nor it is the job of the government to change hospital's policy. In the free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.

The LGBT and the left in general denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly and forcibly deviating from it's original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversions of that meaning? "Marriage" has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage, to what end? If definition of something that has a single meaning can be changed for one group, then another, how long before definition of marriage is gonna be changed for the next one? Sure, people should do what makes them happy, as long they don't infringe on right and happiness of other people.

The LGBT claims that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays do not reproduce. This again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose, breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, as they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn't.

The LGBT will argue that they "deserve" the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or non sexual relationships "deserve" said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits? Finally, the LGBT will argue that their ability to marry will "not effect" "gay marriage" or family values. However, this again does not prove anything about necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion-fallacious, in this case, or otherwise, that the majority won't be affected.

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more. I've never been married, but I have lived with a few girlfriends before that could have used my work benefits to their advantage.

Most of the benefits the gays were complaining about were not law. For instance a hospital is under no legal obligation to let anybody see a patient married or not. In fact last year I had a six hour surgery. Granted it wasn't super high risk, but things could go wrong in a surgery that long, especially when combined with several other serious medical conditions. My parents wanted to be there during and after the surgery in case something did go wrong. The hospital refused to let them both in because of covid. They only allowed one of my parents to visit and that parent was the only visitor I was allowed to have my entire stay in the hospital. They couldn't take turns the next day. The hospital pit my parents against each other. Good thing my parents are reasonable people. They didn't lift that policy until just a few weeks ago.

Health benefits the same way. No law states your employer has to cover your spouse. It's workplace policy and not law.

The problem is we didn't push back hard enough on the gay movement. Now they are adopting children normal people should have, forced states to accept gay marriage against the vote of the people. They are passionately kissing each other in the park in front of our children, and as you already stated, now pushing this BS on our children.

 

[JoeB131]

What gays or straight doing behind their doors is not anyone business. Whatever they're doing, if that makes them happy, is fine with me. Problem arise when they try to make it everyone's business to the point that they are using education system, and government to indoctrinate my kids to accept their deranged lifestyle, and that doesn't make me happy, it makes me mad. Homosexuals, and LGBT as whole use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal.

Kind of sounds like the arguments that racists made 60 years ago. How dare those black people want to drink out of the same water fountains and go to the same schools our kids do. And using the government to enforce their view?

The argument that they cannot see their "partners" in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of those examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word "woman" to mean "man" so that they could enter. Nor it is the job of the government to change hospital's policy. In the free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.

Ever notice that the right always defines freedom as the ability of the haves to abuse the have-nots? A hotel or a hospital shouldn't be defining your ability to use their facilities, especially if you are the one PAYING for the service. That's why we have public accommodation laws.

The LGBT and the left in general denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly and forcibly deviating from it's original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversions of that meaning? "Marriage" has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage, to what end? If definition of something that has a single meaning can be changed for one group, then another, how long before definition of marriage is gonna be changed for the next one? Sure, people should do what makes them happy, as long they don't infringe on right and happiness of other people.

I can kind of see your point. Your bigotry clearly makes you "happy". You really don't like it when the government or the culture tell you that your bigotry is bad.

If straight people are happy getting married, they should. And if they aren't happy or realize they made a mistake, they should be able to get no-fault divorces with each side being able to leave the union with EXACTLY what they came in with.

As pointed out, the definition of marriage has changed all the time as the roles of men and women have changed. 100 years ago, it was difficult for a woman to get a divorce, she often had to grin and bear it if her husband kept a mistress on the side. It wasn't considered a crime if he forced sex on her. It was considered acceptable to beat one's wife if she got out of line.

It's spousal abuse and it's funny!

The LGBT claims that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays do not reproduce. This again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose, breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, as they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn't.

Except that 40% of births in this county now happen outside of wedlock, and it just isn't the big deal it used to be. As far as the right of a couple to perpetuate genetics, today we have surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, etc.

If anything, our "Free Market" often means couples are putting off child bearing to their 30's when their biological clocks are running out! You have to stay in school until you are 22 or so just to get the credentials to get a good job, another decade or so getting established and paying down your debt, and then, and only then, do you think about having kids on WHOOPS... too old now and your kids have Down Syndrome. Or the rich couple paying a pregnant team to adopt her baby.

The LGBT will argue that they "deserve" the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or non sexual relationships "deserve" said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits? Finally, the LGBT will argue that their ability to marry will "not effect" "gay marriage" or family values. However, this again does not prove anything about necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion-fallacious, in this case, or otherwise, that the majority won't be affected.

Actually, marriage is a tax penalty, unless you have enough kids to offset it. The funny thing is that a lot of cohabitating straight couples were taking advantage of "domestic partner" rules to get benefits, because the bigots and Christian nutters (but I repeat myself) wanted to create a separate drinking fountain. After gay marriage was legalized, companies started demanding that you show a marriage certificate to get your partner on your insurance.

So ironically, gay marriage actually caused a lot more Straight Marriage to happen. You guys should be happy about that!

Of course, simple enough way to stop this sort of abuse. Universal health care like every other civilized country has.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem is we didn't push back hard enough on the gay movement. Now they are adopting children normal people should have, forced states to accept gay marriage against the vote of the people. They are passionately kissing each other in the park in front of our children, and as you already stated, now pushing this BS on our children.

That must be TERRIBLE for you, Welfare Ray! I mean, it's probably almost as bad as when black people moved in next door to you!

You guys pushed back on the gay movement plenty hard. The problem is, your arguments all boiled down to "God says it's bad" and "I think it's icky"... neither of which are rational arguments.

Nobody's rights should be subject to a vote.

 

[Ame®icano]

Kind of sounds like the arguments that racists made 60 years ago. How dare those black people want to drink out of the same water fountains and go to the same schools our kids do. And using the government to enforce their view?



Ever notice that the right always defines freedom as the ability of the haves to abuse the have-nots? A hotel or a hospital shouldn't be defining your ability to use their facilities, especially if you are the one PAYING for the service. That's why we have public accommodation laws.



I can kind of see your point. Your bigotry clearly makes you "happy". You really don't like it when the government or the culture tell you that your bigotry is bad.

If straight people are happy getting married, they should. And if they aren't happy or realize they made a mistake, they should be able to get no-fault divorces with each side being able to leave the union with EXACTLY what they came in with.

As pointed out, the definition of marriage has changed all the time as the roles of men and women have changed. 100 years ago, it was difficult for a woman to get a divorce, she often had to grin and bear it if her husband kept a mistress on the side. It wasn't considered a crime if he forced sex on her. It was considered acceptable to beat one's wife if she got out of line.

View attachment 636948

It's spousal abuse and it's funny!



Except that 40% of births in this county now happen outside of wedlock, and it just isn't the big deal it used to be. As far as the right of a couple to perpetuate genetics, today we have surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, etc.

If anything, our "Free Market" often means couples are putting off child bearing to their 30's when their biological clocks are running out! You have to stay in school until you are 22 or so just to get the credentials to get a good job, another decade or so getting established and paying down your debt, and then, and only then, do you think about having kids on WHOOPS... too old now and your kids have Down Syndrome. Or the rich couple paying a pregnant team to adopt her baby.



Actually, marriage is a tax penalty, unless you have enough kids to offset it. The funny thing is that a lot of cohabitating straight couples were taking advantage of "domestic partner" rules to get benefits, because the bigots and Christian nutters (but I repeat myself) wanted to create a separate drinking fountain. After gay marriage was legalized, companies started demanding that you show a marriage certificate to get your partner on your insurance.

So ironically, gay marriage actually caused a lot more Straight Marriage to happen. You guys should be happy about that!

Of course, simple enough way to stop this sort of abuse. Universal health care like every other civilized country has.

Do you really think that calling us bigots is giving you some power over us, while at the same time you're exposing yourself as biggest bigot of all?

Again, you're chopping off the post into sections that don't have the same weigh when separate. I realized you're too stupid to read the whole post in order to find a point for which that post is written. Not only that you can't process the point that was made, you can't comprehend two related sentences without splitting them up and addressing each one separately. Even then, you just throw random things without even addressing the subject, so your replies sounds something like walrus with dementia would scream during painful bowel movement.

So I am asking myself, why are you here? You don't answer questions, you don't post links to back your claims, you accusing people of saying things they haven't said, and when asked to quote what they said, you ignore it, when faced with truth you just shriek and start accusing others of being racist, bigots and what not. I've been replying to your posts for some time now, and it doesn't make sense to do it longer, since you cant comprehend any of it, and you write back about nothing on the subject, you simply provide no value to any conversation, because you have no value.

Long ago I used to **** a girl on the side who would make the same call to me. She would ask "can you bring some food"? And I would ask "you down to **** after?" She would say yes or no, and my answer would be the same. One time she said yes, and I didn't want to ****. So I never went to see her again. At the time, Chinese take out was worth ***** to me. Yeah, it cost me $12.72, but I got to eat too.

 

[Ame®icano]

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more. I've never been married, but I have lived with a few girlfriends before that could have used my work benefits to their advantage.

Most of the benefits the gays were complaining about were not law. For instance a hospital is under no legal obligation to let anybody see a patient married or not. In fact last year I had a six hour surgery. Granted it wasn't super high risk, but things could go wrong in a surgery that long, especially when combined with several other serious medical conditions. My parents wanted to be there during and after the surgery in case something did go wrong. The hospital refused to let them both in because of covid. They only allowed one of my parents to visit and that parent was the only visitor I was allowed to have my entire stay in the hospital. They couldn't take turns the next day. The hospital pit my parents against each other. Good thing my parents are reasonable people. They didn't lift that policy until just a few weeks ago.

Health benefits the same way. No law states your employer has to cover your spouse. It's workplace policy and not law.

The problem is we didn't push back hard enough on the gay movement. Now they are adopting children normal people should have, forced states to accept gay marriage against the vote of the people. They are passionately kissing each other in the park in front of our children, and as you already stated, now pushing this BS on our children.

The "left" cannot exist without being tyrannical. What left does has nothing to do with rights, it's all about the control and in order to acquire it, and retain it, they don't care if they lie to you, or beat you into submission. If you haven't notice, they thrive on people miseries. They don't care to be happy, they just don't want you to be happy. They don't care if they're poor, they don't want you to be wealthy. That has been Democrats way since Democrats. They've always been party of racism, racists laws, segregation, anti-civil right, and they always blame others for everything they've been doing.

The biggest problem for the left is that they're self destructive. The identity politics that bring different identities under their "control" eventually start to fight each other in attempt to be more equal then the others. For example, most women supported feminism and almost all they fought for, but today that isn't the case anymore, because feminism grew into a monster that large portion of women are running away from. Today's feminism is stupid because women are actually independent now, and they don't want some fat lesbian Tumblr activists to liberate them from anybody. But to imply that women are unable to compete with men in matters physical, political, corporate, etc., is implying that women are inferior and unable to compete with men so they require special help from the government or society.

Take transgenders for example. They were 0.02% of population ten years ago, and they pushing for 0.04% now days. That makes them fewer than the sufferers of many rare diseases. There are more Samoans in the US than there are trannies. The trans issue, is a non-issue. It's so rare it's ridiculous. And we are suppose to change language, employment, education, and our own beliefs to appease them. Why? Because it's a wedge issue by the cultural Marxists who don't actually give two shits about these people. They don't care the they still off themselves after transitioning. They don't care that they're not any happier with transitioning than before. They don't care that there's no conclusive support in transgenders are helped more by this destructive surgery than mental health. All the lefties care about is that it fits their agenda of destroying the cultural norms to the point that you can't talk about people being men and women. This 0.02% of the population should dictate the reality of 99.98% who aren't confused about their gender. We need gender neutral pronouns, shitlords! We need action plans for schools, so more kids grow up to be depressed and wanting their genitals altered. This is progress!

I don't fall for it. They want us to discuss the issue on their terms, as if is a real and important issue in society. It's not. It's bullshit wedge issue. The important issue is the continued attack on society by leftist and now they use minorities, women, and mentally ill to do it under a banner of "rights".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The "left" cannot exist without being tyrannical. What left does has nothing to do with rights, it's all about the control and in order to acquire it, and retain it, they don't care if they lie to you, or beat you into submission. If you haven't notice, they thrive on people miseries. They don't care to be happy, they just don't want you to be happy. They don't care if they're poor, they don't want you to be wealthy. That has been Democrats way since Democrats. They've always been party of racism, racists laws, segregation, anti-civil right, and they always blame others for everything they've been doing.

The biggest problem for the left is that they're self destructive. The identity politics that bring different identities under their "control" eventually start to fight each other in attempt to be more equal then the others. For example, most women supported feminism and almost all they fought for, but today that isn't the case anymore, because feminism grew into a monster that large portion of women are running away from. Today's feminism is stupid because women are actually independent now, and they don't some fat lesbian Tumblr activists to liberate them from anybody. But to imply that women are unable to compete with men in matters physical, political, corporate, etc., is implying that women are inferior and unable to compete with men so they require special help from the government or society.

Take transgenders for example. They were 0.02% of population ten years ago, and 0.04% now days. That makes them fewer than the sufferers of many rare diseases. There are more Samoans in the US than there are trannies. The trans issue, is a non-issue. It's so rare it's ridiculous. And we are suppose to change language, employment, education, and our own beliefs to appease them. Why? Because it's a wedge issue by the cultural Marxists who don't actually give two shits about these people. They don't care the they still off themselves after transitioning. They don't care that they're not any happier with transitioning than before. They don't care that there's no conclusive support in transgenders are helped more by this destructive surgery than mental health. All the lefties care about is that it fits their agenda of destroying the cultural norms to the point that you can't talk about people being men and women. This 0.02% of the population should dictate the reality of 99.98% who aren't confused about their gender. We need gender neutral pronouns, shitlords! We need action plans for schools, so more kids grow up to be depressed and wanting their genitals altered. This is progress!

I don't fall for it. They want us to discuss the issue on their terms, as if is a real and important issue in society. It's not. It's bullshit wedge issue. The important issue is the continued attack on society by leftist and now they use minorities, women, and mentally ill to do it under a banner of "rights".

As I've always said repeatedly, you are not a true leftist unless you are trying to make people as miserable as you are. Control? That's been known forever. Look at how upset they are by Musk buying Twitter. Leftists had complete control over it. Now they are complaining about potential censorship? I don't belong to Twitter, but from what I understand they've been nothing but censorship until now.

Election time is coming up, and polls show the resentment of the public to mask wearing among other precautions. Videos of people on the plane when the judge ruled mask mandates were no longer needed, and nearly every passenger cheered as they ripped off their stupid masks. Because of this push back, look what Fauci is saying now in spite of Whorris once again catching covid.

Fauci walks back comment U.S. is 'out of pandemic phase'

In an interview with PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, the nation’s top immunologist said Tuesday that the country has finally moved past the pandemic stage. On Wednesday he said “by no mea…

fox8.com

It's all politics with the left.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As I've always said repeatedly, you are not a true leftist unless you are trying to make people as miserable as you are.

It's as I said elsewhere…

The way I saw it put, a very long time ago, was something like this:

“A capitalist sees a man with a gold watch, and wishes that everyone could have one.​

A Communist sees a man with a gold watch, and wishes that nobody could have one.”​

 

[Ame®icano]

As I've always said repeatedly, you are not a true leftist unless you are trying to make people as miserable as you are. Control? That's been known forever. Look at how upset they are by Musk buying Twitter. Leftists had complete control over it. Now they are complaining about potential censorship? I don't belong to Twitter, but from what I understand they've been nothing but censorship until now.

Election time is coming up, and polls show the resentment of the public to mask wearing among other precautions. Videos of people on the plane when the judge ruled mask mandates were no longer needed, and nearly every passenger cheered as they ripped off their stupid masks. Because of this push back, look what Fauci is saying now in spite of Whorris once again catching covid.

Fauci walks back comment U.S. is 'out of pandemic phase'

In an interview with PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, the nation’s top immunologist said Tuesday that the country has finally moved past the pandemic stage. On Wednesday he said “by no mea…

fox8.com

It's all politics with the left.

Left is crying about "potential censorship", essentially admitting that's whet they've been doing, even Musk reason to buy Twitter was to remove censorship. The "left" is hysterical, but they're not upset about the fact that they could be banned, or deplatformed, they're upset about the fact that the "right" will no longer be banned, or deplatformed for speaking freely.

In regards COVID, they've been lying to us about the data, about vaccines, about everything to keep us in check, and they succeeded with using it to steal the elections. With next election cycle coming, they're attempting to use scare tactics again, but nobody is listening anymore, because people now know it was al a lie, and people realized that their constitutional right are worth standing up for.

There is so much happening right now that is not going in their favor. Economy is a bust, they can't control debt, or inflation, immigration is out of control, Clintons are fucked, Hunter's laptop keeps giving, more proofs about election fraud is out, and they cannot completely control the message anymore. What worse of all is, when they're pushed into corner, and when they're desperate, they're most dangerous. They know if they lose now, there will be long time before they're get in power again. If you remember all they did to prevent Trump from winning, that is nothing comparing to what's coming.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you really think that calling us bigots is giving you some power over us, while at the same time you're exposing yourself as biggest bigot of all?

Long ago I used to **** a girl on the side who would make the same call to me. She would ask "can you bring some food"? And I would ask "you down to **** after?" She would say yes or no, and my answer would be the same. One time she said yes, and I didn't want to ****. So I never went to see her again. At the time, Chinese take out was worth ***** to me. Yeah, it cost me $12.72, but I got to eat too.

So that's kind of misogynistic... but um, yeah, Kind of par for the course for you.

Again, you're chopping off the post into sections that don't have the same weigh when separate. I realized you're too stupid to read the whole post in order to find a point for which that post is written. Not only that you can't process the point that was made, you can't comprehend two related sentences without splitting them up and addressing each one separately.

Sorry, dude, there's only so much of your word salads I really even consider worth my valuable time to address. So I just stick to mocking your stupider points, like Marriage is this unchanging institution, when it clearly isn't.

So I am asking myself, why are you here? You don't answer questions, you don't post links to back your claims,

Been over this. I post links when I find something interesting, but never because a wingnut demanded it.

I've been replying to your posts for some time now, and it doesn't make sense to do it longer, since you cant comprehend any of it, and you write back about nothing on the subject, you simply provide no value to any conversation, because you have no value.

Wow, you are taking this VERY personally, buddy. I mean, I get why Mormon Bob gets upset with me, I kind of blew up his world by pointing out Joseph Smith was a pedo-con artist.

The point is, you bigots are on the wrong side of history.... gay folks aren't going back to the closet and they will get all the things you get. You can learn to cope or be perpetually angry, I kind of don't care which.

 

[JoeB131]

Left is crying about "potential censorship", essentially admitting that's whet they've been doing, even Musk reason to buy Twitter was to remove censorship. The "left" is hysterical, but they're not upset about the fact that they could be banned, or deplatformed, they're upset about the fact that the "right" will no longer be banned, or deplatformed for speaking freely.

Or we just worry about too much of the media being in the hands of only a few rich guys... which everyone SHOULD be worried about no matter where they are on the political fence. Whether it's Musk, Zuckenberg or Murdoch, we should all be concerned.

As for Twitter, I keep hoping it will be a fad, because it makes us collectively dumber.

There is so much happening right now that is not going in their favor. Economy is a bust, they can't control debt, or inflation, immigration is out of control, Clintons are fucked, Hunter's laptop keeps giving, more proofs about election fraud is out, and they cannot completely control the message anymore. What worse of all is, when they're pushed into corner, and when they're desperate, they're most dangerous. They know if they lose now, there will be long time before they're get in power again. If you remember all they did to prevent Trump from winning, that is nothing comparing to what's coming.

Dude, you need to turn off the hate radio, it's warping your view of reality.

You guys will do the same thing you did in 1994 and 2010... you'll interpret a midterm gain as acceptance of your crazy ideas.... and double down on the crazy.

 

[JoeB131]

The biggest problem for the left is that they're self destructive. The identity politics that bring different identities under their "control" eventually start to fight each other in attempt to be more equal then the others. For example, most women supported feminism and almost all they fought for, but today that isn't the case anymore, because feminism grew into a monster that large portion of women are running away from. Today's feminism is stupid because women are actually independent now, and they don't want some fat lesbian Tumblr activists to liberate them from anybody. But to imply that women are unable to compete with men in matters physical, political, corporate, etc., is implying that women are inferior and unable to compete with men so they require special help from the government or society.

That's one view.. here's another. We've had a whole generation of women who've grown up being able to control their reproduction, get any job that is open to a man, be largely free of sexual harassment in the workplace, because feminists fought for those things. I guess you can kind of say Feminists are like the unions, because they've achieved a lot of heir objectives and people take things for granted, even though there are people who really would like to roll these things back.

Take transgenders for example. They were 0.02% of population ten years ago, and they pushing for 0.04% now days. That makes them fewer than the sufferers of many rare diseases. There are more Samoans in the US than there are trannies. The trans issue, is a non-issue. It's so rare it's ridiculous. And we are suppose to change language, employment, education, and our own beliefs to appease them. Why? Because it's a wedge issue by the cultural Marxists who don't actually give two shits about these people. They don't care the they still off themselves after transitioning. They don't care that they're not any happier with transitioning than before. They don't care that there's no conclusive support in transgenders are helped more by this destructive surgery than mental health. All the lefties care about is that it fits their agenda of destroying the cultural norms to the point that you can't talk about people being men and women. This 0.02% of the population should dictate the reality of 99.98% who aren't confused about their gender. We need gender neutral pronouns, shitlords! We need action plans for schools, so more kids grow up to be depressed and wanting their genitals altered. This is progress!

Actually, I think you have those numbers wrong. It's generally believed that 0.3% of the population is transgender. You misplaced a decimal point. The question is, why do you feel a need to hate and fear trans people? It seems like an awful lot of energy on something that has so little impact on your life.

Since you like links, here you go.

1.4 Million Adults Identify As Transgender In America, Study Says

Hawaii, California, Georgia and New Mexico were the states with the highest percentages of residents identifying as transgender. Young adults are the most likely to have that gender identity.

www.npr.org

Should also point out that of the 1.4 million transgender people in the US< only 11,000 a year are approved for sexual reassignment surgery (or gender confirmation surgery, but that would probably make you mad because words make you mad, apparently!) It's hardly an overwhelming number.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Left is crying about "potential censorship", essentially admitting that's whet they've been doing, even Musk reason to buy Twitter was to remove censorship. The "left" is hysterical, but they're not upset about the fact that they could be banned, or deplatformed, they're upset about the fact that the "right" will no longer be banned, or deplatformed for speaking freely.

In regards COVID, they've been lying to us about the data, about vaccines, about everything to keep us in check, and they succeeded with using it to steal the elections. With next election cycle coming, they're attempting to use scare tactics again, but nobody is listening anymore, because people now know it was al a lie, and people realized that their constitutional right are worth standing up for.

There is so much happening right now that is not going in their favor. Economy is a bust, they can't control debt, or inflation, immigration is out of control, Clintons are fucked, Hunter's laptop keeps giving, more proofs about election fraud is out, and they cannot completely control the message anymore. What worse of all is, when they're pushed into corner, and when they're desperate, they're most dangerous. They know if they lose now, there will be long time before they're get in power again. If you remember all they did to prevent Trump from winning, that is nothing comparing to what's coming.

Yes but if they don't have the support of the people, they have no more bullets in the gun. I think their plan was to make this much less fatal variant into a big deal. Now that people are fed up with all these mandates and preaching, they lost that now too. That's why I'm looking for them to pass their commie Voter's Right's act bill. Of course most of it is unconstitutional, but by the time it gets through the court system, it will be after the election before a final decision is made. That would mean restrictive voter purges, no voter-ID, mail in balloting nationwide, unsupervised drop boxes everywhere, just a whole host of tricks that could stop them from losing the entire Congress in a big way.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes but if they don't have the support of the people, they have no more bullets in the gun. I think their plan was to make this much less fatal variant into a big deal. Now that people are fed up with all these mandates and preaching, they lost that now too. That's why I'm looking for them to pass their commie Voter's Right's act bill. Of course most of it is unconstitutional, but by the time it gets through the court system, it will be after the election before a final decision is made. That would mean restrictive voter purges, no voter-ID, mail in balloting nationwide, unsupervised drop boxes everywhere, just a whole host of tricks that could stop them from losing the entire Congress in a big way.

Welfare Ray, if you spent half as much time giving people a reason to vote for you that you spend trying to keep people from voting, you might be on to something.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes but if they don't have the support of the people, they have no more bullets in the gun. I think their plan was to make this much less fatal variant into a big deal. Now that people are fed up with all these mandates and preaching, they lost that now too. That's why I'm looking for them to pass their commie Voter's Right's act bill. Of course most of it is unconstitutional, but by the time it gets through the court system, it will be after the election before a final decision is made. That would mean restrictive voter purges, no voter-ID, mail in balloting nationwide, unsupervised drop boxes everywhere, just a whole host of tricks that could stop them from losing the entire Congress in a big way.

Ever since "Democrats" every law they created was designed to favor them.

Reminder, no Democrat voted for 14th Amendment. Remember the origins of Jim Crow laws? Generally speaking the atmosphere in the Southern states after the Civil War was one of lawless anarchy with paramilitary groups attempting to thwart the integration of blacks into the political and social framework of society. From 1865 to 1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for blacks who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, the Republican party began to lose control of Reconstruction as Democrats, aided by KKK , intimidated blacks and or physically prevented them from voting, thus allowing the Democrats to reclaim key offices. Once they reassumed power, the Democrats began passing laws to make voter registration and running for office more restrictive and racially discriminatory.

The disputed Presidential election of 1876 resulted in a "compromise" wherein Rutherford B. Hays was allowed to assume the Presidency in exchange for removing all federal troops from the previously occupied Southern states. After that last barrier was removed, Jim Crow laws really took off throughout the South. Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880's but between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites. The most common methods were the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and mental examinations that were rigged against blacks and the poor. Not just that, they pass the laws that blacks had to be employed, and if they're not, they put them to prisons, and then state would "rent" them from prisons to do hard work on plantations. Former slave owners got their "slaves" back for cheap, because they didn't care to take care of them.

Democrats invented eugenics, to keep undesirable, including blacks from breading. For the same reason they created Planned Parenthood, that today has the same purpose as back in a day, to provide abortions. Of course, today they're doing it because they want to "help women" and their issues, right?

The biggest migration of blacks to Democrat party happened during FDR. Not because FDR wasn't racist, but because he gave them welfare in exchange for their votes. Imagine how desperate they've must been when they were voting for Democrats after all what Democrats did to them during slavery, and post-slavery and segregation era. Even today, most blacks are voting for Democrats for the same reasons they were voting for FDR, and if anyone dares to question that, well... "you ain't black". Democrat's plantation never ended, it just took different form. Democrats became experts of defining, and redefining meaning of words, or definitions, and changing rules to fit their agenda, all in order to stay in power.