Hello folks. It has been some time since we have had a good Mattbrot principle conversation. For those who are unfamiliar this principle is based on exposing politicians or political practices, of either political affiliation, that are incomprehensible and hypocritical. For the record I did not coin the term "mattbrot principle". That was coined by Searchwarrant. However, as a non-partisan independent I do like to point out and discuss hypocrisies of both political parties.
This one is a little overdue and comes to us in the form of the transgender debate. I will make it short and welcome discussion.
North Carolina is the target of this discussion.
On February 23rd of 2016 Charlotte ( a major city in NC) passed a law that allowed transgender people to use a restroom that corresponds to heir gender identity.
Cool right? I guess.maybe so maybe not. I really do not care. But.......
A month later the Republican governor overturned that bill. Afterall republicans are for big government decisions right???
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Hello folks. It has been some time since we have had a good Mattbrot principle conversation. For those who are unfamiliar this principle is based on exposing politicians or political practices, of either political affiliation, that are incomprehensible and hypocritical. For the record I did not coin the term "mattbrot principle". That was coined by Searchwarrant. However, as a non-partisan independent I do like to point out and discuss hypocrisies of both political parties.
This one is a little overdue and comes to us in the form of the transgender debate. I will make it short and welcome discussion.
North Carolina is the target of this discussion.
On February 23rd of 2016 Charlotte ( a major city in NC) passed a law that allowed transgender people to use a restroom that corresponds to heir gender identity.
Cool right? I guess.maybe so maybe not. I really do not care. But.......
A month later the Republican governor overturned that bill. Afterall republicans are for big government decisions right???
Now NC is being sued by the US Justice dept. and NC is holding strong because they should not be told what to do in their state. So much so that they are suing back. And risking significant funding from government and losing concerts, athletic events etc... In the process.
Not only are they extremely hypocritical but they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
But hey we can tell our cities what to do but I will be damned if the us government will tell me anything.
0
Now NC is being sued by the US Justice dept. and NC is holding strong because they should not be told what to do in their state. So much so that they are suing back. And risking significant funding from government and losing concerts, athletic events etc... In the process.
Not only are they extremely hypocritical but they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
But hey we can tell our cities what to do but I will be damned if the us government will tell me anything.
Hello folks. It has been some time since we have had a good Mattbrot principle conversation. For those who are unfamiliar this principle is based on exposing politicians or political practices, of either political affiliation, that are incomprehensible and hypocritical. For the record I did not coin the term "mattbrot principle". That was coined by Searchwarrant. However, as a non-partisan independent I do like to point out and discuss hypocrisies of both political parties.
This one is a little overdue and comes to us in the form of the transgender debate. I will make it short and welcome discussion.
North Carolina is the target of this discussion.
On February 23rd of 2016 Charlotte ( a major city in NC) passed a law that allowed transgender people to use a restroom that corresponds to heir gender identity.
Cool right? I guess.maybe so maybe not. I really do not care. But....... 5 A month later the Republican governor overturned that bill. Afterall republicans are for big government decisions right???
You lost me here. What do you mean by this?
Pay attention dl36...this is how you properly quote someone.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Hello folks. It has been some time since we have had a good Mattbrot principle conversation. For those who are unfamiliar this principle is based on exposing politicians or political practices, of either political affiliation, that are incomprehensible and hypocritical. For the record I did not coin the term "mattbrot principle". That was coined by Searchwarrant. However, as a non-partisan independent I do like to point out and discuss hypocrisies of both political parties.
This one is a little overdue and comes to us in the form of the transgender debate. I will make it short and welcome discussion.
North Carolina is the target of this discussion.
On February 23rd of 2016 Charlotte ( a major city in NC) passed a law that allowed transgender people to use a restroom that corresponds to heir gender identity.
Cool right? I guess.maybe so maybe not. I really do not care. But....... 5 A month later the Republican governor overturned that bill. Afterall republicans are for big government decisions right???
You lost me here. What do you mean by this?
Pay attention dl36...this is how you properly quote someone.
Disagree w applicability. Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. if a municipality of the state is guilty of an overreach it would then seem within the governors discretion to take action to negate the municipalities action. Also, the gov would then object to Washington trying to meddle. If anything, it would be hypocritical for them to sacrifice principle by giving in to Washington rather than cutting off their nose to spite their face as is suggested. This as all other posts r clearly written from a liberal slant rather than a true Gary Big hands Johnson perspective.
0
Disagree w applicability. Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. if a municipality of the state is guilty of an overreach it would then seem within the governors discretion to take action to negate the municipalities action. Also, the gov would then object to Washington trying to meddle. If anything, it would be hypocritical for them to sacrifice principle by giving in to Washington rather than cutting off their nose to spite their face as is suggested. This as all other posts r clearly written from a liberal slant rather than a true Gary Big hands Johnson perspective.
from a true conservative (i.e. anti-republican) limited government perspective, i agree with some points both mattbrot and shiek made. if the city of charlotte wants to make laws dealing with bathrooms and other issues concerning lgbt people, that's certainly not a small government approach and i would be against it unless it is necessary to address an imminent problem. that being said, the answer to too much government (in this case, at the city level) is never more government at a higher level (i.e. the state level) so in that way, the state's actions are worse and i can appreciate the argument regarding hypocrisy.
however, as a true limited government conservative, i certainly have to object to this comment:
Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. i'm not sure the republican politician exists who is actually in favor of limited government (unless it suits their particular agenda, of course), but i certainly don't believe the NC governor does. i think this guy saw an opportunity to appease the religious fanatics with a law that doesn't just address this bathroom issue but also deals with other lgbt issues. this is the kind of issue your average republican can wrap his brain around and get fired up about (as opposed to real issues that actually affect them) and this clown has an election coming up.
all that being said, my overriding opinion was expressed in the other thread and i will repeat it here:
honestly, i've heard rightwingers talk about the pussification of
america and i just thought that was another stupid generalization they
like throw out there rather than discuss real issues. but after seeing
this transgender issue come up, i think it's a real thing. which is to
say, nothing illustrates the pussification of america more than
rightwingers who are scared of transgender people. even worse, "smal
government conservatives" are supporting states that area actually
making laws dealing with bathroom etiquette and creating a safe space
for them from the scary transgender people.
but to answer your
question, i imagine not one of these rightwingers can show us a post or a
tweet or any communication indicating transgender people were a problem
a couple of weeks ago. but, after NC made that "i'm such a f*cking
box" law and foxnews told these people to be scared of them, now they
are.
0
from a true conservative (i.e. anti-republican) limited government perspective, i agree with some points both mattbrot and shiek made. if the city of charlotte wants to make laws dealing with bathrooms and other issues concerning lgbt people, that's certainly not a small government approach and i would be against it unless it is necessary to address an imminent problem. that being said, the answer to too much government (in this case, at the city level) is never more government at a higher level (i.e. the state level) so in that way, the state's actions are worse and i can appreciate the argument regarding hypocrisy.
however, as a true limited government conservative, i certainly have to object to this comment:
Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. i'm not sure the republican politician exists who is actually in favor of limited government (unless it suits their particular agenda, of course), but i certainly don't believe the NC governor does. i think this guy saw an opportunity to appease the religious fanatics with a law that doesn't just address this bathroom issue but also deals with other lgbt issues. this is the kind of issue your average republican can wrap his brain around and get fired up about (as opposed to real issues that actually affect them) and this clown has an election coming up.
all that being said, my overriding opinion was expressed in the other thread and i will repeat it here:
honestly, i've heard rightwingers talk about the pussification of
america and i just thought that was another stupid generalization they
like throw out there rather than discuss real issues. but after seeing
this transgender issue come up, i think it's a real thing. which is to
say, nothing illustrates the pussification of america more than
rightwingers who are scared of transgender people. even worse, "smal
government conservatives" are supporting states that area actually
making laws dealing with bathroom etiquette and creating a safe space
for them from the scary transgender people.
but to answer your
question, i imagine not one of these rightwingers can show us a post or a
tweet or any communication indicating transgender people were a problem
a couple of weeks ago. but, after NC made that "i'm such a f*cking
box" law and foxnews told these people to be scared of them, now they
are.
Shiek and Club -- Both points are well taken. As with anything -- nothing is ever as black and white as we like to portray them.
However, regardless of view I do think that the "functional end result" could be analogous to cutting off your nose to spite your face - If the government truly does withhold funding for things such as education and if NC continues to experience backlash in terms of concerts, sporting events etc...
All things that will cost their economy and job market dramatically.
0
Shiek and Club -- Both points are well taken. As with anything -- nothing is ever as black and white as we like to portray them.
However, regardless of view I do think that the "functional end result" could be analogous to cutting off your nose to spite your face - If the government truly does withhold funding for things such as education and if NC continues to experience backlash in terms of concerts, sporting events etc...
All things that will cost their economy and job market dramatically.
yeah, NC is taking a beating over this. it's insane. why would you put the state through that? if you are going to take a stand over something that has such a high cost to your state, why not do it over something that actually helps people rather than so transparently just pandering to the nuts.
0
yeah, NC is taking a beating over this. it's insane. why would you put the state through that? if you are going to take a stand over something that has such a high cost to your state, why not do it over something that actually helps people rather than so transparently just pandering to the nuts.
yeah, NC is taking a beating over this. it's insane. why would you put the state through that? if you are going to take a stand over something that has such a high cost to your state, why not do it over something that actually helps people rather than so transparently just pandering to the nuts.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
yeah, NC is taking a beating over this. it's insane. why would you put the state through that? if you are going to take a stand over something that has such a high cost to your state, why not do it over something that actually helps people rather than so transparently just pandering to the nuts.
Disagree w applicability. Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. if a municipality of the state is guilty of an overreach it would then seem within the governors discretion to take action to negate the municipalities action. Also, the gov would then object to Washington trying to meddle. If anything, it would be hypocritical for them to sacrifice principle by giving in to Washington rather than cutting off their nose to spite their face as is suggested. This as all other posts r clearly written from a liberal slant rather than a true Gary Big hands Johnson perspective.
Actually as I reread this I have a slightly differing opinion.
First off -- obviously there needs to be some level of oversight whether you are for big or small government. You can not have every individual free to do as they please.
However, in this situation the state of NC is saying the buck stops here. The US government can not tell us what to do. But that the state of NC can tell what its city governments have to do. In essence NC is the US government in this situation.
0
Quote Originally Posted by shiek:
Disagree w applicability. Repub gov is for states rights and limited govt. if a municipality of the state is guilty of an overreach it would then seem within the governors discretion to take action to negate the municipalities action. Also, the gov would then object to Washington trying to meddle. If anything, it would be hypocritical for them to sacrifice principle by giving in to Washington rather than cutting off their nose to spite their face as is suggested. This as all other posts r clearly written from a liberal slant rather than a true Gary Big hands Johnson perspective.
Actually as I reread this I have a slightly differing opinion.
First off -- obviously there needs to be some level of oversight whether you are for big or small government. You can not have every individual free to do as they please.
However, in this situation the state of NC is saying the buck stops here. The US government can not tell us what to do. But that the state of NC can tell what its city governments have to do. In essence NC is the US government in this situation.
If u follow that rationale to its logical conclusion then a state could never tell a city what to do under any circumstance, which I think is not tenable.
As to the merits, as I've noted the crazies on both sides hijack every issue, which is why nothing ever gets done and hence a wack like trump has a legit shot. Club dirt, the right wing wackos r pressing the fear monger button here but it's not the nc gov. He has specifically said its a question of privacy. I don't really have a dog in the hunt but I do think the privacy issue should be addressed and this is clearly a situation where the left is seeking unisex bathrooms. As long as ever1 is ok w that ultimate solution and it is addressed in a reasonable manner I have no problem it personally. Something tells me that's not going to happen
0
If u follow that rationale to its logical conclusion then a state could never tell a city what to do under any circumstance, which I think is not tenable.
As to the merits, as I've noted the crazies on both sides hijack every issue, which is why nothing ever gets done and hence a wack like trump has a legit shot. Club dirt, the right wing wackos r pressing the fear monger button here but it's not the nc gov. He has specifically said its a question of privacy. I don't really have a dog in the hunt but I do think the privacy issue should be addressed and this is clearly a situation where the left is seeking unisex bathrooms. As long as ever1 is ok w that ultimate solution and it is addressed in a reasonable manner I have no problem it personally. Something tells me that's not going to happen
Shiek - I get what you are saying. And regulation needs to be there at some level for sure. But that is the crux of the conversation and the fine line. But who gets to draw that line? In this case NC is saying both -- 1) how dare you tell me what to do and 2) how dare you not listen to me.
I am against big government but at the same time I am for big government.
0
Shiek - I get what you are saying. And regulation needs to be there at some level for sure. But that is the crux of the conversation and the fine line. But who gets to draw that line? In this case NC is saying both -- 1) how dare you tell me what to do and 2) how dare you not listen to me.
I am against big government but at the same time I am for big government.
If u follow that rationale to its logical conclusion then a state could
never tell a city what to do under any circumstance, which I think is
not tenable.
can't the same thing be said if you substitute federal government for "state" and state for "city"?
beyond that, has anyone ever heard of this bathroom/transgender issue being a problem before this very recent fake outrage? to me, the solution isn't unisex bathrooms so much as the solution is just nothing. there's no problem so we have no need for a solution.
0
If u follow that rationale to its logical conclusion then a state could
never tell a city what to do under any circumstance, which I think is
not tenable.
can't the same thing be said if you substitute federal government for "state" and state for "city"?
beyond that, has anyone ever heard of this bathroom/transgender issue being a problem before this very recent fake outrage? to me, the solution isn't unisex bathrooms so much as the solution is just nothing. there's no problem so we have no need for a solution.
Not sure of the entire genesis of the issue in NC but whatever... the issue is now b4 every state thanks to administation response. Also, it was an issue because transgenders r not happy w current situation and r requesting equal protection.
0
Not sure of the entire genesis of the issue in NC but whatever... the issue is now b4 every state thanks to administation response. Also, it was an issue because transgenders r not happy w current situation and r requesting equal protection.
maybe it was some issue somewhere, but i'd never heard of it. and i certainly never heard of any transgender person causing any trouble in bathrooms.
in any case, my solution would be to keep things the way they've been since indoor plumbing was invented as much as possible. we certainly don't need varying levels of government involved.
0
maybe it was some issue somewhere, but i'd never heard of it. and i certainly never heard of any transgender person causing any trouble in bathrooms.
in any case, my solution would be to keep things the way they've been since indoor plumbing was invented as much as possible. we certainly don't need varying levels of government involved.
I'd be more worried about Uncle Slim being near the little girls bathrooms
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BWS77:
I'd be more worried about Uncle Slim being near the little girls bathrooms
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
Here's a solution, if you have a penis you go to the men's room, no penis, you go to the ladies room. Problem solved and no "feelings" involved. Fair for all.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Here's a solution, if you have a penis you go to the men's room, no penis, you go to the ladies room. Problem solved and no "feelings" involved. Fair for all.
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
I'm even more worried about a guy who fantasizes about how a stranger on the internet goes to the bathroom.
Awaiting juvenile insult/comeback from bowlslit...
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
I'm even more worried about a guy who fantasizes about how a stranger on the internet goes to the bathroom.
Awaiting juvenile insult/comeback from bowlslit...
You want to talk about hypocrisy? Okay so Bruce Springsteen and a few other artists decide to cancel shows in NC because of the transgender controversy...
Now there are like 20 states suing the Obama administration over his "decree" of transgenders being allowed to use basically any bathroom or locker facilities they choose... many more states are expected to join this lawsuit.
So is Springsteen and other artists going to boycott 2/3 of the states in the USA now?
0
You want to talk about hypocrisy? Okay so Bruce Springsteen and a few other artists decide to cancel shows in NC because of the transgender controversy...
Now there are like 20 states suing the Obama administration over his "decree" of transgenders being allowed to use basically any bathroom or locker facilities they choose... many more states are expected to join this lawsuit.
So is Springsteen and other artists going to boycott 2/3 of the states in the USA now?
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
You watch BWS pee? That's pretty gross.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
That's a hell of a cheap shot for someone that complained about me putting odds on how often you squat to pee. And the odds were pretty accurate I can tell you.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
