2017-2018 D1 Women's Soccer Talk!

Bernie Sanders said:
Why, specifically?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would have been against a boycott of southern states during Jim Crow as well. Until all our citizens are granted equal rights, it is up to us to put a spotlight on those that deny them. I'm assuming you do not have an lgbtq family member or close friend that you love denied their basic rights.
 
chargerfan said:
I'm sure you would have been against a boycott of southern states during Jim Crow as well. Until all our citizens are granted equal rights, it is up to us to put a spotlight on those that deny them. I'm assuming you do not have an lgbtq family member or close friend that you love denied their basic rights.
Click to expand...
You assume alot, but it doesnt seem like you want to specifically explain which "basic rights" are being taken away.
Are you confusing civil liberties with civil rights?
Are you referring to "basic rights" as constitutional rights?

Which "rights" ?
 
chargerfan said:
I'm sure you would have been against a boycott of southern states during Jim Crow as well. Until all our citizens are granted equal rights, it is up to us to put a spotlight on those that deny them. I'm assuming you do not have an lgbtq family member or close friend that you love denied their basic rights.
Click to expand...

You California people are f-ing retarded when it comes to social issues. 80% of the country laughs there asses off at your stupidity.
 
chargerfan said:
I'm sure you would have been against a boycott of southern states during Jim Crow as well. Until all our citizens are granted equal rights, it is up to us to put a spotlight on those that deny them. I'm assuming you do not have an lgbtq family member or close friend that you love denied their basic rights.
Click to expand...
I'll disregard the baseless insinuation, and give you the benefit of the doubt.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that our state legislature disagrees with the state legislature of another state.
The legislatures of both states are duly elected by the citizens of those states to represent them.
Both states fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government where "basic" constitutional, civil, and federal laws demand adherence to our constitution.
States rights are protected under the constitution as well, and this is the crux of the argument.

How would you like it if Texas and Kentucky or South Carolina decided they knew better than the people of our state, how we should run it under the framework of the US Constitution?
 
Let the kids play their games, and take the political game to capitol hill.
We dont need any political group using sports as a weapon against their poilitical adversaries.

btw, I didnt bring this up.
I just disagree with the tactic.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Let the kids play their games, and take the political game to capitol hill.
We dont need any political group using sports as a weapon against their poilitical adversaries.

btw, I didnt bring this up.
I just disagree with the tactic.
Click to expand...

I brought it up and to be quite honest with you creatively discriminatory laws are commonplace in the South. I'm sorry but there are absolutes and those states will change once something that matters to them is affected.
 
MakeAPlay said:
I brought it up and to be quite honest with you creatively discriminatory laws are commonplace in the South. I'm sorry but there are absolutes and those states will change once something that matters to them is affected.
Click to expand...
Commonplace?
Can you tell me which laws you are referring to?
Are there any "creatively discriminating" laws in California?
 
MakeAPlay said:
I brought it up and to be quite honest with you creatively discriminatory laws are commonplace in the South. I'm sorry but there are absolutes and those states will change once something that matters to them is affected.
Click to expand...
Again, retarded. Not one legislature gives a shit about women's college soccer. Now I am laughing.
 
push_up said:
Again, retarded. No one gives a shit about women's college soccer. Now I am laughing.
Click to expand...
I give a shit about it, but to be honest, only because my daughters play it.
I think the intended "boycott" includes other sports as well.

My take, is that we have a social crusade, pretending to be a real civil rights cause.

Nobody will even tell me which "basic rights" are being infringed.
 
No basic rights are being infringed. You can still stick your stick and platinum vajeen where you want. You can dress up as a girl or boy. You can even think you are a girl or a boy with or without a stick. You can even be queer if you choose. The point is that you can choose but I don't have to agree with it. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
You assume alot, but it doesnt seem like you want to specifically explain which "basic rights" are being taken away.
Are you confusing civil liberties with civil rights?
Are you referring to "basic rights" as constitutional rights?

Which "rights" ?
Click to expand...

The rights to marry, start a family, join an extracurricular at a public school, use the damn restroom, etc. based on gender or sexuality.

I believe you need to look up the definition of civil rights.

So I assumed correctly?
 
push_up said:
No basic rights are being infringed. You can still stick your stick and platinum vajeen where you want. You can dress up as a girl or boy. You can even think you are a girl or a boy with or without a stick. You can even be queer if you choose. The point is that you can choose but I don't have to agree with it. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Click to expand...


Came for the soccer talk, ended up getting bigotry and ignorance. Trumps America, ladies and gentlemen.
 
chargerfan said:
The rights to marry, start a family, join an extracurricular at a public school, use the damn restroom, etc. based on gender or sexuality.

I believe you need to look up the definition of civil rights.

So I assumed correctly?
Click to expand...
The right to marry is not exclusive. We can come back to that.
Which extracurriculars are people being unfairly discriminated against, and who is not allowed to use the restroom?

We need to be specific in order to understand what this is about.
This "boycott will affect a lot of people. I just want to understand what we are talking about here.
 
chargerfan said:
Came for the soccer talk, ended up getting bigotry and ignorance. Trumps America, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...
I am trying to understand your point of view, and have not said one hateful word.
Ive even been patient with your less than civil insinuations toward me.

I did not bring this up.
Im just providing an alternative view of the situation.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
I am trying to understand your point of view, and have not said one hateful word.
Ive even been patient with your less than civil insinuations toward me.

I did not bring this up.
Im just providing an alternative view of the situation.
Click to expand...

The hateful post I was referring to has thankfully been deleted. It wasn't yours.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
The right to marry is not exclusive. We can come back to that.
Which extracurriculars are people being unfairly discriminated against, and who is not allowed to use the restroom?

We need to be specific in order to understand what this is about.
This "boycott will affect a lot of people. I just want to understand what we are talking about here.
Click to expand...

It is not exclusive in the way the 1st amendment is not exclusive. The government has a compelling interest in not allowing children to marry, family members to marry, etc. In the absence of compelling govt interest, there is the right to marry. Are you suggesting the govt has an interest in disallowing gay marriage?

Any extracurricular in ky (and maybe other states now) can refuse to allow a student join based on "religious freedom". So you have a gay daughter in bfe,ky who isn't offered a spot on her soccer team at her public high school bc of her sexuality.

Who is not allowed to use the restroom? Any trans person who does not find it worth the embarrassment and probably harassment for using the restroom that coincides with their birth gender.
 
chargerfan said:
It is not exclusive in the way the 1st amendment is not exclusive. The government has a compelling interest in not allowing children to marry, family members to marry, etc. In the absence of compelling govt interest, there is the right to marry. Are you suggesting the govt has an interest in disallowing gay marriage?

Any extracurricular in ky (and maybe other states now) can refuse to allow a student join based on "religious freedom". So you have a gay daughter in bfe,ky who isn't offered a spot on her soccer team at her public high school bc of her sexuality.

Who is not allowed to use the restroom? Any trans person who does not find it worth the embarrassment and probably harassment for using the restroom that coincides with their birth gender.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is legal in some states, and not legal in others, although I think the union is recognized in all 50. The "union" has equal protections under federal law.
I have a sister who is gay, and lives in the south, with her "partner", and is doing great.
Is there a public school in Kentucky that would not allow a female soccer player to play on a female soccer team because she's lesbian? If that is the case, I dont agree with it.
The restroom issue concerns not only the rights of the "trans", but the rights of others who wish to use the restroom of their designated gender.
Who's rights are more important?

This is a state and local issue that is best determined locally.
I dont want men in the bathroom with my daughters, but you may live in a town where everyone loves it
As a plumber, I understand plumbing, and how public restrooms are designed, not to embarrass, or empower people, but to accommodate a bodily function based on the plumbing "particulars" of the gender designated on the door.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Gay marriage is legal in some states, and not legal in others, although I think the union is recognized in all 50. The "union" has equal protections under federal law.
I have a sister who is gay, and lives in the south, with her "partner", and is doing great.
Is there a public school in Kentucky that would not allow a female soccer player to play on a female soccer team because she's lesbian? If that is the case, I dont agree with it.
The restroom issue concerns not only the rights of the "trans", but the rights of others who wish to use the restroom of their designated gender.
Who's rights are more important?

This is a state and local issue that is best determined locally.
I dont want men in the bathroom with my daughters, but you may live in a town where everyone loves it
As a plumber, I understand plumbing, and how public restrooms are designed, not to embarrass, or empower people, but to accommodate a bodily function based on the plumbing "particulars" of the gender designated on the door.
Click to expand...

Who is not being able to use the restroom of their choice because of the trans community?

I am speaking of the embarrassment of a trans man who has to use the women's restroom under this law. I can tell you that every woman in there will tell him "wrong bathroom!", and when he doesn't exit, will either intervene further or call for security. Just because the guy needs to pee. And who knows what sort of comments would be made to a trans woman using the men's restroom. Especially at a bar or night club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top