He thinks he is soooo much smarter than the people in Texas!
Sounds to me like he is the HATER!
Posted on 11/05/2015 8:21:20 AM PST by Zakeet
The problems with transgenders isn’t that society rejects them, but that they have already rejected themselves. One cannot help a cancer patient by telling them, “That lump sure looks good on you!”
Read down through the comments, you have to pick the “all” tab first, though, or you’ll get only the “best” comments, which of course The Slimes gets to pick.
There are some really good one.
It's so subjective in today's PC world, it's meaningless.
Maybe they can have a chat with pajama boy later to discuss their feelings.
Who vilifies them? They suffer from a mental disturbance and are overly sensitive to what they imagine other people think of them. (It’s actually what they think of themselves. They know they are abnormal.)
I'm not all that sure about that. Hope you're right, though.
Look at the list of leftist "freedoms":
murdering the unborn
transgender insanity including full genital mutilation
single parenthood, despite proven pathological effects on children
promotion of homosexual behavior despite is high correlation with mental illness and disease
heterosexual promiscuity (at least for women), despite its high correlation with mental illness and disease
Rejected freedoms actually protected by the Constitution:
freedom of religious belief and practice
freedom of speech
freedom of association
freedom of contract
equality under law
Current leftist opinion is close to achieving the full totalitarian inversion of good and evil characteristic of Nazism and Communism.
BINGO!!
Looks like there was a sale on special characters and Jim bought them out.
Yeah, the even characters get their own “special rights,” even on FR.
The New York Times Editorial Board
The editorial board is composed of 19 journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise. Their primary responsibility is to write The Times’s editorials, which represent the voice of the board, its editor and the publisher.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/09/21/opinion/Rosenthal.jpg
Andrew Mark Rosenthal (born February 25, 1956) is an American journalist and editorial page editor of The New York Times. He is the son of A.M. “Abe” Rosenthal, a long time New York Times senior executive and executive editor. Andrew Rosenthal is in charge of the paper’s opinion pages, both in the newspaper and online. He oversees the editorial board, the Letters and Op-Ed departments, as well as the Editorial and Op-Ed sections of NYTimes.com.
******
1/7/14
In his public temper tantrum — the editorial titled “Republicans React to Benghazi News†— Rosenthal showed his true colors in hitting the GOP for daring to respond to a highly-suspect front page story in the Times.
The story asserted that al Qaeda had no involvement in the Benghazi terrorist attack, which killed four heroic Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Rosenthal opened his diatribe against the GOP by saying: “The article The Times published on Benghazi this weekend infuriated many Republicans, who ran screaming to television studios.â€
Next, Rosenthal summed up what he believed is the real reason Republicans are upset at his newspaper:
“For anyone wondering why it’s so important to Republicans that Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack…the answer is simple. The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take Al Qaeda seriously. They also want to throw mud at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they fear will run for president in 2016.â€
Second, Rosenthal fails to acknowledge that maybe some Republicans – who he seems to view as the enemy – simply want to get to the truth of the matter.
Rosenthal closed by saying: “Which brings us to one particularly hilarious theme in the response to the Times investigation ... The Times was ‘already laying the groundwork’ for a Clinton campaign. ... Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton. We have not chosen anyone.â€
Like Obama, whom he often defends, Rosenthal was given much in life. At a very early age, Obama was inserted into the protective and forgiving bubble of political correctness, while Rosenthal was inserted into the bubble of nepotism, wealth, and privilege.
Nor will history be kind to the liars at the NYT’s editorial board aka Andrew Rosenthal who most of the time gets it wrong (as in Benghazi terrorist attack on our Embassy)!
It's amazing to me that liberals such as Rosenthal (Mr. silver spoon, ivory tower fool who probably never set foot in Texas for fear he would catch something) are so sure that they can predict 'history'!
And since when does an editorial board aka Andrew Rosenthal call anyone who doesn't agree with him 'haters'. He doesn't know anything about the people who voted NO, much less have the ability to read their minds!
We don't have to read his, we already know he doesn't have a clue about much of anything unless it is what wine to serve at the next cocktail party with a bunch of FREAKS!
He thinks he is soooo much smarter than the people in Texas!
Sounds to me like he is the HATER!
I think you are right. In fact, I have come to think that transgender activism is incidental to this campaign, simply a convenient wedge for pressing other agendas.
From a forensic standpoint, the fascinating thing is how rapidly mixed-sex bathrooms and school locker rooms have become iron-clad, hysterically defended dogma on the left. Suggest that people with penises don't belong in girls' locker rooms, and that girls have a privacy right at stake, and suddenly you are a bigot, end of argument. This has happened virtually overnight. The same thing happened on gay marriage, of course; one day, it was "we just want the same rights everyone else has, and no more," and two days later, the thought police are out tracking down anyone who declines to join the celebration, and driving them from the public square.
That said, as a practical matter, the number of transgendered people is vanishingly small, and the number of transgendered people who want to create a ruckus over it, I suspect, is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Left to themselves, I do not think middle school, high school, and college age transgenders, or their parents, would press the issue with this ferocity. I think the push is coming from the radical gender warriors who want to eradicate all social and legal distinctions between the sexes. Using the transgender issue to get penis people into girls' locker rooms and rest rooms is a next step, but not the last step by any means. It is an assault on the right to privacy and a perfectly conscious effort to undermine any vestige of sexual modesty. The radicals want middle and high school boys and girls showering together. They want a promiscuous culture, the earlier the better, and believe that institutionalized nudity contributes to it. They like the idea of teenage girls getting used to having naked boys around; it will soften them up before college, although the boys will still be under the microscope lest they slip up and show any overt interest without prior written consent.
I'm probably not putting this very well, but those of us of an age will remember Herbert Marcuse's call for "polymorphous perversity" and the deliberate promiscuity of the New Left, which was ideologically driven in an effort to "smash patriarchy" and destroy the nuclear family. These goals are very much in play. The vanguard of the gender warriors on the left want boys and girls showering together. Most of them won't admit it publicly, and none of the democratic politicians will, but that is where the direction, energy, and intensity are coming from. And as on so many other issues, no one in the mainstream of the democratic party or the leftist media has the backbone to stand up against the lunatic fringe that is driving the bus.
I will guess that very few of the vanishingly few 15 year old boys who identify with the girls want to cause the girls any distress. After all, they want to be friends with them, not nuisances or embarrassments. Most of them, left to themselves, will go out of their way to respect the girls' privacy. They will use the boys' facilities as they've always done. Or they will wait until the girls' restroom is clear. Or they will use a single seat bathroom and lock the door. Or they will shower after everyone else, or wait until they get home. But the activists are pushing the issue for other reasons, and using the sexually confused kids as cannon fodder.
overwhelmingly negative in fact. I read about 50 of them.
To the suicidal queers we say, “JUMP!”.
When I was in high school If I had been allowed into the girls shower room (even in a dress) it would have been pretty damn obvious that I was not a girl.
Political correctness just won’t prevent the (rise) of the male hormones.
Of course I went to a pretty tough school, the young ladies would have probably done a Lorena Bobbit on me.
In TX we say DO IT (which is likely a fraud fab they got away with, in Pflugerville) ! they hate that
The Slimes has locked their comments. Too many opposing opinions, I guess.
There are no “rights” for transgender men to intimidate women and girls in a bathroom. This is insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.