WTF is it w/ transgender students and bathroom/locker rooms? - Page 21 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Archived Other Topics Politics version 7.0

WTF is it w/ transgender students and bathroom/locker rooms?

...

Page 21 of 88

First

11 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 31 41 71

Last

Page 21 of 88

First

11 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 31 41 71

Last

05-21-2016 , 02:19 PM

#501

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Of course not. The point is that he spoke up!

05-21-2016 , 02:22 PM

#502

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

Yes, that's the point that was being made. Because someone used him as an example of someone who stayed quiet.

05-21-2016 , 02:24 PM

#503

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Well ****, if we are using the definitions at the time of when the constitution was written, why don't we also define arms as of the late 1700s? I'm willing to make that trade if you want to take this stupid ****ing stance

That "stupid ****ing stance" is the basis of this country. Even the liberal SCOTUS members use dictionaries and laws that were on the books in the late 1700's to justify rulings. Should freedom of the press only count for papers published on hand set presses?

The constitution doesn't just change every time a new technology comes into use.

Last edited by LASJayhawk; 05-21-2016 at 02:28 PM. Reason: Typo

05-21-2016 , 02:25 PM

#504

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,508

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

Of course not. The point is that he spoke up!

Yes, that was exactly the point. The point was that he did not use the same rope a dope style he used in the ring when trying to impart social change.

Like... this isnt meant to offend, but Im really curious whether you have a learning disability that manifests when a black person is brought up? Did you need special math books in elementary school that made sure that all word problems involved white people?

Was the defendant in your version of 12 angry men white so that you didnt immediately side with jurors 7 and 3?

05-21-2016 , 02:25 PM

#505

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Actually, no. I don't think that's the point. The point was that sometimes different strategies are more effective.

But, you know, let's keep talking about someone speaking up, which means absolutely............nothing.

05-21-2016 , 02:28 PM

#506

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,508

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

That "stupid ****ing stance" is the basis of this country. Even the liberal SCOTUS members use dictionaries and laws that were on the books in the late 1700's to justify rulings. Should freedom of the press only count for papers published on hand set presses?

The constitution does just change every time a new technology comes into use.

The weapons of today have literally changed the definition of how ballistics are used. They are so inherently different from the firearms of the 1700's, that they would be unrecognizable by the people of that time.

In comparison. Written text is written ****ing text, it hasnt changed.

05-21-2016 , 02:28 PM

#507

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,090

I seriously cannot believe how mad right wingers get over trans people's ****ting locations. That's how small of victory you're aiming for now?

05-21-2016 , 02:29 PM

#508

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

Jesus Christ, Wil.

05-21-2016 , 02:31 PM

#509

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Like... this isnt meant to offend, but Im really curious whether you have a learning disability that manifests when a black person is brought up? Did you need special math books in elementary school that made sure that all word problems involved white people?

I have no learning disability that I know of.

I have no particular love for either white or black people, I only can speak for people at an individual level. If truth be told, I've had better experiences with black people than I have had with whites. I've seldom had racist experiences with blacks, but that may be skewed due to number of interactions as a whole.

I have interest in progress as citizens of this country. Your preoccupation with race speaks much more about you than it does me. I do not criticize Ali due to him being black, I couldn't care less what race he is. Apparently, you do.

05-21-2016 , 02:34 PM

#510

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Are you trained at legalese? Do you have background in law?

By no means am I implying I do, but you sound woefully ignorant.

05-21-2016 , 02:38 PM

#511

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,508

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

You spent paragraphs discussing what a ****ty person Ali was even though nobody had brought up anything to do with that point. You saw an opportunity to tee off on somebody for zero discernable reason and did. I am sure it is entirely coincidental he just happens to be a black man.

05-21-2016 , 02:39 PM

#512

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,508

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

Are you trained at legalese? Do you have background in law?

By no means am I implying I do, but you sound woefully ignorant.

Not a all. Do I need to be to understand that guns today are different than they were when the constitution was written, and understand that written text hasn't changed in that time?

Do observations now require training in legalese?

05-21-2016 , 02:57 PM

#513

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

As I've said, it says quite a bit more about you than me. You have deep hangups about race, I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Just wanted to ask. You speak with confidence as if you have some sort of insight to law, yet it lacks any substance. Even at the highest levels.

05-21-2016 , 03:32 PM

#514

TheDuker

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,388

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

The right to carry firearms, with reasonable restrictions, is a civil right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

This is a truly stupid, stupid thing to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

there are, indeed, some restrictions.

Is there a word for when you vehemently dispute something, and then drunkenly meander in a full circle to where you end up agreeing with the original point without realizing it?

05-21-2016 , 03:36 PM

#515

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

"wilful ignorance"

05-21-2016 , 03:49 PM

#516

kerowo

lolcat

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 37,183

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Since at the time the constitution was written well regulated meant well versed in the use of arms and the militia by law was all males from adulthood to age 65, it covers a lot of ground.

But I digress.

Careful with that line of thinking, at the time of the constitution a firearm was a vastly different animal than it is today.

05-21-2016 , 04:24 PM

#517

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,508

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

Careful with that line of thinking, at the time of the constitution a firearm was a vastly different animal than it is today.

I already pointed this out. To no great surprise, while we have to abide by the exact letter of the constitution, at the time that it was written, when it comes to the terms well-regulated and militia; wanting to abide by the exact letter of the constitution at the time it was written when it comes to the term arms makes you an anti-american anti-constitutional jackass.

05-21-2016 , 04:41 PM

#518

Deuces McKracken

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 9,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Wil needs an ESL class or something

Wil's expressing his ideas pretty well. The problem is he has ****ty ideas. A writing class isn't going to help that.

05-21-2016 , 04:55 PM

#519

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

He can't read and comprehend my posts though.

05-21-2016 , 04:59 PM

#520

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

Careful with that line of thinking, at the time of the constitution a firearm was a vastly different animal than it is today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Not really. They had pistols and rifles back then too. In fact the colonists had more advanced rifles than the British Military. The same can't be said today. The rate of fire his higher by a factor of 10 today thanks to the invention of the cartridge,but other than that they work the same way.

But that wasn't the point of bringing it up. Master is in favor of common sense gun control, but thinks people who feel common sense says that teenage school showers should be segregated by sex instead of gender are bigots.

05-21-2016 , 05:07 PM

#521

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDuker

Is there a word for when you vehemently dispute something, and then drunkenly meander in a full circle to where you end up agreeing with the original point without realizing it?

As always your posts are just awful. Nothing is unlimited in scope, we are all aware of that and its just common sense. We live in a free society but that doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want. LGs example of gun laws is stupid because gun restrictions aren't all that restrictive, and in most places they are laughably easy to get around.

Your "gotcha" quote is, as always, worthless.

05-21-2016 , 05:09 PM

#522

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

I'm not in favor of massive gun restrictions but masters position is much more morally defensible than LAS'

05-21-2016 , 05:13 PM

#523

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerowo

Careful with that line of thinking, at the time of the constitution a firearm was a vastly different animal than it is today.

Barring the ability of holding multiple rounds and speed of reloading, the basics are essentially the same. You point, you shoot. Except now you can shoot many more times.