Should The View also be cancelled?

[caulfield12]

Since my name was dragged into this.

Why does the “bad deeds” of a tiny subset of Islam get entire countries labeled as not being worthy of entry into the U.S.?  Or being judged as “lesser than” the majority, which is white/Christian?

As a Catholic and former altar boy and someone who went to mass every single Sunday of my life before university....I’ll say that the Social Gospels have a lot to teach us, that the Properity Gospel is NOT founded anywhere in Christianity or the Bible, that abortion is an issue I’ll never agree with the Church on and that’s it is a real shame that forcing priests to remain celibate has led to  so many issues with alcoholism/abuse/pedophilia....and it’s also a shame so many financial contributions to the church are going to lawyers and payoffs and not to mission work.  I also believe the new Pope is a breath of fresh air and has shaken the foundation of the Church to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, and that’s probably a good thing.

And I will always stand up against anything being forced upon people, whether it’s “false religion” or “false patriotism.”  To protect the power of the majority from trampling the rights of the least protected in society.

Finally, people should have the right to believe in anything they want...but proselytizing is a different matter altogether.

 

[caulfield12]

13 minutes ago, raBBit said:

You don't know anything about me but I am sure you have seen StrangeSox and caulfield say I am not allowed to speak on certain things because I am a white male and have white male privilege. Little do they know I am actually gender fluid and they're actually transphobic and bigoted. As transgendered person I am a protected class in cultural marxist America and I shouldn't be racially/gender profiled as a SWM because of my fair skin and the presence of a phallic object between my legs. They have no idea what gender I have chosen today and they are prejudice to make assumptions on my gender as a whole.

I don't see why everything has to be a pissing contest though. My point was extreme elements of practicing Jews have less detrimental effects on society in today's world compared to extreme elements of christianity and islam. I think the vast majority of educated people would agree with me. Your one off situation and lecturing of me about what I know and don't know isn't relevant to the point made nor are you in a position to make such proclamations without coming off as a complete bullshit artist. Because as you said, you don't know me. When some hasidic jews start blowing up busses in Dagestan and Chechyna on a regular basis or some hasidics start picketing gay peoples funerals or planned parenthood let me know. The wikipedia you found doesn't support anything. I never said Jewish extremism doesn't exist, I just made the point that more religious extremist come from islamic and christian people. The only Jewish terrorism (yes there are certainly exceptions to the rule) comes from state of Israel bombing civilian arabs. That's an issue of governance as opposed to religion even if Israel is a Jewish ethnostate. 

I think that debate is a more personal one with you and Reddy, although I also have commented quite a bit on it...

[Soxbadger]

15 minutes ago, raBBit said:

You don't know anything about me but I am sure you have seen StrangeSox and caulfield say I am not allowed to speak on certain things because I am a white male and have white male privilege. Little do they know I am actually gender fluid and they're actually transphobic and bigoted. As transgendered person I am a protected class in cultural marxist America and I shouldn't be racially profiled as a SWM like they want to so they can shut me down. 

I don't see why everything has to be a pissing contest though. My point was extreme elements of practicing Jews have less detrimental effects on society in today's world compared to extreme elements of christianity and islam. I think the vast majority of educated people would agree with me. Your one off situation and lecturing of me about what I know and don't know isn't relevant to the point made. When some hasidic jews start blowing up busses in Dagestan and Chechyna on a regular basis or some hasidics start picketing gay peoples funerals or planned parenthood let me know. The wikipedia you found doesn't support anything. I never said Jewish extremism doesn't exist, I just made the point that more religious extremist come from islamic and christian people. Plenty of that has to do with sheer numbers but the point stands nonetheless.

 

Rabbit,

This may shock you, but what other people say about you is irrelevant to who you really are. I dont know if either of them know you personally, so I have no reason to believe that they actually know your race, gender, religion, whatever. We have had many disagreements, but I think you know I dont generally get involved in that who can say what stuff. While my presumption was that youre a white male, its just a presumption and what the others say dont really prove anything. For all I know you play a white guy on the boards but are martian in real life. 

As for your second paragraph. If you had said that to start, its unlikely I would have said anything. But what you said originally "They lack the extreme wings that the other two religions have." suggested to me that you were saying "jewish extremism does not exist." So if you are now clarifying your point, I have no problem with it. But its hard for me to tell what your point is, when the words you use suggest something else. I legitimately believed you had never heard for Rabin or were completely unaware that there are in fact jewish extremists. 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

You are on a marxist kick today, I am excited to see where this goes.

[Dick Allen]

27 minutes ago, raBBit said:

As for the first paragraph, I agree with everything but the bolded. Our culture is so ridiculous. The media is all about character assassination. Political discourse is the same. Watch the people who you typically align with. They don't argue the merits of opinion. They are trying to unveil some racist/transphobic/sexist whatever underneated. If not that it's alt-right, 4chan, right wing, conspiracy theorist. It's all just snarl words and attempts to malign character. Look at StrangeSox's posting for instance. He'll play victim because I am bringing his name up but he never actually addresses points. It's all about chracter destruction and lumping people together to invalidate their opinion. He's a pretty good poster boy for everything that's wrong with political discourse. Despite him and I agreeing on abortion, drug reform, prison reform, AR, etc. all he will focus on is my leanings that fall outside cultural marxist realm. He tries to paint me as some doomsday prepping religious nut who spits on brown people despite the fact that we agree on plenty of things. I am pretty much a textbook JFK, classic liberal who has read up on the history of government. But since I don't believe there are 28 genders and the government should feed people on account of skin color I am some right wing loon. 

For the second paragraph - think what you want. I didn't make a specific enough argument so I guess that falls on me. If you think the Jews have a bunch of extremists so be it. Frankly, I haven't read much into it where as the other two major religions have in your face problems. I never said there wasn't terrorism. Right when Trump got elected there was some Jewish kid threatening to shoot a bunch of Jews. I just think there's a significant different between the Judaism and the other two

LMAO. No one plays victim more than you. And character destruction is exactly what you are attempting to do. 

Your act is old and tired.

[illinilaw08]

3 hours ago, raBBit said:

I don't need an equalizer. I am just preaching tolerance and equality. We are literally a country where your minority status or your sexual preference gets you college cheaper. Any corporate company brags about their minority makeup. When I was recruiting with all the big financial service institutions one girl said she recruited with another bank and it was all white males but this bank is much better because it's diverse. Everyone clapped. Imagine if I went up there and said I went to other banks and it was all Jews and this bank is more diverse. I probably would have been removed from campus.

At the end of the day, I am interested in equality.  That applies to speech more than anything else. So I'll defend rock, caulfield or strange sox in their free speech even if they are applying different standards to different people on account of their race,  religion, sex, creed, etc. But even if I defend their free speech that leads to prejudice, that doesn't mean it's the right thing for them to do. 

Rabbit - here's where I stand on this.  I think that religion and faith are deeply personal (raised Catholic, currently agnostic).  While I don't hold to an organized religion, I don't begrudge people their personal faith... so long as that personal faith does not intrude upon the public sphere.  Conservatives in statehouses across the country (and in Congress) are attempting to legislate via faith.  Simply put, there is no religious lobby or atheistic lobby that has nearly the same level of impact on legislation in this country as Evangelical Christians have.  

I also believe that diversity is important!  Cultural and racial diversity is important - my experiences with law enforcement, obtaining housing, attending school - are very different than an African-American woman (for example).  People govern from their own experience.  When overwhelming majorities of the government are white and male, there is an important perspective that is missing.  I'll also argue that socioeconomic diversity is also important.  It wasn't until I was out of high school, and exposed to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds than my own that I started to even scratch the surface of some of the things I took for granted that keep people in poverty.

To get to equality, the people that pull the levers in society need to be able to understand the different experiences and problems of people across cultural, racial, and economic divides.  We aren't even close to there yet...

[Soxbadger]

41 minutes ago, raBBit said:

As for the first paragraph, I agree with everything but the bolded. Our culture is so ridiculous. The media is all about character assassination. Political discourse is the same. Watch the people who you typically align with. They don't argue the merits of opinion. They are trying to unveil some racist/transphobic/sexist whatever underneated. If not that it's alt-right, 4chan, right wing, conspiracy theorist. It's all just snarl words and attempts to malign character. Look at StrangeSox's posting for instance. He'll play victim because I am bringing his name up but he never actually addresses points. It's all about chracter destruction and lumping people together to invalidate their opinion. He's a pretty good poster boy for everything that's wrong with political discourse. Despite him and I agreeing on abortion, drug reform, prison reform, AR, etc. all he will focus on is my leanings that fall outside cultural marxist realm. He tries to paint me as some doomsday prepping religious nut who spits on brown people despite the fact that we agree on plenty of things. I am pretty much a textbook JFK, classic liberal who has read up on the history of government. But since I don't believe there are 28 genders and the government should feed people on account of skin color I am some right wing loon. 

For the second paragraph - think what you want. I didn't make a specific enough argument so I guess that falls on me. If you think the Jews have a bunch of extremists so be it. Frankly, I haven't read much into it where as the other two major religions have in your face problems. I never said there wasn't terrorism. Right when Trump got elected there was some Jewish kid threatening to shoot a bunch of Jews. I just think there's a significant different between the Judaism and the other two

Im not going to get into who does what on these boards. While some people here may have similar opinions to me on certain issues, many of them are people who I have had plenty of disagreements with in the past. A lot of those disagreements arent as relevant right now because of the current administration and focusing on more pressing current issues. 

And I still dont really care what other people/media whoever say. That doesnt change who I am. What other people is like their opinion man. Some people I could never change their opinion, others I think its possible. I think that there absolutely could be better ways to discuss issues, I just think that ultimately we all have to hold ourselves to whatever standards we believe in.

I completely agree that more people should focus on what we agree on, as opposed to the disagreements. You and I may agree on many things, but I think we fundamentally disagree on who is pulling the strings to make the things we disagree with happen. 

 

[greg775]

5 hours ago, raBBit said:

 You can only talk one though. That's the point. It is culturally acceptable to shit on white people and christians. Whether your perceptible to it or not, you take the low hanging fruit. Your bigoted against all religious people but you chose to shit on only the one is socially acceptable (by the ruling class standards). 

I do not like the fact hollywood and everybody blasts Christians and there are no consequences. We get mocked all the time for believing in the man upstairs. It might have been fake news possibly but I saw a video where it was some TV show, I believe the View, that bleeped out the word Jesus cause it might offend.  Very sad       

 

[BigSqwert]

What the heck is this video?  What did they bleep out?  They said God like 50 times in the first couple minutes.  Most of the people in the panel are Christians.  What are you offended by exactly?

[caulfield12]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?446314-3/washington-journal-ryan-clancy-discusses-role-moderates-politics

If you really believe in working together, commonalities over differences...well even that has gotten tricky.

This C-Span segment is about an organization trying to build a coalition of “moderates” in the US House, in order to take the legislative agenda away from the right (Freedom Caucus) and left (progressive) wings.

The problem is that some of the members of Congress who have signed on are the likes of Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Sean “Real World” Duffey of WI.

The organization in the video spends (or claims they will be spending) millions of dollars to protect these “moderates” from primary attacks on the left (progressives, Marie Newman in the recent one) and from extreme right wing primary opponents on the right.

The idea being that “moderate” legislation is the only type that has an opportunity to get through the Senate and its 60 vote threshold.   I’m not sure that’s the correct approach to governing, either, but it’s a start?

I also am going to guess they started out with the House because of the exponentially-increasing effects of money in politics...how much money/time/resources it would take to affect just 1-2 Senate races, especially in “big media” states.

 

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

You didn't really address my points, and instead made me the subject of your point (which was kind of the point of the post you were responding to) but since you're opening the door to this...I will oblige...in two ways.

How would you describe your contribution to the buster? You come in here a few times a day with some extraneous sentence about some news story that is basically tabloid politics and then spend a few more posts sarcastically mocking Trump. Maybe a few times a week you pick on some other conservative in the same sarcastic/ironic way. That's really it. No one really responds to this tired formulaic post you do. 

What is my act? Liberty. Definition of liberty: "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." That's all I want. I speak on plenty of different topics with opinions all over the partisan spectrum. I defend myself. I can go overboard at times but otherwise, what I am doing that makes me a worse poster than you in here? Or what makes you better than me?

Do you think the board is more active after one of my posts or one of yours. To the people who don't typically come in here and randomly pop in, do you think my posts or your posts stimulate more stimulating thought for those people? Think of your posts. No one really responds. No stimulating exchanges have followed one of your "bits." At the end of the day, I am one of a few regular filibuster posters with something different to say. This board, in terms of regular contributors, is a monolith past me. I am good for people's stake in reality. Maybe people wouldn't think having traditional opinions is so extreme or admonishable if they actually took in a diverse range of news/opinion etc. If I make one person reconsider their opinion on something it's worth it to me. Some people really think that all people with different political opinions than them are so stupid and misinformed that all of their opinions are wrong on account of their partisan liberal. I couldn't imagine my intake being entirely one sided. It's led to a culture where people don't like you on account of your political beliefs. That's it. Doesn't matter if you're a good person. If you are outside of the mainstream media (minus Fox) viewpoint you are a bad person. That needs to change. There are so many brilliant people on both sides. I listen to so many liberals on a regular basis. It's just a shame that so many people have been conditioned to be so dismissive and intolerant.

freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control

We can argue about libertarianism (freedom from government intrusion in their healthcare, freedom to have marijuana be legalized, etc.) vs. Trump’s arbitrary or despotic government.

Other than attempting to limit assault weapons, ObamaCare and drone attacks in the Middle East, what has the “other side” done to take away your freedoms and liberties (keeping in mind that we have sacrificed a LOT of them due to the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11)?

Isn’t America still the best place to be an entrepreneur, to launch a start up?

The least amount of government restrictions (now) on businesses small and large (of course, that’s not incorporating the very real costs of environmental damage being done, but short-term profits and more jobs, so more or less okay)?

As a libertarian, surely you don’t want more intrusion of “Christian-first” theology into political life, do you?

 

The problem is that you don’t see how your posts come off because none of us can be truly objective about our prejudices and biases...in this case, throwing all of those controversial/divisive beliefs behind something vague or innocuous-sounding like “freedom/liberty” doesn’t mean they’re just swept under the rug and other posters will ignore them.

Today, you attacked me on religion and I’m pretty sure you can’t even come up with a single thing I’ve ever argued about religion (positive or negative) simply because, well, Strange Sox, Soxbadger, Illinilaw, Rock Raines, PTAC, Dick Allen and myself (along with Reddy) have been a FEW of the most consistent posters in Filibuster over the last year or so and we’re easy targets.

And the “flippant” back and forth we now get (that substitutes for real/substantive political conversation) is simply a reflection of the fact that 95% of Americans don’t have the time or inclination to really learn the in’s and out’s of the policies that are being discussed by our leaders.  Distractions.  Do you really believe that our president wants to talk about policy, and to learn some nuances...?   That’s a bridge too far, even for his supporters.

Edited June 2, 2018 by caulfield12

[greg775]

7 hours ago, BigSqwert said:

What the heck is this video?  What did they bleep out?  They said God like 50 times in the first couple minutes.  Most of the people in the panel are Christians.  What are you offended by exactly?

They allowed God but nixed "Jesus." Not sure why. You are right about "God" though. They were saying "God" a lot and left that in there. No Jesus however.

[greg775]

So I had never heard of Samantha Bee til her rips of Trump's daughter. Here's what confuses me.  ... Apparently part of her schtick is cussing and getting it bleeped out on the show. She calls the daughter a c--t and implies Trump has sex with her. Or wants to. So there's this outrage and she apologizes profusely.

Now wait. Surely in this environment, with Roseanne still hot in the news, Bee knows some aren't gonna like her cuss rant. Some are gonna be outraged and demand sponsor boycotts, etc. So she still does it. Then apologizes meekly. My point is ... you fricking have to know there's gonna be outrage, so double down on it. I mean you can't call somebody a c--t then "beg forgiveness" and ask Trump's daughter personally for forgiveness. I mean less than 24 hrs later you say it was a big mistake, etc. I mean at least go down fighting. If you are gonna meekly apologize, then don't go on the rant to begin with. If you are not gonna meekly apologize, go for it! Same with Kathy Griffin. Her new schtick now is to say she doesn't regret severing Trump's head, etc. Well that's a bit different after her whimpering, crying apology the day after people called her on it.

What I'm saying is ... if you are an outrageous comedian, then stand by your fricking comedy. At least  Don Rickles never apologized. Somebody explain to me why Bee apologized. You can't go from venom to saying "mea culpa, so sorry, big mistake, forgive me!" Too late. Just tell the world, "People I am a comedian. It was a joke. Lighten up MFs!!!"

Edited June 2, 2018 by greg775

[Dick Allen]

11 hours ago, raBBit said:

You didn't really address my points, and instead made me the subject of your point (which was kind of the point of the post you were responding to) but since you're opening the door to this...I will oblige...in two ways.

How would you describe your contribution to the buster? You come in here a few times a day with some extraneous sentence about some news story that is basically tabloid politics and then spend a few more posts sarcastically mocking Trump. Maybe a few times a week you pick on some other conservative in the same sarcastic/ironic way. That's really it. No one really responds to this tired formulaic post you do. 

What is my act? Liberty. Definition of liberty: "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." That's all I want. I speak on plenty of different topics with opinions all over the partisan spectrum. I defend myself. I can go overboard at times but otherwise, what I am doing that makes me a worse poster than you in here? Or what makes you better than me?

Do you think the board is more active after one of my posts or one of yours. To the people who don't typically come in here and randomly pop in, do you think my posts or your posts stimulate more stimulating thought for those people? Think of your posts. No one really responds. No stimulating exchanges have followed one of your "bits." At the end of the day, I am one of a few regular filibuster posters with something different to say. This board, in terms of regular contributors, is a monolith past me. I am good for people's stake in reality. Maybe people wouldn't think having traditional opinions is so extreme or admonishable if they actually took in a diverse range of news/opinion etc. If I make one person reconsider their opinion on something it's worth it to me. Some people really think that all people with different political opinions than them are so stupid and misinformed that all of their opinions are wrong on account of their partisan liberal. I couldn't imagine my intake being entirely one sided. It's led to a culture where people don't like you on account of your political beliefs. That's it. Doesn't matter if you're a good person. If you are outside of the mainstream media (minus Fox) viewpoint you are a bad person. That needs to change. There are so many brilliant people on both sides. I listen to so many liberals on a regular basis. It's just a shame that so many people have been conditioned to be so dismissive and intolerant.

You really don’t speak all over the partisan spectrum. What you now call stimulating conversation, you often complain about being “groupthink “ ganging up on you. You make yourself a victim, just like Trump, yet have no problem ripping anyone else. Also just like Trump. Now you are bragging about replies to your posts, just like Trump and his crowd size. The fact is people respond to your posts not for this stimulating conversation you now call it, but to call out your many inaccuracies. I really don’t keep score. I just know everything you feel necessary to accuse others of doing, you re guilty of doing yourself. Again, just like Trump.

For a guy who says he doesn’t like Trump, you sure seem to defend him and his conspiracy theories often. I haven’t seen you rip him . Maybe you have, I don’t read every post. But if you have, it is not nearly as much as you have defended him which we all know would be quite different if he was doing the same thing with  D after his name.

 

[caulfield12]

Use the language of the Left to defeat them!

Textbook example on how to effectively deal with the leftist, PC/SJW, libTURD/TARD media. Let's make this video go viral!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWCuZLwFiE

 

Here you go, Rabbit...

Edited June 3, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

On 6/1/2018 at 1:16 PM, raBBit said:

You don't know anything about me but I am sure you have seen StrangeSox and caulfield say I am not allowed to speak on certain things because I am a white male and have white male privilege. Little do they know I am actually gender fluid and they're actually transphobic and bigoted. As transgendered person I am a protected class in cultural marxist America and I shouldn't be racially/gender profiled as a SWM because of my fair skin and the presence of a phallic object between my legs. They have no idea what gender I have chosen today and they are prejudice to make assumptions on my gender as a whole.

I don't see why everything has to be a pissing contest though. My point was extreme elements of practicing Jews have less detrimental effects on society in today's world compared to extreme elements of christianity and islam. I think the vast majority of educated people would agree with me. Your one off situation and lecturing of me about what I know and don't know isn't relevant to the point made nor are you in a position to make such proclamations without coming off as a complete bullshit artist. Because as you said, you don't know me. When some hasidic jews start blowing up busses in Dagestan and Chechyna on a regular basis or some hasidics start picketing gay peoples funerals or planned parenthood let me know. The wikipedia you found doesn't support anything. I never said Jewish extremism doesn't exist, I just made the point that more religious extremist come from islamic and christian people. The only Jewish terrorism (yes there are certainly exceptions to the rule) comes from state of Israel bombing civilian arabs. That's an issue of governance as opposed to religion even if Israel is a Jewish ethnostate. 

Fwiw I've never said what you accused me of, that's mainly a reddy thing

 

E: you do seem very transphobic though, so that's cool

 

You might also want to check out how some of the fundamentalist sects in Israel act. I'm not talking about state actions, either.

Edited June 3, 2018 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

14 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Your views on gender are somewhere between a complete disregard of science and a complete embrace of lunacy so the fact that you would use that subject as a baseline for an insult to me shows more about you than me. 

Not really though. Honestly don't think I've even commented on that subject all that much here. Another topic where you're obsessed with attacking other posters while playing the victim. 

And yeah you were obviously using that rant of yours in a disingenuous manner, attacking a straw man version of typical trans people (after assigning me a position I've not taken before). I'm not sure what saying your rant was transphobic is supposed to say about me or what you think your post says (or doesn't say) about you.

 

Are you capable of admitting you assigned a position to myself and I think claufield as well that we really haven't taken, and in a conversation I wasn't even taking part in? That is not even the only time you've taken a swipe at me in a conversation I'm not part of in the last few days.

Edited June 3, 2018 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

A simple "no" would suffice

[greg775]

I didn't really understand rabbit's post on his gender. Anybody wanna translate in terms a low IQ greg can understand?

[caulfield12]

4 hours ago, raBBit said:

You have definitely made your Transgendered left wing conspiracy opinions very clear. Not sure why youre backing down from them. Frankly there isn’t much of anything you don’t comment on here so again, not sure why you’re misrepresenting the truth. Also Hilarious that you care about people’s opinions being misrepresented because that’s your bread and butter to tear people down with different opinions past the snarl words.

If I assigned an opinion to caulfied that he didn’t make that’s my fault. I’m not sure what you’re referring too but I don’t read his posts that are more than 2-3 sentences so it’s definitely possible. 

So you argue you want substantive/policy-based discussions...but don't make an attempt to read.

Then you turn around and get upset when we don't spend hours and hours going down the youtube conspiracy rabbit hole sites, that are targeted at PERHAPS 3-5% of people in the country and can't possibly be taken at face value by independents/moderates or Democrats.

Edited June 4, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

22 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Caulfield I've been reading your posts since before they kicked you off of WSI. It's hard to follow them sometimes. We used to go back and forth but when you would touch 9 topics in response to a post speaking on 1 topic I would have trouble keeping up. 

Actually, I was banned 10 days...but I told them I wanted a lifetime ban instead.

I brought one of my best friends (and a huge White Sox fan) to that board...and a number of the mods/veteran posters were jumping all over him about his taste in music, of all things.    He was banned, so that was pretty much the end of my participation over there.

At that time, I knew posting on such an intolerant board would never work out, and running it that way has proven to be a disaster for that particular site.

 

But yeah, I've been posting since the ncorgl/colsat46 "reign" on chisox.com.  He and Marty34 always stood out the most, for some reason.

Edited June 4, 2018 by caulfield12

[greg775]

40 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Gender is fluid and a social construct. So sometimes I am a man and sometimes I am gender fluid which means somewhere in between man and woman because gender is not binary. It is a spectrum greg. I know this wasn't the case when you were growing up (there was A LOT of transphobia in the '70s (racism too)) but now you can pick gender regardless of your genitalia. It's really cool actually. I have scholarships available to me now so getting a PHD in the future is more realistic from financial standpoint. My opinion matters now because I am not a straight white male. Since I haven't transitioned, I still use the men's bathroom so I still have shorter lines. I am more likely to be promoted now because statistically I would be a woman in leadership which limits their liability to a potential leftist shaming. Plus, in Illinois, you don't even have to get surgery to get your birth documents changed by the state. It's really the best of all worlds. Here. Gobs of opportunity.

 

 

Sounds pretty cool and interesting to me. More questions coming.

[caulfield12]

Back to Roseanne....Tomi Lahren attempted to go against Trump supporters (like she previously did with Glenn Beck on the abortion/pro-choice issues).  Will be interesting to see how successfully she can straddle the line.

 

The conservative commentator (Tomi Lahren) also said that a “media double standard applies,” in which the left can more easily get away with inflammatory comments than those on the right.

“It’s the pro-Trump conservatives who must walk the plank into professional purgatory, while those on the left are given a pass, and move on,” Lahren said.

We all know it, and it’s frustrating, but here’s the deal: We know we’re held to a different standard. We must rise to the occasion, and act the right way,” she continued. “The last thing we should do is lower our standards, even when the left gets away with lowering theirs.”

 

 

[RockRaines]

8 hours ago, raBBit said:

Gender is fluid and a social construct. So sometimes I am a man and sometimes I am gender fluid which means somewhere in between man and woman because gender is not binary. It is a spectrum greg. I know this wasn't the case when you were growing up (there was A LOT of transphobia in the '70s (racism too)) but now you can pick gender regardless of your genitalia. It's really cool actually. I have scholarships available to me now so getting a PHD in the future is more realistic from financial standpoint. My opinion matters now because I am not a straight white male. Since I haven't transitioned, I still use the men's bathroom so I still have shorter lines. I am more likely to be promoted now because statistically I would be a woman in leadership which limits their liability to a potential leftist shaming. Plus, in Illinois, you don't even have to get surgery to get your birth documents changed by the state. It's really the best of all worlds. Here. Gobs of opportunity.

 

 

Just to be clear, you think life is easier for someone who is trans?

[RockRaines]

17 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Where do you even get this from? Please be specific and I'll respond.

The entire post I quoted.