May 1 is significant to people in and around the United Kingdom because of Celtic folk lore. Many people celebrate Beltane, or a spring fertility ritual. Americans tend to celebrate May Day. That custom has sort of gone the way of the high button shoes.
Regardless, May 1 is a time of great merry-making, especially among the young.
From the Daily Press:
I know you look for news of interest for posting and comment. Just a few weeks ago, there was a lively debate over a female teen Anti-Trump protester with a proclivity for profanity getting pepper-sprayed by a “Trump supporter”. I was wondering if two little girls getting pepper-sprayed by an Anti-Trump protester (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/kids-splashed-pepper-spray-donald-trump-rally-calif-article-1.2615652) , or the rioting Anti-Trump protesters out in California severely beating a Trump supporter, assaulting police, and attempting to overturn a cruiser, was newsworthy for posting here?
Yes, it absolutely is. Sometimes my commenting at the TV gets confused, in my mind only, with commenting here.
I would say you have started it…continue until I get home.
In general, as much as I don’t like Trump, I think all of that behavior is horrible and the perpetrators should be arrested. I don’t like thug-democracy in a republic.
@MoonHowler
, I think the organized left (those receiving Sorros subsidies) Occupy/BLM, Anti-Trump, Anti-WTO are playing a dangerous game here. The more they hold destructive/disruptive protests (some would call them “riots”) the more appealing Trump becomes to Mr. & Mrs. Joe Sixpack. These groups are quickly being perceived as representative of the Democrat base. The RNC convention will be extremely interesting, if these groups show up in any meaningful numbers (They can’t help themselves). Their goal will be to disrupt the proceedings by any means, including violence, flying foreign flags, stomping and burning the US Flag, and perhaps even a riot. I suspect they will only succeed in turning many in middle America to Trump.
I don’t disagree with you. I think there are some other groups in there too who aren’t funded by anyone necessarily. Lots of millennial also.
I don’t believe in acting like Operation Rescue. Those fools do. Thugs.
So after years of pandering to the extreme right, the Republicans have now gotten what they so desperately attempted to attract. Now what? Indiana went for Trump and it looks positive for Trump to take it he nomination. Dear god, if I hear one more Republican say they’ll hold their nose – I fear great numbers suffocate so that they will reduce terribly in numbers.
The real fun? Watching those that attempt to make it seem okay – you know “perish before voting for a democrat”… That’s what I’ll be watching through October – SNL should have some of their best material over the next five months.
I bet bearded Jon Stewart is really sorry he retired. I really don’t want to hear about anyone holding his or her nose. I wouldn’t do that any more than I would vote for Al Sharpton.
@Lyssa
Lyssa, if you think Trump is a product and representative of the “extreme right” I would suggest you reexamine. Trump no more represents small/limited government, judeo-christian ” or social conservative voters, than I am representative of the wing of the Democrat party that wants to “watch the country Bern”.
Trump and Saunders are populists…pure and simple. They are a result of voter frustration. I was part of the Manassas delegation to the RPV convention. It was my first opportunity to speak at length with committed Trump supporters. First, very few were previously active in electoral politics. 2nd, their positions on the defining issues were all over the map..conservative, moderate and a few liberal..but hardly “centerist”. 3rd, the common theme was “anti-establishment”, so much so, they referred to Ken Cuccinelli as “establishment”. One word that wasn’t used was “RINO”…I can’t recall anyone I spoke with over the 11 hours of proceedings using the term once. The “establishment” didn’t produce Trump, and neither did the TEA Party. No, this is something different, and most interesting to observe…and I am observing this anti-establishment dynamic on both sides of the spectrum.
Couple of questions, Steve: Do you think the Tea Party was the precursor of this anti-establishment sentiment or movement?
Explain anti-establishment as best you can.
Do you think that this new group of people is even “Republican”?
@Steve Thomas
Very interesting…was part of the Cruz group at the same convention Saturday. I wouldn’t call Palin a populist. I consider most angry Republicans as extreme right. We all generalize now and then.
…and Cruz has bailed. Well, now.
@Lyssa
He’s an educated man. Math is a concept he grasps. He’s also a young man, as far as Politics go. He’ll be back, either as a Presidential candidate, or a SCOTUS nominee.
@Steve Thomas
Isn’t he still in the Senate?
I just think he is vile.
The smoking gun proving that Hillary’s server was hacked has appeared. The hacker Guccifer described how easy it was to access her server. It now seems very likely that highly classified emails on her server were compromised.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html
Faux News …yea, that’s the ticket.
Well, you are going to have 2 choices or a write-in. Are you seriously thinking about supporting Trump?
What qualifies him to be president? Has he ever held elected office?
I fear for my country.
@MoonHowler
I would take the word of a hacker over hers. She has proven to be a liar, although that certainly does not distinguish her from many other politicians.
But Hillary has two things against her that no responsible citizen should overlook::
1) She twiddled her thumbs for 12 hours while Americans in her organization were being attacked and killed in Libya.
2) She mishandled classified information that could compromise intelligence sources. Those of us who have been in the military know that WE would already be in jail if we had done what Hillary has done.
This election has not left a lot of choices, but I think the two facts listed above make her unqualified to be Commander in Chief.
Tell me what she has done that her predecessors did not do regarding the servers.
She also lost a close friend in that attack. Then there is the haze of war. This sounds like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking to me. It always has.
@MoonHowler
It would be Monday morning quarterbacking if she was criticized for some action that she took. But she did nothing at all. I wanted her to be the quarterback — instead she chose to sit on the bench.
The issue regarding the server is that she had highly classified information on it. I think that is unprecedented.
You don’t really know what Rice and Powell had on their servers.
I think you are confusing the secretary of state with the commander in chief. That really is monday morning quarterbacking in what amounts to the haze and chaos of a war situation.
@MoonHowler
I know that Rice and Powell didn’t operate private servers…so the premise is moot.
So what did they use? They didn’t use the state dept. servers.
I am far more concerned about Trump than I am about Bernie’s “socialism” or Hillary’s servers.
In fact, I am not concerned at all over Bernie or Hillary’s perceived transgressions.
@MoonHowler
They had private email accountsx on third-party systems, much like you or I would use gmail. What exactly has Trump done (not said, but done) that makes you think he’s somehow worse than Hillary. Also, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t fear socialism. Your years as a producer are behind you, and your means not subject to taking. Mine are. My kids are.
@Steve Thomas
Great response Steve. And don’t forget, there is still an open corruption investigation on Hillary with her time a State and shady pay-to-play dealings between foreign governments and the money laundering slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary may be an expert at dodging live sniper fire but she won’t be able to dodge this one.
Are you dense? Why do you think I am not letting your bait comments go through? I actually have no opinion and your speculations aren’t going to be discussed on this blog. @Jackson Bills.
You are the only person here who is in a constant state of moderation and its because you come here to troll and goad.
@Jackson Bills
Jackson, Hadn’t you heard? This is just a vast, right-wing conspiracy…a manufactured scandal. Regardless of how overwhelming the evidence available to the public, not to mention the likely evidence the FBI continues to gather…she didn’t do anything wrong…or anything that someone else hadn’t done…this is just a security review…just wishful thinking on the part of Republicans…
Is standing up a secret, private email server and using it to conduct official State Department business, including sending and receiving documents with the highest classification, altering classification markings, the attempted deletion/destruction of documents, using non-secure/unapproved mobile devices to transmit and receive official communications including classified communications, to be considered multiple violations of State Department policies, FOIA laws, and the Espionage Act?
I guess that depends on what your definition of “is” is. Afterall, “what difference does it make at this point?!”
Didn’t you hear? Trump says he wants to build a wall! Nevermind that there’s multiple pieces of national security legislation that direct the DHS to do exactly that. Trump said it, and it’s OUTRAGEOUS!
Didn’t you hear? Trump wants to impose a temporary ban on entry visas for individuals originating from certain radicalized regions, due to the fact that ISIS has publicly stated that they intend to infiltrate the west by mixing in with legitimate refugees, and nevermind that the latest act of terror on US soil was committed by a woman who used the fiance visa system to enter the US, and shortly thereafter, she and her radicalized husband proceeded to kill his co-workers. Nevermind US immigration law calls for individuals seeking to enter on permanent visas be vetted. Trump’s statements are OUTRAGEOUS!
Did you hear what Trump said about China? He wants to impose tariffs on their products! Nevermind we’ve caught China manipulating their currency, violating US and international copy-right and patent law, both violations of MFN and other trade agreements, ratified by the US Senate, and having the force of law on US companies. Trump’s statements are OUTRAGEOUS!
One candidate has violated US laws and placed our national security in jeopardy, and yet supporters argue the most qualified person for president in the history of ever. One candidate is advocating for enforcing US laws, and opponents argue the candidate lacks the character and personality to be president.
I was told my mistake is viewing this through the eyes of a particular party. I do not. I view this through the eyes of a patriot, who values the constitution, and expects the President to follow the same laws that govern the rest of us. I take particular issue with those who place their personal interests over the safety, security, and prosperity of the country. Crazy me.
The other candidate is a total pig who wants to stomp on the rights of so many different groups it isn’t funny.
I guess we each have our own hold your nose standards.
Radicalized areas? He clearly stated he wanted to ban all muslims from entering the country. I have no idea what he is thinking about doing to the ones already here.
@MoonHowler
I think you need to go back and check what he said, and the context in which he said it. I heard it…the entire statement. He wanted to place a temporary halt on processing Muslim Syrian refugees, in the wake of terror attacks, and several reports of people being stopped on the way to the US, with fake Syrian passports. All you heard was the soundbites run on liberal media outlets. He said we should ban them until we can properly vet them.
He was also re-asked and he did not specify what group of Muslims. It wasn’t a single discussion. He has made the statement several times.
@MoonHowler
Which “groups” and what rights does the “pig” want to “stomp” on? I’m interested in your answer. Is it the right of someone in the country illegally to remain here? Is it the right of a potential ISIS terrorist to enter the US, along with a bunch of others who don’t have a “right” to enter ( news..it’s a privilege…and there’s a difference). He’s pro-choice, pro-planned parenthood, and pro-LGBQTXYZ, so I at a bit of a loss as to what “rights”,he’d like to deny and to whom? Is there a constitutional right he’s stomping on?
He also said he wanted to punish women who have an abortion. I heard him answer the question. I know what he said. He isn’t pro choice. There is a constitution right to abortion.
His deportation threats deprive people of due process. He has threatened to sue the press. He said that all Muslims would be banned until it could be sorted out. He didn’t limit it to radicalized Muslims.
He has talked about women like they were dogs. He has made fun of handicapped people. He has made fun of his colleagues.
I feel he is reprehensible and I have pretty much documented those feelings all along.
@MoonHowler
You heard him say he thinks women should be punished. I guess that auto-negates all the times he said he was pro-choice, and praised planned parenthood. Hillary lies to get votes (although she’s been consistent on hating guns), and that’s cool. Trump lies to get votes, and that’s OUTRAGEOUS!
I take what he said last to be his position. I never said he lied. He changed because it suits his needs.
I don’t care what he really believes. I care what comes out of his mouth. He said he changed his position.
There are all sorts of rights–human rights, civil rights, religious rights, employee rights and constitutional rights, just to name a few. In the past year he has managed to name off quite a few that he would violate.
Would you prefer that I call him a vulgarian rather than a pig?
I cannot believe you are now defending Trump. Oy Vey.
@MoonHowler
R or D doesn’t define character as people would love to believe.
When people decide to substitute the process of developing a conscious decision with archaic rules or generalities it’s a misuse of God given abilities and distinction as human on the scale.
Great post, Lyssa!
@MoonHowler
I’m not defending him. Heck, I might not vote for a presidential candidate. He’s got some work to do, if he wants to unify the party…as I am considered “establishment”. But what I won’t take lying down is hypocrisy. You mention “stomping on rights”. What, Hillary isn’t out there doing the same? She wants to stomp on my rights…a real right, affirmed in the bill of rights.. She’s advocating for Australian style gun-control.
There…I named the actual right. Your turn. Which right does Trump want to “stomp”?
I already answered you. You seem to think your right (go to the mat) is more real than my right. I will hand you that Hillary wants to do some stomping on your right. Trump wants to punish people for exercising constitutional rights.
I that Trump wants to stomp on human rights. Bombing suspected terrorists families? Rounding up and deporting?
Moon , are we or aren’t we at war with terrorists, who have attacked us at home and abroad? When we were at war with Germany Austria, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Finland, did we continue to process refugees and immigrants originating for these areas, or were our leaders a bit more prudent? I am also looking through the USC and the Constitution, trying to find the part where foreign nationals have a right to be let in to this country. Maybe you could help me out. I’m also trying to find where deportation violates due process. Deportation is a function of the judiciary. Are you arguing that by enforcing existing immigration laws, or adhering to laws directing the DHS to build a wall, due process isn’t being observed? I think the last 7 years have confused you. A president actually obeying the laws, enforcing the laws, and not attempting to circumvent laws by exceeding the constitutional authority of the office…most certainly satisfies due process.
@Steve Thomas
Having a Congress to say that we are at war would be helpful. Properly funding a response to terrorist actions would also be desirable.
@Pat.Herve
I agree. Both to your point and mine: we can ignore reality (Islamic terror organizations, and those who fund them have declared war on us), but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
You are assuming anyone Muslim is a terrorist. You know better. I also don’t assume we are at war with terrorists. You are comparing countries with borders and governments to rogue people without borders or countries.
No one is deported without a federal judge being involved. No one can just round up people and send them out of the country without some sort of legal oversight.
@MoonHowler
Moon, I am making no such assumption, and reject your assertion. Yes..I know better, and I would argue, I know better than you, considering that you believe one party can refuse to be at war, when being repeatedly being attacked by the other party.
Can a woman who is being sexually assaulted, refuse to acknowledge she’s being sexually assaulted? Can someone who is being mugged, refuse to accept they are being mugged? Sure they can…but that doesn’t change the reality or the gravity of the situation, and worse, these “mental handcuffs” prevent the victim from reacting in a manner which would mitigate or eliminate the threat.
In cases like these, the victim is suffering from a “normalcy bias”. Normalcy Bias has been studied extensively since the Holocaust, and it is most certainly evident across our society, as well as within our government. I see it here.
Not all Germans were putting Jews and other groups on trains, but most who were putting the people on trains were Germans. Why did the people line up and get on the trains, rather than resist by all means necessary? Normalcy Bias.
“No one is deported without a federal judge being involved. No one can just round up people and send them out of the country without some sort of legal oversight.”
Right. That’s my point. You accuse “the Pig” of stomping on “rights”, because he has vowed to deport illegal aliens. You know better. You know the executive can apprehend, but it is the judiciary that handles deportation proceedings. What Obama has done is use executive action to abdicate his obligation under the law, to apprehend, and refer to the judiciary. All Trump has promised to do, is fulfill his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written. No one is denied due process, if they get a hearing.
I understand math. How many people can you deport legally with due process? How many federal judges are there that handle immigration cases?
How many illegal immigrants are there?
Just removing people isn’t legal. It’s stomping on rights. He has promised to remove all illegal immigrants.
I am ignoring the first paragraph. It’s semantics
What really needs to happen is for Trump to stop making idle threats he can’t back up.
You seem to be ignoring that Bush also did much of what you accuse Obama of doing?
Bernie Sanders – 74
Donald Trump – 69
Hillary Clinton – 68
Geezers Rule! Will apparently be first presidential election
with both major parties offering folks over 68!
Well, golly gee and boiled turnips too! As the late Yogi Berra would have said: “It’s deja vu all over again!”
Now it seems that the Dept.of State cannot find any emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the senior State tech staffer for Hillary during her tenure as Secretary — the same feller who set up the private server in her home. Not a single, solitary email, they say.
Now, here’s a suggestion. Check out the table in the library at the Clinton residence in New York…………
@Wolve
If he was still among the living, I’d suggest checking Sandy Berger’s socks and underwear.
Fines and imprisonment…and 22 documents = 22 counts.
Fox News has confirmed that the FBI has interviewed Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton, as part of its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email and whether classified information was willfully transmitted on her unsecured network. The FBI may also have interviewed other current and former Clinton staffers. This suggests the case may be approaching a conclusion. Clinton, herself, could be interviewed very soon.
Abedin Is a Key Witness
Abedin is a valued source of information because she apparently used an email on Clinton’s private system. She may have voiced concerns about whether the server was violating the law or, equally important, discussed how the law could be circumvented.
She and other staffers were surely questioned about the 2,200 classified communications contained on the server, including the 22 documents that were “top secret”. How did they end up on the unauthorized system? Did the aides have clearance to read them? Didn’t they know they were classified? Were classified markings erased? Who decided to delete thousands of emails which were government property? Who ordered the server to be “wiped clean”? Depending on the answers to these crucial questions, the aides could find themselves in legal jeopardy. So could Hillary Clinton.
Clinton’s Intent Is Irrelevant
Unnamed sources close to the investigation are reported to have said that the FBI has found no evidence to prove Clinton intended to violate the law. That sounds important, but it is not. The operative legal issue is not whether she intended to break the law, but whether she knowingly and intentionally stored classified information on her unauthorized server. Here is the specific law:
“Whoever… knowingly removes (classified) documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 1924)
The statute says nothing about an intent to violate the law. It is an important distinction. Clearly, Clinton intended to create a private server for use as her exclusive means of conducting official business as Secretary of State. She also knew it was not authorized because she never sought authorization from the relevant agencies. At the same time, she knew her unauthorized server would collect, retain and transmit classified documents during her four year term and intended it to do so.
This would appear to violate the language of the statute. She can hardly claim she did not recognize classified material… because that would be arguing her own incompetence.
Ignorance of the Law
Is it possible for Clinton to argue that she did not know she was breaking the law? She can try, but in a court of law it is no defense. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Otherwise, everyone accused of a crime would play dumb. “Gee, I didn’t know my actions were a crime!”
Moreover, Clinton knew the law because she was specifically instructed on the law when she took office. She received a “national security indoctrination” –a tutorial on the law of classified materials. Thereafter, she signed a sworn “non-disclosure agreement” promising never to convey classified material to an unauthorized person or place.
In that same agreement, Clinton was also warned that classified material can be either marked or unmarked. The content dictates its classification, not the markings. So, her previous claims that nothing was marked classified is not a defense. This is especially true since Clinton reportedly authored 104 of the classified emails herself. Surely, she knew what she was writing.
Gross Negligence
President Obama recently called Clinton’s handling of the classified emails “careless”, but not intentional, as if that makes it okay. However, carelessness is sufficient to be convicted of a crime. The following statute specifically addresses this issue:
“Whoever… through gross negligence permits (classified information) to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)
In plain language, gross negligence is the standard, not intent. Carelessness or recklessness are synonymous with gross negligence. Thus, by implying that Clinton did nothing illegal because she was merely “careless”, President Obama is either legally mistaken or deliberately communicating a falsehood.
If the president, a trained lawyer, thought he was exculpating Clinton… he was, in truth, implicating her in a violation of the law.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.
Steve, you are going to be so disappointed when nothing comes of your predictions.
@MoonHowler
Yes Moon, I will be greatly disappointed if Hillary Clinton is not indicted for her actions, and made to face trial, mostly because the DOJ will have lost any remaining moral authority to enforce the nation’s laws on us peasants. When those who govern are no longer subject to the same laws as the governed, we have ceased to become a “Government of the People, By the People”. I will also be greatly disappointed if this happens, because so many of my fellow countrymen will think that avoiding federal records laws and placing our nation’s security at risk, is no big deal, because politics trumps patriotism.
Many of us don’t think she has done anything illegal. That would be option 3.
@MoonHowler
I’m sorry that you cannot read the laws as written, and see that she has. Just the act of setting up the server, conducting official business on it, and destroying certain records…all of which she has admitted doing, is a federal offense punishable by a fine and a year in prison, or both. At the very least, she should be tried. Let her defend herself in court, and if the judge acquits, so be it.
If the FBI investigation concludes there is sufficient evidence to prefer charges, and the DOiJ declines to indict, it will be for purely political reasons, and this will cause a constitutional crisis, especially if she goes on to be elected President. If you think the country is divided now…
I can’t think of a law that could be written that would keep a hetero male out of the women’s room.
Plus, how on earth would anyone know what was on someone’s birth certificate?
This law is just getting so far-fetched.
There are laws about molesting women and kids already.
@MoonHowler
Wait…so society has established separate facilities for the sexes for hundreds of years, and the original intent of title IX was to ensure that girl’s sports received the same funding levels as boy’s sports, but laws stipulating who can use a girls locker room are far-fetched? I have an ocular migraine right now.
I believe I said this should be handled locally. You and I both came of age in a time when gender was determined differently than it is today.
Gender is no longer what’s inside your pants, from what I can gather.
I pose this question–if someone who looks like a girl, albeit a rather masculine girl, goes into a tall, does her business, who is to say? I guess I just don’t give a damn.
@MoonHowler
Moon,
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room: What about the male who wants to shower with the girls? Now, I’ve never been in a women’s locker-room, but I would imagine that it looks a lot like a men’s locker room…no privacy.
As far as when I came of age and how “gender is determined these days”, I am sorry, but there are some things in nature that just cannot be changed. Go try and milk a bull. No matter how hard you try, what you’d get ain’t milk.
Our society has lost its damn mind.
Men aren’t allowed in the locker room. Laws aren’t going to keep them out. You are borrowing trouble.
Back to bathrooms….why have laws? As you would tell me about guns…you can have all the laws in the world for law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to break the laws anyway.
What keeps men out of the women’s room now? Let’s start there. I am not aware of any laws that govern bathrooms. How do laws prevent anything?
@MoonHowler
What kept men out of woman’s bathrooms, and teenage boys out of the girls locker-room? In the past, it was the very commonsense notion that each sex used the facilities designated for each sex. There were also policies governing access in publicly-owned facilities, such as those found in schools, parks, playgrounds, municipal swimming pools, community centers, highway rest-stops etc. Sure, there were gay men such as former WHAM singer George Michael were known to hang out in certain areas, looking for a not-so-discrete hook-up, but they generally took “no” for an answer and local law-enforcement would occasionally conduct sweeps and stings. Also, if a man was spotted in a woman’s bathroom, a call to police would resolve the issue. Every now and again, a weird case like this one would hit the headlines:
http://www.wmur.com/Man-Pulled-From-Women-s-Outhouse-Tank/11827380
Generally, the man caught in the Women’s restroom, locker-room, etc. was charged with criminal trespass. A teen boy entering the girls locker-room was disciplined by the school, as it was against school policy.
Now we have insanity. A man can wake up one morning, shuffle off to make a standing headcall, look down and say to himself “I know I see male junk down there, but today I identify as a woman”…and the lunatics that have taken over this country will indulge this craziness.
Or, a teen girl can decide one day that it’s not enough that Title IX has been abused to the point where because there isn’t a girls wrestling team, she must be granted access to the boys team…AND she must be able to shower and change with the team…because she now “identifies as a male”. When parents object, and the school bends over backwards to accommodate this student with private facilities…that is deemed unacceptable by the LGBQT lobby. They sue, forcing society to acknowledge the student’s fantasy as reality.
First the Left destroyed the nuclear family. Next the Left embarked to destroy the Christian church. Why? Because these were the sources of societal norms, which stood in the way of their agenda. Now, they must go after the very essence of Natural Law and Natural Order: Sex (but they call it “gender”, again demonstrating how they change perception by changing the meanings of words, ie. semantic shift), trying to strip off anything that might be perceived as a negative connotation.
“Transsexual” a term in use since the 1950’s, when Swedes performed the first “sex change” surgeries. It appears in my 1977 edition of Webster’s New Collegiate dictionary: : “a person who psychologically identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs)”
There are two sexes: Male & Female. Rarely, there is a chromosomal abnormality where someone is truly “Intersex”: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
But this term has too much negative history…so the Left has to develop a new word “Transgender”. This word first appeared in 1979: of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person’s sex at birth.
There used to be three genders: Masculine, Feminine & Neutral. Now, according to varying “authorities” there are 51, 53, or 68, different genders…and the number gets bigger every day.
“How many fingers are there, Winston”
“There are four fingers”
“Wrong Winston…there are 5”
Madness.
I don’t even want to engage in the conversation. Too much finger pointing and made up scenarios. I especially find the accusations about the Left destroying Christianity to just be not worth talking about because its victim mentality.
There are a lot of things far more important than the issue of where people go to the bathroom or what’s really in their pants.
@MoonHowler
If it’s actually happening (and it is happening) and you refuse to acknowledge it, choosing to classify it as “finger-pointing” then there really is no point in discussing.
Please explain to me how Title IX fits into this discussion. You are following this issue far more closely than I am.
I think what started out as a stupid idea has turned into idiocy.
I have no beef with transgenders. I think they are probably the innocents in this game. I don’t think we need laws on the books about who goes to the bathroom where.
@MoonHowler
Moon, Maybe you should try ot follow the issue more closely, and then perhaps you will see why I think our society has gone insane.
Recently, a Federal Judge ruled that a public school system could not prevent a female student from using the boy’s bathroom, showers, and locker-room, because the system accepted federal funds, and this would violate title IX. Loretta Lynch, in giving her press conference regarding the DOJ suing the state of NC over their bill (which addresses much more than bathrooms) also threatened to withhold education funds, but PUBLIC SAFETY funds, because she claims the law violates title IX.
This is way more involved than someone with an “Outtie” using a stall in a bathroom intended for those with “innies”
Let’s put this in at Fed X field instead of taking advantage of and using our kids to prove some ridiculous point. All this will do is push kids to private schools and homeschool.
I understand why it is being done at schools. That’s where kids who are different take the worst beating, both physically and emotionally.
I had much better understanding after I watched the video of the Gloucester Co boy.
Is it a good idea? Jury is out. Change is difficult. I know that kid in Gloucester should go with the boys….regardless of what’s in his pants.
I know all about the rush to private schools. I was a victim of that.
@MoonHowler
Much different now. Schools are on the precipice.
Not even sure of what at this point.
I am so disgusted with both our school board and the BOCS I don’t even want to talk about them. It all about politics.
Its especially disturbing with the SB.
Real world economics shows progressives that the real minimum wage is actually $0.00
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/wage-hikes-bring-kiosks-to-wendys/
The current whine from conservatives is that Facebook is bias against them.
In related news, my son finished two days of test: AP history and Virginia SOL. He was moaning that he didn’t have time to forget the AP version and re-learn the Virginia version in 24 hours. He gave a few examples where SOL history was slanted to embrace a more conservative view of the world. For example, an arms dealer who acquired and resold soviet planes did so out of sympathy for communist ideology according to Virginia but the AP viewpoint was that he did it because soviet planes were cheaper and he could make more money. Both answers seemed to hit ideological buttons.
The Democrat party is nearing full meltdown… Exhibit A of how NOT to give a speech at a Democrat convention brought to you by Barbara Boxer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87KnG4XLr5M
You wish.
@MoonHowler
Did you watch the video?
Establishment Democrats had better wake up and realize that they are going to need Bernie voters if they are going to beat Trump. The way Boxer spoke to them was dismissive and sophomoric. If they keep that up Sanders voters are either gong to vote for Trump or more likely just stay home on election day.
If you want to pretend that a civil war isn’t raging within the Democrat party that is your prerogative. However, pretending that a rift doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.
No.
@MoonHowler
If you didn’t watch the video then how do you even know what I am referring to when you reply “you wish”?
I can read.
@MoonHowler
You can read a video? That’s pretty cool 🙂
@MoonHowler
Head in the sand… I get it.
Consider this your last post. You are trolling and I don’t have time for your crap. Let’s see…because I don’t watch YOUR video, my head is in the sand.
You bore me.
@MoonHowler
Yeah, sorry… I take it back. There is no hint of a meltdown in the Democrat party. This video shows a clear unity within the party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPOH2OUkI1s
This is why people think there is a two tier system –
Phil Mickelson (old white guy) gets caught up in an insider trading scam (Dean Foods) – makes close to $1 Million in less than a month – gets caught and pays back the money. No harm, no foul, right.
Funny thing – this is not the first time Phil has been involved with an insider trading scam (Clorox). Poor black guy drinks a beer on the sidewalk and spends time in jail, Phil pays money back and goes home to sleep.