Here's what's simple: "You're right. I should not take things out of context in a desperate attempt to mis-represent what you think. I should allow you the courtesy to represent your own thoughts on matters. I, and my ilk, will do this no more!" --Northside Storm
"I should not venture into threads, get my ass kicked in with facts, then narrow then on one sentence that I refuse to clarify." Giddy, you have a HISTORY of posts that make me think you'd think that way, please just search yourself and deficit. Unless you think you're misrepresenting yourself all the time. This is neither here nor there though: if you REALLY gave a s**t about starving children, you'd easily condemn the Republican Congress AND Obama. Full stop. The fact that you can't strains credibility. Go on then, clarify yourself, nobody's stopping you, you drama queen. And if you choose not to, leave your illogic and apathy to some other cause that doesn't need it.
Ass kicked in with facts? Wasn't it you who said there were no fines and penalties in NC relative to the Charlotte ordinance? There are. Sorry but it's just not okay for you to misrepresent me by quoting me out of context and then try and make it apply to a completely separate issue and then make out like I'm the one offending when I point it out. What have I refused to clarify? A new issue that you drag into the fray to make it seem like that's what you were talking about all the time?! Talk about drama queen!
Giddy, now you're "misrepresenting" what I said, not that I'm going to freak out about it "ohhhhhh this is so wrong"--look, here is my clarifying 1) I have a problem when you say it applies to all businesses when it doesn't, as Politfact pointed out. 2) "System of fines" is an exaggeration beyond merit when you see what the law actually applies for different categories of businesses who would be subject to the law. For many, unless you consider the city cancelling contracts with you, that simply wouldn't be the case. You think you're being misrepresented? Show me differently. That is my opinion of you based on the history of your posts on the deficit and our previous engagements and it's not going to change unless you show me otherwise. I really don't give a s**t if you think that's "right or wrong", this is my belief and you have not proven it otherwise. You're the one who brought up Obama's threat to "starving children" and used them as some macabre prop in a debate you cannot reason with. I wanted to point out your hypocrisy. You haven't disappointed. You never do.
1. I did not say it applies to all businesses. I merely recited what the article said that it applies to businesses both public and private. 2. I would consider the cancelling of a contract a "fine." I know the city and the workers who were counting on the revenues and the paycheck from the cancelled Bruce Springsteen concert and the Cirque de Soleil performance among others as more than a fine-- there was no appeal, no protest, no legal protection. Money just gone! So actually it is worse than a fine... 3. Believe what you want. I will correct you as needed. 4. I brought up the lunch thing because that is what Attorney General Forrester said in the radio interview. You make it sound like I just manufactured some Obama-bashing. You take a lot of leeway with the words of others and sprinkle your prejudice all over it. You're a loose cannon. :grin:
Good lord, the "conservative" party has no idea what it is doing. These are the issues of small government? Freaking pathetic individuals who support these clowns.
uhhh...nice recitation. ^ Hey Giddy, do you give a s**t about these kids or are you just using them as a prop? Not only a prop but a recited prop from some terrible talking point? Reexamine your fundamental beliefs if it's the latter LOL. Remind me when a majority of Republican legistators have started actually caring about starving children "Correct me as needed"--1 and 2 show me that you have no idea what the f**k you're talking about which is what I pointed out. "System of fines". Very systematic denial of contracts for certain business types I wouldn't doubt that you have no coherence about what your own internal views are given how muddied you are when it comes to facts. As for being a loose cannon--I can be whatever I want and you'll still be on the wrong side of history, legislation, and cultural change. I personally enjoy being a loose cannon. And yes, I am EXTREMELY prejudiced against irrational belief systems and thought patterns I think deserve to die and have no place in policy debates. If only those ideas would die faster.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/more-than-250-sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-condemn-anti-t hmm.
Sadly when it comes to the 2 major parties in the US you have the big government party and the other big government party.....and that's the problem. It truly is pathetic that people support either of those 2 parties.
I am not sure why you're quoting me. I only posted a humorous photo. But since you want to continue ... I cant take this spokesperson serious. I dont want to debate the fear of a man in the womens bathroom. Focusing on this quote, how exactly do they intend on keeping men out of womens bathrooms? By asking a transgender if they really are transgender is harassment. There is NO measure of enforcement. Do you not see why this who debate is stupid? As long as there is segregation between the sex's, TG's will be forever harassed. If I need to take a piss and I have two options, option A is to piss in peace, or option B is to face harassment to piss, guess which one Im going to use.
As long as there is religion, and stupid animus, TGs are going to be forever harassed, that doesn't mean steps should be taken to protect their rights in critical areas that might dull some of that. And again, this is NOT JUST ABOUT BATHROOMS. but let's stick there as that seems to be the only point of contention: Completely and utterly wrong. Note that this applies to businesses and not individuals, the apocalypse of "mutual resolution". http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...le-was-absolutely-not-protected-under-the-law Wow, that kinda sounds like the compromise you're always banging on about. Already implemented in 20 states. I myself have more radical views on the whole thing, but it's nice that some people can think of accommodation for the binary borings out there. It's like this developed, workable system that 20 states have implemented for years. woah.
That wasn't the case. For example, Springsteen turned down a payday and he cost the city money and all the employees at the Coliseum who work events. In sum, he dumped on people who had NOTHING to do with any of this. Perhaps better to have performed, used his bully pulpit to say whatever he had to say, and donate his money to a cause that works for what he wants to see happen. Maybe it's just me and my "irrational belief system!" Instead, he "punished" a community who did not make the law.
Well, yes, as far as freedom of choice goes. Springsteen turned down probably a very large sum of money to gyrate on stage for a few hours. He could have donated that money to the "Flush HB2 Committee." Instead he decides to cancel and cost all those who work in the cottage industries supporting coliseum events: security, ticketing, vending, etc... a payday. Yes, he's free. He probably didn't even miss the payday, really.
Since I'm still here: I'm free to criticize a choice if I see a problem with it. If he's going to be opportunistic about his decision, he is open to criticsm. He did publish a statement which directly linked his decision to the state legislature's passing of HB2. People in public life are not above criticism. Bye.
