(04-03-2016 02:06 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  The apocalyptic language of conservatives always amuses me. I wouldn't call one of the most powerful and successful nations in history a "failed experiment of a country" just because it allows gay rights but that's just me.

While I disagree with Kaplony's specific motives in support of HB2, I have nothing but approval of his just defense of the lost respect for the Articles of Enumeration and the 10th Amendment in this country. Nullification is still valid until a constitutional amendment is passed saying otherwise. Frankly, nullification is even MORE valid today than ever thanks to ever increasing scope of government, the military-industrial complex, the nanny state, the cradle to grave welfare state, the surveillance state, and the corporate welfare state.

(04-03-2016 03:49 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What happened last time you fellas down in SC thought that? Thats what I thought. This is a country ruled by majority. Just because you conservatives are A-OK with bigotry and discrimination doesn't mean you have the right to force it on everybody else. Get with the program jethro.

The irony of you calling for "rule by majority" while criticizing a government decision no doubt popular for the majority of NC voters is not lost on me. Unfettered Democracy is just tyranny by another name.

The only thing that died at Appomattox was slavery, which was already on the way out anyway. And while you can have your laughs now, the historical evidence is *OVERWHELMING* that the United States will eventually split apart. People assume continuity where in fact none exists. No US President has been born and buried under the same flag. The entire rest of the world continues to subdivide into more nations, flags, and anthems. The only exceptions so far have been the United States and Brazil. Both nations that had vast empty expanses of human-less land to their west interior. Taking a look at a map of Europe even after WWII finished redrawing it and comparing it to today is startling indeed. And anybody who thinks it can't or won't happen here is unfamiliar with Quebec and just how hard the collapse of the unfunded entitlement system in this country will rock this place to the foundation. If you'd like further viewing on this matter, I heartily recommend this talk, one of the best I've seen ever. http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006


If folks want this thread split/moved to The Spin Room feel free to PM mods. I thought about doing so but waffled, because this matter is inherently political but still quite relevant to ACC athletics as well.

(04-03-2016 07:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 02:06 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  The apocalyptic language of conservatives always amuses me. I wouldn't call one of the most powerful and successful nations in history a "failed experiment of a country" just because it allows gay rights but that's just me.

While I disagree with Kaplony's specific motives in support of HB2, I have nothing but approval of his just defense of the lost respect for the Articles of Enumeration and the 10th Amendment in this country. Nullification is still valid until a constitutional amendment is passed saying otherwise. Frankly, nullification is even MORE valid today than ever thanks to ever increasing scope of government, the military-industrial complex, the nanny state, the cradle to grave welfare state, the surveillance state, and the corporate welfare state.

(04-03-2016 03:49 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What happened last time you fellas down in SC thought that? Thats what I thought. This is a country ruled by majority. Just because you conservatives are A-OK with bigotry and discrimination doesn't mean you have the right to force it on everybody else. Get with the program jethro.

The irony of you calling for "rule by majority" while criticizing a government decision no doubt popular for the majority of NC voters is not lost on me. Unfettered Democracy is just tyranny by another name.

The only thing that died at Appomattox was slavery, which was already on the way out anyway. And while you can have your laughs now, the historical evidence is *OVERWHELMING* that the United States will eventually split apart. People assume continuity where in fact none exists. No US President has been born or died under the same flag. The entire rest of the world continues to subdivide into more nations, flags, and anthems. The only exceptions so far have been the United States and Brazil. Both nations that had vast empty expanses of human-less land to their west interior. Taking a look at a map of Europe even after WWII finished redrawing it and comparing it to today is startling indeed. And anybody who thinks it can't or won't happen here is unfamiliar with Quebec and just how hard the collapse of the unfunded entitlement system in this country will rock this place to the foundation. If you'd like further viewing on this matter, I heartily recommend this talk, one of the best I've seen ever. http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006


If folks want this thread split/moved to The Spin Room feel free to PM mods. I thought about doing so but waffled, because this matter is inherently political but still quite relevant to ACC athletics as well.

Nullification has been ruled unconstitutional about 50 times in the last 220 years. The Supremacy Clause trumps that theory, and the Supremacy Clause is a direct pull from Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. Once you join you are stuck. Once stuck you must abide by the federal judiciary otherwise the federal Congress and/or the Executive will do just what Jackson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and others have done, threaten federal troops or send federal troops.

Joining the United States is a longer commitment than a grant of rights. If nullification were a legitimate legal theory, we would have all sorts of smaller entities nullifying this and that. FSU would nullify having to play WF, Syracuse and BC in football. NC State would prevent certain officials from working an NC State basketball game. Nullification is a unilateral theory without any practical application in the modern world, that's why the founders didn't include that as a right in the Constitution. The entire theory stems in part from political meddling with the Alien and Sedition by Jefferson and Madison while they were out of office and Madison in particular backtracked on the notion when asked point blank.

The notion that HB2 is popular with NC voters is open to doubt. NC Democrats are openly talking about running on opposition to HB2 and NC Republicans are talking about amending HB2.

(04-03-2016 08:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Nullification has been ruled unconstitutional about 50 times in the last 220 years. The Supremacy Clause trumps that theory, and the Supremacy Clause is a direct pull from Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. Once you join you are stuck. Once stuck you must abide by the federal judiciary otherwise the federal Congress and/or the Executive will do just what Jackson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and others have done, threaten federal troops or send federal troops.

Joining the United States is a longer commitment than a grant of rights. If nullification were a legitimate legal theory, we would have all sorts of smaller entities nullifying this and that. FSU would nullify having to play WF, Syracuse and BC in football. NC State would prevent certain officials from working an NC State basketball game. Nullification is a unilateral theory without any practical application in the modern world, that's why the founders didn't include that as a right in the Constitution. The entire theory stems in part from political meddling with the Alien and Sedition by Jefferson and Madison while they were out of office and Madison in particular backtracked on the notion when asked point blank.

Separate but equal was also ruled Constitutional. The SCOTUS is just another political body -- and makes all the same errors and hypocritical decisions that any other political body makes. The SCOTUS history has zero bearing on this matter. Saying once you join you are stuck is just the kind of entrenchment that makes secession instead of compromise inevitable. You dig the trench long enough and deep enough on both sides and the only recourse is to rip the ground asunder between the trenches.

What happens when the federal troops that are sent are sent over a matter not so black and white as slavery or a rebellion? Will they open fire upon their fellow Americans? Will the country look kindly upon such a gross violation of codified civil liberties as using federal troops to shoot non-violent nullificiation adherents? The moment you do that is the moment you start lighting matches around the powder keg. Countries are way more fragile than you appear to think they are.

Nullification is a legitimate legal theory, it is codified into the Constitution itself, and it was used aggressively by the colonists against England. In fact, that's a pretty good counter claim to your assertion. "If you nullify law the English will just send troops or threaten to send troops." I'm sure the English were just as self-assured of quashing dissent as you seem to be. "We'll get these damn colonists to pay the tea tax. It goes to their own defense, after all!"

(04-03-2016 08:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 07:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 02:06 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  The apocalyptic language of conservatives always amuses me. I wouldn't call one of the most powerful and successful nations in history a "failed experiment of a country" just because it allows gay rights but that's just me.

While I disagree with Kaplony's specific motives in support of HB2, I have nothing but approval of his just defense of the lost respect for the Articles of Enumeration and the 10th Amendment in this country. Nullification is still valid until a constitutional amendment is passed saying otherwise. Frankly, nullification is even MORE valid today than ever thanks to ever increasing scope of government, the military-industrial complex, the nanny state, the cradle to grave welfare state, the surveillance state, and the corporate welfare state.

(04-03-2016 03:49 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What happened last time you fellas down in SC thought that? Thats what I thought. This is a country ruled by majority. Just because you conservatives are A-OK with bigotry and discrimination doesn't mean you have the right to force it on everybody else. Get with the program jethro.

The irony of you calling for "rule by majority" while criticizing a government decision no doubt popular for the majority of NC voters is not lost on me. Unfettered Democracy is just tyranny by another name.

The only thing that died at Appomattox was slavery, which was already on the way out anyway. And while you can have your laughs now, the historical evidence is *OVERWHELMING* that the United States will eventually split apart. People assume continuity where in fact none exists. No US President has been born or died under the same flag. The entire rest of the world continues to subdivide into more nations, flags, and anthems. The only exceptions so far have been the United States and Brazil. Both nations that had vast empty expanses of human-less land to their west interior. Taking a look at a map of Europe even after WWII finished redrawing it and comparing it to today is startling indeed. And anybody who thinks it can't or won't happen here is unfamiliar with Quebec and just how hard the collapse of the unfunded entitlement system in this country will rock this place to the foundation. If you'd like further viewing on this matter, I heartily recommend this talk, one of the best I've seen ever. http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006


If folks want this thread split/moved to The Spin Room feel free to PM mods. I thought about doing so but waffled, because this matter is inherently political but still quite relevant to ACC athletics as well.

Nullification has been ruled unconstitutional about 50 times in the last 220 years. The Supremacy Clause trumps that theory, and the Supremacy Clause is a direct pull from Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. Once you join you are stuck. Once stuck you must abide by the federal judiciary otherwise the federal Congress and/or the Executive will do just what Jackson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and others have done, threaten federal troops or send federal troops.

Joining the United States is a longer commitment than a grant of rights. If nullification were a legitimate legal theory, we would have all sorts of smaller entities nullifying this and that. FSU would nullify having to play WF, Syracuse and BC in football. NC State would prevent certain officials from working an NC State basketball game. Nullification is a unilateral theory without any practical application in the modern world, that's why the founders didn't include that as a right in the Constitution. The entire theory stems in part from political meddling with the Alien and Sedition by Jefferson and Madison while they were out of office and Madison in particular backtracked on the notion when asked point blank.

You ==> Me ==>

But in all seriousness you make some excellent points and it baffles me how someone can say "we are destined to break apart" when his examples all involve cases where the splits were based along ethnic and linguistic lines. And then to neglect the whole "cold war + breakup of the soviet union" aspect of European border change is being downright dishonest.

The United States was founded as a Republic not a democracy. The franchise was held back from the general public so that people with property and education ran the show. Democracy is mob rule.

The terms democracy and republic have nothing to do with each other. It is not a case of either/or. You can be neither or both.

Ireland = Republic
United Kingdom = Monarchy
United States = Republic
Canada = Monarchy
South Korea = Republic
Japan = Monarchy.
Iran = Republic
Saudai Arabia = Monarchy
Finland = Republic
Sweden = Monarchy
Germany = Republic
Denmark = Monarchy

I don't know why this is always being repeated, but it originates from a lack of understanding on how different the term "democracy" is in 2016 compared to 1776, and the historical milestone of the late 1700s in traditional attitudes regarding government.

(04-03-2016 06:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 05:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 01:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 09:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 03:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  In regards to the controversy it's ridiculous that 0.3 of the population of this country can have this much influence.


In regards to the ACC is fully expect them to issue a statement saying that the conference does not desire to get involved or have any influence in the internal politics of a sovereign state. They'll say that this is an issue that the citizens and duly elected government of North Carolina has to deal with and doesn't concern the ACC.

The "sovereign state" or " states rights" idea is a dying one. The wishes of a majority of a population of a state do not "trump" the Constitution. I suspect this law will be struck down under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But, the authors of this bill probably knew this already, but don't mind the waste of all this time, money and effort....as long as this buys them some votes.

As for "the majority", what about the majority of those in the cities and towns who had their ordinances trampled by "big government" from the state capital?

Anyway, this law may soon be struck down in the courts and this controversy may soon die an early death....

Then it's time for this failed experiment of a country to die along with it.

Just because leftists are A-OK with degeneracy doesn't mean they have the right to force it on everybody else.

It really died at Appomattox as far as I am concerned.

It has just been the Walking Dead since then.

A. Morality and Degeneration:

Since what is degenerate is decided upon by society, how are we to know what is degenerate in the future?

1. The Old Testament says you can have three wives - The people on their own practiced multiple wives in the Old Testament times, but you will not find anywhere in the Old Testament where it is God's plan. His plan was laid out in the Garden off Eden where one man and one woman was to cleave together.
2. Some Mormons say they can have as many wives as they want- Lets not confuse Mormonism with Christianity, the two have NOTHING to do with each other.

3. Some Catholics say if you are divorced and then remarry you are committing adulatory
4. Incest is supposed to be degenerate, but it was okay for Noah's daughters.
5. When Abraham couldn't have a son it was okay to shack up with the Arab girl, then he magically had one by his ancient Hebrew wife and somehow that was okay as well. God's plan was never for Abraham to have a child with his Sara's handmaid. It was a lack of faith on both Abraham and Sarah. Isaac was the child of faith and the seed Israel was to come through. The results from their lack of faith has created years of wars and blood shed between Israel and Arab nations.

6. Jesus believed in love and forgiveness- Yes Jesus believed in love and forgiveness but when you mention the woman caught in adultery you leave out his closing point, "Go and sin no more." The apostle Paul in Romans taught by asking the question, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound"? His response was an emphatic "God forbid".

7. Paul was an anti-sex nut who encouraged Roman women to cut the men off. No Paul tells married people your body is not your own,, giving the opposite message.

8. According to the Old Testament, if you had a testicle blown off in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are not supposed to go to church.

9. Are you degenerately eating shell fish? What about a milkshake with that hamburger?

Absolutism is fine if you can be absolute about something.
That's the problem with mixing absolutism and religion, finding the absolute. That's one of the reasons Jesus told the farmer to get his ox out of the ditch and forgave the woman caught in adultery as he listed the names of male adulterers in the sand. IIRC Jesus had two commandments - love God, and love thy neighbor as thy love thyself.
Once again you have distorted the scriptures to justify what you want it to say not what was actually written. Those are not the ONLY two commandments, he said those were the two greatest commandments and that means something a lot different.

B. This is not a democracy

The United States was founded as a Republic not a democracy. The franchise was held back from the general public so that people with property and education ran the show. Democracy is mob rule.

C. Appomattox

What died at Appomattox had already been killed by moronic Sandlappers at Charleston in 1861. The glorious dreams of a small landed class that had aped the Caribbean plantation system to the point that nearly all the wealth in the South died in 1861 amidst stupidly and treason. It was primed to die was because that small class wanted to maintain the plantation system and therefore nearly everyone in the South had an economic stake in maintaining slavery. States rights is bull **** the Civil war was about the cancer the founders left after the could not negotiate it away in 1789.

There are a large number of descendants of Confederate soldiers that had no slaves but fought because their economic livelihood was at the behest of the large landowners, be they a sharecropper, a dry goods store owner, etc., etc.

In many ways the South was governed and operated like a series of fiefdoms, with a lot of serfs and even more slaves.

D. Wealthy White Males

The only group of people that have lost rights over the last 2 centuries in the United State are native Americans and wealthy white males. The wealthy white males lost the right to own their wives and other human beings as property. They have lost the right to hold all the elected offices in the land. They have lost the right mete out summary justice to a non-white male. They have lost the right to steal land from native Americans. Seems fair to me.

E. Ignorance

Ignorance of the past is at work in this problem writ both small and large. The founders were not under the thumb of the church. It was not until the religious wave of the 1870's-1880's that religion found it's way back into politics and it was in response to the economic upheaval of the industrial revolution combined with about 10 million morphine addicts left over after the Civil War. This yearning for a 1950's style America is understandable, however it never existed. It was a tv show - Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, the Donna Reed show - that was NEVER real. But two entire generations were fooled. Today when things are changing there is a yearning for that supposed "moral center", or some other place that "used to exist" until fill in the blank ruined it. This is one of the problems with some of the legislators in NC. I have talked to three that actually think the Andy Griffith show was real - that Mayberry was real in all it's white and black nostalgia. Reality is a bitter pill. The founders dealt with reality and today we have too many wanting to live in a fantasy land.

Oh, good another Progressive here to tell us about the scriptures. To twist and pervert what the Bible says. Most of what you said above is half truth's or false.

The true God, know as I am and lohim, El-Shaddai, Yahweh, Jehovah and Adona, will prevail over a corrupt nation and world. I belong to him God the Father, Jesus Christ the son, and the Holy Spirit. He gave us his word in the Bible and free will to chose our own destiny. Chose wisely my friends! Neither satan or the world will prevail against God;s judgement.

(04-03-2016 01:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 09:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 03:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  In regards to the controversy it's ridiculous that 0.3 of the population of this country can have this much influence.


In regards to the ACC is fully expect them to issue a statement saying that the conference does not desire to get involved or have any influence in the internal politics of a sovereign state. They'll say that this is an issue that the citizens and duly elected government of North Carolina has to deal with and doesn't concern the ACC.

The "sovereign state" or " states rights" idea is a dying one. The wishes of a majority of a population of a state do not "trump" the Constitution. I suspect this law will be struck down under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But, the authors of this bill probably knew this already, but don't mind the waste of all this time, money and effort....as long as this buys them some votes.

As for "the majority", what about the majority of those in the cities and towns who had their ordinances trampled by "big government" from the state capital?

Anyway, this law may soon be struck down in the courts and this controversy may soon die an early death....

Then it's time for this failed experiment of a country to die along with it.

Just because leftists are A-OK with degeneracy doesn't mean they have the right to force it on everybody else.

Conservatives always want to go on about how its their right to discriminate against whoever but never want to face repercussions for it. It is your right to want to have your state make a law against homosexuality like NC or GA but it's also the right of private organizations to pull their business if they choose to do so. The Ncaa can choose to not play tourney games in NC if the law passes because they don't have to let NC host a tourney site if they don't want to. It means that nc has to choose what they care more about. Money or passing the law.

(04-03-2016 11:06 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 06:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 05:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 01:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 09:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The "sovereign state" or " states rights" idea is a dying one. The wishes of a majority of a population of a state do not "trump" the Constitution. I suspect this law will be struck down under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But, the authors of this bill probably knew this already, but don't mind the waste of all this time, money and effort....as long as this buys them some votes.

As for "the majority", what about the majority of those in the cities and towns who had their ordinances trampled by "big government" from the state capital?

Anyway, this law may soon be struck down in the courts and this controversy may soon die an early death....

Then it's time for this failed experiment of a country to die along with it.

Just because leftists are A-OK with degeneracy doesn't mean they have the right to force it on everybody else.

It really died at Appomattox as far as I am concerned.

It has just been the Walking Dead since then.

A. Morality and Degeneration:

Since what is degenerate is decided upon by society, how are we to know what is degenerate in the future?

1. The Old Testament says you can have three wives - The people on their own practiced multiple wives in the Old Testament times, but you will not find anywhere in the Old Testament where it is God's plan. His plan was laid out in the Garden off Eden where one man and one woman was to cleave together.
2. Some Mormons say they can have as many wives as they want- Lets not confuse Mormonism with Christianity, the two have NOTHING to do with each other.

3. Some Catholics say if you are divorced and then remarry you are committing adulatory
4. Incest is supposed to be degenerate, but it was okay for Noah's daughters.
5. When Abraham couldn't have a son it was okay to shack up with the Arab girl, then he magically had one by his ancient Hebrew wife and somehow that was okay as well. God's plan was never for Abraham to have a child with his Sara's handmaid. It was a lack of faith on both Abraham and Sarah. Isaac was the child of faith and the seed Israel was to come through. The results from their lack of faith has created years of wars and blood shed between Israel and Arab nations.

6. Jesus believed in love and forgiveness- Yes Jesus believed in love and forgiveness but when you mention the woman caught in adultery you leave out his closing point, "Go and sin no more." The apostle Paul in Romans taught by asking the question, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound"? His response was an emphatic "God forbid".

7. Paul was an anti-sex nut who encouraged Roman women to cut the men off. No Paul tells married people your body is not your own,, giving the opposite message.

8. According to the Old Testament, if you had a testicle blown off in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are not supposed to go to church.

9. Are you degenerately eating shell fish? What about a milkshake with that hamburger?

Absolutism is fine if you can be absolute about something.
That's the problem with mixing absolutism and religion, finding the absolute. That's one of the reasons Jesus told the farmer to get his ox out of the ditch and forgave the woman caught in adultery as he listed the names of male adulterers in the sand. IIRC Jesus had two commandments - love God, and love thy neighbor as thy love thyself.
Once again you have distorted the scriptures to justify what you want it to say not what was actually written. Those are not the ONLY two commandments, he said those were the two greatest commandments and that means something a lot different.

B. This is not a democracy

The United States was founded as a Republic not a democracy. The franchise was held back from the general public so that people with property and education ran the show. Democracy is mob rule.

C. Appomattox

What died at Appomattox had already been killed by moronic Sandlappers at Charleston in 1861. The glorious dreams of a small landed class that had aped the Caribbean plantation system to the point that nearly all the wealth in the South died in 1861 amidst stupidly and treason. It was primed to die was because that small class wanted to maintain the plantation system and therefore nearly everyone in the South had an economic stake in maintaining slavery. States rights is bull **** the Civil war was about the cancer the founders left after the could not negotiate it away in 1789.

There are a large number of descendants of Confederate soldiers that had no slaves but fought because their economic livelihood was at the behest of the large landowners, be they a sharecropper, a dry goods store owner, etc., etc.

In many ways the South was governed and operated like a series of fiefdoms, with a lot of serfs and even more slaves.

D. Wealthy White Males

The only group of people that have lost rights over the last 2 centuries in the United State are native Americans and wealthy white males. The wealthy white males lost the right to own their wives and other human beings as property. They have lost the right to hold all the elected offices in the land. They have lost the right mete out summary justice to a non-white male. They have lost the right to steal land from native Americans. Seems fair to me.

E. Ignorance

Ignorance of the past is at work in this problem writ both small and large. The founders were not under the thumb of the church. It was not until the religious wave of the 1870's-1880's that religion found it's way back into politics and it was in response to the economic upheaval of the industrial revolution combined with about 10 million morphine addicts left over after the Civil War. This yearning for a 1950's style America is understandable, however it never existed. It was a tv show - Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, the Donna Reed show - that was NEVER real. But two entire generations were fooled. Today when things are changing there is a yearning for that supposed "moral center", or some other place that "used to exist" until fill in the blank ruined it. This is one of the problems with some of the legislators in NC. I have talked to three that actually think the Andy Griffith show was real - that Mayberry was real in all it's white and black nostalgia. Reality is a bitter pill. The founders dealt with reality and today we have too many wanting to live in a fantasy land.

Oh, good another Progressive here to tell us about the scriptures. To twist and pervert what the Bible says. Most of what you said above is half truth's or false.

I never do that because I strongly believe that it is all a book of mythology, anyway.

Have I missed something...Is this really all about what bathroom men who think they are women and women who think they are men are going to use? Surely common sense can prevail....

Getting this thread back on topic, let's "do the math" regarding whatever tradeoffs the NC legislature made, or think they made. There are four major professional leagues. Two of those, the NFL and MLB, don't have anything they could take away from North Carolina if they wanted to.

The NBA and NHL could take away all-star games, which would hurt the pocketbooks of folks mostly in Charlotte and Raleigh. From where I sit, those aren't exactly places dear to the hearts of NC legislators (at least not the Republican ones). The same holds true for conventions and NCAA basketball games that might be moved from those two cities.

That leaves the ACC. If I have correctly read comments on this forum about where to play the ACC Tournament and football championship games, more schools than not already would prefer that they not be played in NC. I can't imagine a worse climate for the four NC schools to vigorously object to making repeal of the law a condition for holding those events in NC in the future.

If you are the NC Republican Party, every time an event is pulled from the state is another opportunity to demonize the left in general, and groups their base likes to portray as moral degenerates in particular. They will (falsely) assert that they are a "moral majority" whose values are under attack by an evil minority. I don't disagree that some of their values are under attack. I just believe that the people rejecting those values are the majority.

The question then becomes this. Will their actions ultimately drive even more Republicans than ever out of the party in time to return the Democrats to power when voting district line are redrawn after the next census? They already draw fewer votes statewide than the opposition party, but their control of the redistricting process assures them of total control of both the state legislature and the state's congressional delegation by a wide margin.

Clearly, they are betting that won't happen. But it's a high stakes gamble.

(04-04-2016 09:23 AM)milerock Wrote:  Surely common sense can prevail....

(04-04-2016 09:23 AM)milerock Wrote:  Have I missed something...Is this really all about what bathroom men who think they are women and women who think they are men are going to use? Surely common sense can prevail....

Nope, its not going to happen due to sexual identity politics.

Just because little Johnny has male anatomy, that minor obstacle is not going to stop him from feeling he is a woman. Because its really more about his feelings and emotions rather than what reality is.

Nor do women or girls have a right to feel violated when Johnny shows up in their locker rooms or bathrooms. Because of their rigid and absolute interpretation of Johnny being a male just because he has male anatomy. They too should see Johnny for what he envisions himself.

Its funny, the left tries to act like science is very important and the final word on anything on unresolved issues like the causes of global temperature change cooling when is there is not sufficient data or a correlation of the data to give us that answer. We just have to accept the progressive's scientific explanation due to the severity of the possibility of the problem they tell us. But when we have something cut and dried like science telling us Johnny is a man and not a woman science is never mentioned.

Isn't anyone concerned that allowing men into the women's restroom might pose a clear and present danger to little girls? Or doesn't anyone think that a sexual predator can pretend to be a woman?

(04-04-2016 03:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Isn't anyone concerned that allowing men into the women's restroom might pose a clear and present danger to little girls? Or doesn't anyone think that a sexual predator can pretend to be a woman?

That is a very valid concern. My daughter will not be sharing a restroom or locker room with anyone who has, or ever has had, man parts. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Some things are just morally wrong. O Three young granddaughter and a young grandson! There is no way they should be exposed to this moral life styles!

Is going to come down to all public place must have 8 different bathroom? Will we see:

1. Womens
2. Women who think they are men
3. Mens
4. Men who think they are women
5. Unisex
6. I do not know what I am
7. I am an Alien from outer space
8. I'm Big Foot!

When is this political correct $hit going to stop? When to the rights of a few become more important the rights of most?

(04-04-2016 02:51 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 09:23 AM)milerock Wrote:  Have I missed something...Is this really all about what bathroom men who think they are women and women who think they are men are going to use? Surely common sense can prevail....

Nope, its not going to happen due to sexual identity politics.

Just because little Johnny has male anatomy, that minor obstacle is not going to stop him from feeling he is a woman. Because its really more about his feelings and emotions rather than what reality is.

Nor do women or girls have a right to feel violated when Johnny shows up in their locker rooms or bathrooms. Because of their rigid and absolute interpretation of Johnny being a male just because he has male anatomy. They too should see Johnny for what he envisions himself.

Its funny, the left tries to act like science is very important and the final word on anything on unresolved issues like the causes of global temperature change cooling when is there is not sufficient data or a correlation of the data to give us that answer. We just have to accept the progressive's scientific explanation due to the severity of the possibility of the problem they tell us. But when we have something cut and dried like science telling us Johnny is a man and not a woman science is never mentioned.

The discussion was more about discrimination but on your point, the science isn't "cut and dry" on this.

http://brainspongeblog.com/2015/10/29/boy-or-girl/

(04-04-2016 03:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Isn't anyone concerned that allowing men into the women's restroom might pose a clear and present danger to little girls? Or doesn't anyone think that a sexual predator can pretend to be a woman?

Yes it's a concern but how is a discrimination law going to solve it? Predators & criminals aren't known to follow the law.