Jump to content

LGBT MORE POWERFUL THAN NRA


Hagar

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

For a relatively small group of people to be able to dictate policy to all of us is something I find disturbing.  

This is the hidden content, please

From the article:

McCrory is under continued assault from a highly organized and very rich coterie of homosexual organizations and their friends in business and the entertainment world for his defense of women and girls who do not want biological men urinating and showering with them.

Wow...what a radical stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

From the article:

McCrory is under continued assault from a highly organized and very rich coterie of homosexual organizations and their friends in business and the entertainment world for his defense of women and girls who do not want biological men urinating and showering with them.

Wow...what a radical stance.

....and they wonder why they are called queers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, baddog said:

I am aware of that, but if you push the gay agenda, this is part of the small print. Actually, it is in your face, and like 5 gallon said earlier, this is just the beginning.

I'm afraid you're right bd.   They now realize how powerful they are.   And we all know that absolute power corrupts.   Our only hope, as I posted above, is that they've moved to far to fast.   I'd like to think when everyone, including most liberals, realize what they're up too, there will be so much outrage, they'll have to back off.  

Unfortunately, my fellow Americans have disappointed me lately, so I wouldn't bet a lot on the above scenario.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baddog said:

I thought the law was transgenders had to use the restroom of their birth sex. That still presents a huge problem.

See what happens when you give an inch?

see what happens when you have confused individuals and other confused individuals telling them its ok to be confused just to get their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

see what happens when you have confused individuals and other confused individuals telling them its ok to be confused just to get their vote.

I guess they missed the StarTrek show when Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".   

Again, IMO, this is the result of our Govt giving Protected Rights Status to many different groups.   There starts being "overlap" of Rights and it ends up obfuscating the whole process.   And the LGBT is currently the pick of the litter.   Their Rights supersede anyone else's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 19, 2016 at 7:47 AM, REBgp said:

Here's another lovely reminder.   I sincerely hope they're going to far, to fast.  I doubt most liberals would want this.  I sure hope not.  IMO this is not liberal, this is ultra left.  

This is the hidden content, please

I'm very pro-gay rights, as most of you know, but I do have a problem with this. I don't want someone with a penis in a public restroom with my wife, and if I had a daughter I'd have an even bigger problem with that.  It also opens up the very real opportunity for sex offenders to exploit the rule and gain access to women's restrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curt Shilling fired from ESPN over these remarks on Facebook.

 

"A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don't care what they are, who they sleep with, men's room was designed for the penis, women's not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic."

 

 

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...