American politics and news thread 2.0

j7wild wrote:

What do y'all have to say to that?

Thaaaaaaaaaaaat you didn't really address the underlying issue of gender identity in your post, but rather obfuscated by discussing restroom availability?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

j7wild wrote:

What do y'all have to say to that?

Thaaaaaaaaaaaat you didn't really address the underlying issue of gender identity in your post, but rather obfuscated by discussing restroom availability?

I was quoting him or her:

tiffanywint wrote:

I think anyone with a penis should use the boy's bathroom and anyone minus a penis should use the girl's bathroom. Simple. The injustice of it all.

My question was what do you do when your children are still too young to go into the restroom by themselves and there is not a parent of the same gender as they with them?

[quote="j7wild"]

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

My question was what do you do when your children are still too young to go into the restroom by themselves and there is not a parent of the same gender as they with them?

I went with them in the restroom and in my experience there are no women that have ever complained when I helped my daughters while visiting the restroom.

saint mark wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Your wife's name is an unusual one.

:lol!:

that was brilliantly spotted.

:*h*:

And again ...

:*h*:

:)

They want to solve the budget crisis?

CUT the pay of EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN in Washington including Obama's and EVERYONE in the Presidential Administration (i.e. Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of The Energy, Secretary of The Interior, ALL THOSE PEOPLE)!!

Eliminate every single CZAR that Obama has created since he took office.

Take away the benefits of EVERY POLITICIAN (Free Health Care, Limousines, Any Meals over $20 a person, Hotel Rooms over $50 a person, Private Jets, Prostitutes, etc).

Make EVERY Politician work 5 days, 40 hours a week, 51 weeks a year!

Failure to do so will result in suspension without pay!

The AVERAGE U.S. Income is $27,915, EVERY Politician should be paid that amount and 2.5% raises are based on passing a YEARLY FULL PERFORMANCE REVIEW.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/02/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130302

Obama is blaming the Republicans for this?

He has been in office for over 4 years and the Federal Government has been running without a balanced budget.

You're supposed to stop pushing on the Q-tip when you feel resistance.

A Chandler Bing classic.

Well, let's be honest - your Viceversa observation was always going to be a hard act to follow, so I just phoned that one in.

j7wild wrote:

They want to solve the budget crisis?

CUT the pay of EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN in Washington including Obama's and EVERYONE in the Presidential Administration (i.e. Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of The Energy, Secretary of The Interior, ALL THOSE PEOPLE)!!

Interesting sentiments, but it's not going to do a single thing to solve the budget crisis. With the exception of a few people in the House, most of the politicians in Congress, Senate, the presidency or his Cabinet, take the job for one of the following reasons: #1 power to make policy and influence the direction of the country (i.e. they believe in themselves and believe they have the better ideas and values) or #2 for the money they stand to make AFTER they leave office.

The salary of the President is somewhere in the low six-figures, which was roughly what Michelle Obama was making before she became First Lady (I think she was out-earning him at the time). President Obama doesn't need his salary. Pretty much every meal he eats on the road is comped by the restaurant he visits in exchange for the publicity; and he pays nothing for the groceries in the White House (nor does the First Lady). President Obama's memoirs will be worth a minimum of $10 million dollars after he leaves office, not to mention his speaking engagement fees, the chairmanships on the Board of Directors for several different companies he'll be asked to join, the "consulting" jobs he'll take, special guest contributor fee for his inevitable job at MSNBC, etc....his current salary pales in comparison to what he'll make after leaving office. You could eliminate his salary entirely right now and he'd never know because he's not paying for anything anyway.

They'll never want for money. They'll have around-the-clock security after he leaves office. He's taken care of for life.

But the President is not alone. Most of these Senators and Congressmen, once they leave office, take jobs in the private sector through connections, friendships, and alliances they made while in office. They leave office worth more than when they entered. Or they'll start up a lobbying firm and go back to D.C. to lobby the government on behalf of their clients. Very few people take these jobs for the base salary: it's the perks that are really what attract people to the job: power and the potential of higher earnings later.

Quote :

Eliminate every single CZAR that Obama has created since he took office.

Take away the benefits of EVERY POLITICIAN (Free Health Care, Limousines, Any Meals over $20 a person, Hotel Rooms over $50 a person, Private Jets, Prostitutes, etc).

Make EVERY Politician work 5 days, 40 hours a week, 51 weeks a year!

Failure to do so will result in suspension without pay!

Well, I agree you have to make some small but symbolic cuts, however none of that is going to happen because you are asking the Democrats and the Republicans to vote to deprive themselves of something they like; something they want. Unaccountable power and privilege is the lifeblood of being a politician; to deny themselves those things is anathema to their very nature. You want to talk about an entitlement nation? It doesn't just start with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and minority set aside programs and affirmative action: it starts with the politicians. They've got their own set of entitlements and perks and they're not going to give those up voluntarily. Stopping these politicians will be difficult. They have important connections. You cannot just arrest them. You must find a different way. You may have to kill them. Does this.....discourage you?

j7wild wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I think anyone with a penis should use the boy's bathroom and anyone minus a penis should use the girl's bathroom. Simple. The injustice of it all.

Okay.... I am a Father of 3 Girls (the oldest ones are 5 and youngest one is 2) and 2 Boys (age 4 and 2).

I've taken my Girls into the Men's restroom before.

Viceversa, my wife has taken the Boys into the Women's restroom.

We are not always together i.e. when I go out with my children I don't always have my wife with me and when she goes out with them, I am not always with her.

What do y'all have to say to that?

That's fine because the parents are in control and the children are being obedient as they should to their parents. Carry on!

And this too

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

j7wild wrote:

What do y'all have to say to that?

Thaaaaaaaaaaaat you didn't really address the underlying issue of gender identity in your post, but rather obfuscated by discussing restroom availability?

J7 you and your wife, Vivisera (did I get that right?) are fine upstanding parents, ensuring that your children are provided supervised public washroom visits. Bravo!
But do try and keep the visits to a minimum. You don't want them hanging about such places when they get older. Some strange goings-on have been known to occur behind those stall doors. :pale:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Well, let's be honest - your Viceversa observation was always going to be a hard act to follow, so I just phoned that one in.

And again with this lil' dude ... :*h*: .

And you're right, tiff ... 'Daddy, what's a glory hole?' has gotta be an awkward question :shock: .

j7wild wrote:

Eliminate every single CZAR

Never took you for a Bolshevik.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279371/Christian-college-San-Diego-fires-employee-having-premarital-sex.html

Christian college fires pregnant employee for having premarital sex

Teri James was fired from the San Diego Christian College when she became pregnant, since the religious school says she violated their policy against premarital sex.

Now the single 29-year-old is suing, claiming the college discriminated against her because she was pregnant.

The school says she violated their code of conduct, signed by employees and students, that states 'no sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.'

Her attorney said that college should be considered a business entity and cannot fire someone because they become pregnant.

Her attorney is Gloria Allred, which makes the lawyer the bigger whore in this case. Note that Allred believes the college *should* be considered a business entity; but it's not, and Teri James knew that when she signed the contract. Religious schools get certain exemptions from standard law, but in this day and age the government is slowly taking away a school's rights to have a moral code, much less uphold it.

I'm with the school all the way on this case. What's the point of having a legally enforceable code of conduct if the code is unenforceable? Allred is an agent provocateur. She has no legal standing in this matter, but she is allowing this woman to believe she can successfully sue her employer. Teri James will get nothing out of this. Her time will be wasted as she foolishly strives after a case she cannot win without a judge completely ignoring the law and acting as a judicial activist. The law is clear.

And once again Allred pursues her feminist agenda of "empowering women" through assuring them that they are the victims. This plaintiff can engage in sexual activity...she can get an abortion....but she's not competent enough to read a 2 page Code of Conduct?

That's a pretty stupid thing to get fired for, but that's religion for you.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Christian college fires pregnant employee for having premarital sex

Teri James was fired from the San Diego Christian College when she became pregnant, since the religious school says she violated their policy against premarital sex.

Now the single 29-year-old is suing, claiming the college discriminated against her because she was pregnant.

Do they actually have proof she had premarital sex? Not like virgins falling pregnant is alien to their faith.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'm with the school all the way on this case. What's the point of having a legally enforceable code of conduct if the code is unenforceable?

It's basically a form of legalised discimrination. What these schools do is give parents of students a large degree of control in the running of the school. Then they make signing a Declaration of Faith a condition of employment, which basically means that the person who signs it is proclaiming that they live their life in accordance with the values of the school and the faith. If ever they do anything that violates it, the school reserves the right to fire them. They can do it because the parents have that control within the running of the school, so they have the excuse that "parents want their children to be taught by people who share their values", but it's all one giant self-serving mess because all it does is reinforce their own beliefs and deludes them into thinking they're giving their students a quality education.

In my home town, there are two Catholic and one Anglican schools that consistently place inside the top one hundred schools in the state. Then there are two public schools that are recognised as being eleigbile for certain funding programmes because of the challenges they face. One of them is inside the top five hundred schools. Then there is a Christian school - and the Christian school regularly does so poorly that last year, it fell behind the public schools in its exam marks. They actually had to close the senior classes because they just couldn't get the numbers; parents are taking their children to better schools. And it's all because the Christian school insists on filtering out their staff members on the basis of their faith

CJB wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Christian college fires pregnant employee for having premarital sex

Teri James was fired from the San Diego Christian College when she became pregnant, since the religious school says she violated their policy against premarital sex.

Now the single 29-year-old is suing, claiming the college discriminated against her because she was pregnant.

Do they actually have proof she had premarital sex? Not like virgins falling pregnant is alien to their faith.

Good work, CJB.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It's basically a form of legalised discimrination.

And?

Quote :

they have the excuse that "parents want their children to be taught by people who share their values", but it's all one giant self-serving mess because all it does is reinforce their own beliefs and deludes them into thinking they're giving their students a quality education.

A religious school is attempting to impart both a secular and a moral education. They are attempting to build character. Most schools have some sort of conduct policy that, if not followed, can result in suspension or expulsion; San Diego Christian College merely had a few more requirements than some other schools.

The bottom line is that she was willing to take the money from them and abide by their rules when it was convenient for her and she needed something from them; when she no longer felt like living up to the pledge she made, she wanted to be shielded from the consequences of her actions, which is why she now has an attorney. She is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in American society today: words, contracts....mean nothing. There is no accountability. No one wants to be held responsible for their actions. It won't be long now before she claims that the State of California owes her millions of dollars because they did not provide her with taxpayer funded birth control and now she's pregnant.

The me-first generation rolls right along into the pits of hell.

My wife, her name is NOT Viceversa, attended and graduated with Top Honors from HBU, Houston Baptist University.

They have a whole strict manual that they wanted you to sign which included rules of things you are not allowed to do while on campus:

no holding hands in public while on campus
no kissing in public while on campus
no display of public affection of any kind while on campus

etc etc

I wonder if any HBU administrators ever attended one of their Fraternity or Sorority parties to see what really goes on there?

found it here:

http://www.hbu.edu/Students-Alumni/Student-Resources/Student-Handbook/Student-Code-of-Conduct.aspx

section 4.0:

Quote :

4.0 Social, Moral, or Biblical. The following are prohibited:

4.1 Unlawful acts. Violation of any federal, state, or local law. Students convicted of a crime during continued enrollment or residential status in University housing must report this information to the Director of Student Life.

4.2 Abuse or threats. Physical abuse, verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion, and/or other conduct which threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person, including oneself, whether acted upon or not.

4.3 Sexual harassment. Including but not limited to the following:

a. Sexual advances

b. Requests for sexual favors

c. Verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that expressly or implicitly imposes conditions upon, threatens, interferes with, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for an individual’s (1) academic pursuits, (2) University employment, (3) participation in activities sponsored by the University or organizations or groups related to the University, or (4) opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University life.

4.4 Sexual assault. Acts of sexual aggression including rape, attempted rape, sexual battery, and/or assault. Any sexual act that occurs without the consent of another person or that occurs when the person is unable to give consent.

4.5 Sexual misconduct. Consensual sexual behavior when it falls outside biblical intentions and/or explicit guidelines, such as sexual intimacies outside of a heterosexual marriage, including any type of intercourse, sensual nakedness, fondling of sexual organs, or sleeping intimately with one another.

4.6 Inappropriate dating, living, or displays of affection. Including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Single students dating married persons.

b. Married students dating anyone other than their spouse.

c. Homosexual relations.

d. Cohabitation with members of the opposite sex.

e. Public affection deemed inappropriate for the context.

HBU is real big on Religion and the Bible and Jesus Christ if you skim through the entire code of conduct you will see it.

There it is, in black and white.

j7wild wrote:

My wife, her name is NOT Viceversa

Send my regards to NOT Viceversa.

NOT must be some honourary title bestowed upon spouses in that neck of the woods.

QUOTING:

Mr. Hand in Fast Times At Ridgemont High:

Quote :

What are you, people? On dope?