NC law requires this person to use the ladies room. What did the law solve?
Posted on 04/22/2016 3:43:54 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign is a machine with a broken off switch, and it’s America’s terrible, rotten, no-good luck to have to watch it play on until its batteries die. His is a shallow campaign, energetically devoted to winning votes on the cheap. He continues to ask the very least of the same America he wants to lead. This morning he blasted Donald Trump for being soft on the bathroom issue. “Gosh, he thought that men should be able to go into the girls’ bathroom if they want to,” he told a crowd hundreds strong in Frederick, Md., reports Washington bureau chief Todd Gillman. “Have we gone stark raving nuts?” Trump’s offending comments? Earlier Trump had been asked about North Carolina’s ...
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com ...
“No, they nailed Cruz to the tee!”
This fake unsupported rant? I think not.
“Hey, if you don’t like where The Donald stands on a given issue. . . . give him 5 minutes. 30, tops. .”
No kidding he went from liberal to moderate practically over
night and next week he’s going to try to convince the fanatics
he’s conservative.
“Applying absolute criteria on every trivial issue is a great way to insure that no one at all consults your opinion on anything.”
That’s right, who wants the opinion of a principled, moral,
god loving conservative American citizen? Loose the group
think and all be of same mind. Individuality and rugged
individualism must end and we all become on with the state.
And remember, your opinion matters only if I agree./s
I hate absolutes my self. So few they are.
NC law requires this person to use the ladies room. What did the law solve?
She’s a woman. She should use the ladies room.
A perfect post!
It is about the privacy and security of our women.
Any man recognizes this. Those who've been cuckolded by the culture do not.
And when they are kicked out or thumped for being in the ladies room, who do they sue?
“This is the kind of wedge social issue that is substantively meaningless,”
That’s a very shallow thought. First it’s homo weddings,
then it’s the perverted cross dressers. Whats next?
Open pedophilia? Erasing the age of sexual consent?
Exactly where do you intend on drawing the line on
these social perverted wedge issues?
Let’s get a little deeper. What about the abuse that is
going to occur with these meaningless wedge social issue.
Are you willing to accept male perverts dressing as women
in the restroom that little girls use?
I say it’s a big issue and anyone who supports it is about
as ungodly and unAmerican as you can get.
Why would they sue?
“It is not a trivial issue.
It is about the privacy and security of our women.”
And our children.
These so called “trivial social issues”
are just cracks in the dyke. All for the vote of the
perverted class or demographic or whatever. These are issues
liberals have no shame in promoting for the vote.
Doesn’t say much for Trump and that’s a shame because all it
leads to is more unsupported childish rants like this
article to paint the conservative bad and give the
northeastern moderate a pass.
I don’t think the system cares about transsexuals at all. They’re just useful idiots in the ongoing attempt to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat through the destruction of a formerly strong Christian culture.
At a certain point, standing on principle is indistinguishable from a refusal to make difficult choices.
Ultimately these are merely excuses for an abdication of responsibility.
Some things are more important than other things and if you refuse to choose, others will make those choices for you, without your input.
It is a trivial issue because the chances are pretty good that you will never actually encounter that situation, and if you do, there are alternative means of dealing with it, such as having an escort. Women always go to the bathroom in pairs anyway, if you hadn’t noticed - they’ve solved the problem long ago, and they do it precisely for that reason.
“At a certain point, standing on principle is indistinguishable from a refusal to make difficult choices.
Ultimately these are merely excuses for an abdication of responsibility.
Some things are more important than other things and if you refuse to choose, others will make those choices for you, without your input.”
That has got to be the biggest load of crap I’ve seen posted
today. Standing on principal is “Abdication of responsibility”?
If that were the case, the United States would never have been founded.
Where are you getting this BS? No, Really where.
Feel free to dig into your “I’m too principled to deal with politics” position all you like. It will ensure that you have no input in policy, and we’re probably all better off that that will be the case.
Let me try to put this in terms you may understand.
When we can’t even get a solidly Republican Congress that holds both chambers to NOT fund Planned Parenthood to the tunes of billions per year, what do you think the chances are of overturning Roe?
Good thing rapists know that women travel in pairs. That must be why we haven’t had any in the last 1000 years.
Well, then, problem solved.
:>)
Fight humor with humor. You’re a good guy, thoughtomator
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.