DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Republicans, what they have become pt.8

So, this part from Eve's post isn't true?


Regarding the parts of the links you posted..........I'm not a political person, but it's probably a bad idea for such life-altering decisions being made before a person becomes an adult. There are a plethora of laws that protect children. I guess I am a little shocked that people are actually supporting this practice.

I don't know who actively supports it - I think as a generalization I'd be in favor of having an age limit. But with that said - 56 insurance cases in 3 years, is something like 0.0000001% of the population. I have read and believe there are children that are born and "know" they are in the wrong body by the age of 2 or 3 and they have parents that see, accept and acknowledge the same. I believe there is a trend for young students 10-13 to "decide" or "choose" to be LGBQT - a small % of that might be genuine, the vast majority of it I do not believe is authentic or will last a lifetime. How you help the real cases and protect the potential young tweens from making errors I don't know.

Boy did this thread take a turn! lol

I'll show you an example of what happens when you allow government to make the decisions on "what's best for the children". Just how misguided it can go. And I'll use the state I live in, Tennessee as an example. They have passed a law that any and all drag shows not be allowed in public. Their reasoning is to protect the children from such things and because parents don't want their children exposed to such things.

However, there is nothing to prevent groups like the KKK, Proud Boys, white supremacists or any other hate group from getting a permit to hold rallies in public places.

I'm just wondering who the hell thinks passing by a drag show is more harmful to children than your children hearing hate speech being blasted out over a bull horn?

You see I'm all for everyone having the right to free speech and freedom of expression even when I disagree with them.

Another example is banning certain subjects and topics in school. People claim it's their right to ban such classes. That they don't want their children taught such factual history and events in their schools. And if they don't want their children to attend such classes I don't have a problem with that. But they're not just making that choice for "their children". They're making it for everyone's children. There's no reason it can't be an elective class that parents would have to sign off on, giving parents the choice as to whether they want their children to take such a class or not. But no, they not only want the right to see that their children not take such a class, but that nobody's children be given the choice to take such a class.

It seems that more and more people these days promote to not only make their choice but also impose their choices on everyone else.

How cute. You've got memes. Learn to use your words.

I will explain. Here is the prompt for my response.


You can't reasonably explain why it is ok to have the government step in to "protect the children" when the same government also allows underage marriage. Let's just say that is something that I am very familiar with. From my personal observation it is something that I avoided, yet observed and dealt with the consequences my entire life. I have strong feelings about this. Getting married with child at a young age will likely mean that you will also be poor and most likely be divorced in a few years. And a divorced dead spouse cannot pay child support or alimony.

I avoided that and lived a more normal life.

I will also say that I disagree with the concept a young persons life will be ruined, based on a gender change decision. I will also note that this decision is limited to the individual. Unlike marriage at a young age where the parents and children are affected.

I also disagree with the concept of whack job parents. My parents were not wack jobs, they were poor with a lot of kids in a time before birth control.

I know good parents that have to deal with the subject as well, and it is not easy, even for a highly capable adult.

25 states allow marriage at 16 or so with parental, some even younger with a court order.

Marriage age in the US.

Edit, since I don't think that it is ok for the government to allow underage marriage, I hold the same opinion about gender change. 18 is the age of adulthood.

As we can see by the responses, some wish to keep parental decisions all down to a single issue discussion. Once you try to open the Pandora's box and discuss it big picture they avoid it like the plague and try to act as if the rest of it doesn't matter.

Words means dialogue and having to construct a debate on a position as opposed to a general statement and then running and hiding behind inaccurate claims you are being misrepresented. It's like having a conversation with a 6 year old. Or maybe just a authoritarian teacher who can't handle his perspective being challenged no matter how politely you construct your comments.

Your deflection speaks volumes. You want to ignore the issue by once again resorting to "whataboutism."

Thus, it's safe to assume that you agree that children should have their genitalia removed.

You are posting in a thread titled "Cucko Republicans, what they have become" about sexual reassignment surgery and claim I'm the one ignoring an issue?

You see, that's what happens when you don't read a thread. I've already addressed that. I explained to Eve as soon as this was brought up in this thread that I don't believe children should undergo sexual reassignment surgey while at the very same time do not believe it's my right to dictate my personal belief on the matter to interfere with the choice of their parents.

What you don't like is the fact that parental rights were brought up during the discussion. To address that I gave examples of things the government and school boards had gotten involved in when making decisions for the parents. I know you don't like that. I see you refuse to address that and your way of dealing with it is to come after me for it. It's very typical.

I would think there is a difference between a drag "SHOW" and a rally. if the LGBTQ community wants to hold a rally or protest in public, I'm sure they would be allowed. Just as if the KKK wanted to stage a show in public it would probably be disallowed.

I am not picking on you at all. You made your posts w/out insulting anyone or misrepresenting what they said. You didn't deflect. You did not resort to whataboutism. You answered truthfully and I respect that. I just don't agree w/some of your points. That doesn't mean I am correct or wrong. So, I hope you take this reply in the spirit of honest difference of opinions.



True, but we do have a law against even a willing teenager having intimate relations w/an adult, right? There are laws against children drinking and smoking. Children do not even have the right to vote. There are child labor laws. They can't get a driver's license until they are 15 1/2 and can't drive w/out a licensed passenger until they are 16. Kids can't quit school until they are either 16 or 17. I could go on, but these laws are there to protect children. Often from themselves because they are probably not ready to make lifelong decisions.



I won't use the label "whack job parents. However, there are far too many parents that make poor decisions regarding what's best for their children.


I think Eve was right when she mentioned about kids exploring their sexuality when they are younger. I think that it would be wise to have them wait until adulthood to undergo such a life-altering decision.

Yes, that's why they are outlawing it!

So, what you are saying is that yes, you do support the removal of children's genitalia? Is that correct?

So can you tell me how a child seeing a drag show in public is as or more harmful than hearing the message of a KKK rally in public? And why was there a need to ban drag shows in public? And no, in Tennessee they passed a law that prohibits any drag show be done in public or even so much as a female impersonator. They can only be done in venues that require a person be 18 or older to enter. Yet children of any age can listen or hear hate speech in public. Actually, the law lumps drag shows in with other things making some false equivalency.

Here is how the law actually reads....


The bill has since been signed by the governor.

So a drag show or any "female impersonator" is lumped in with strippers and topless dancers.

As of now a judge has upheld a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the state placing a temporary block on this law from going into effect on the grounds that it unfairly targets drag performers and is protected by the first amendment.

No I don't support it. I simply don't think parents need or require my support to make parental decisions.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/girl-...-north-carolina-school-sparking-outrage/

I don't think the KKK is coming to their school and giving them lap dances.

Can you explain what that has to do with the discussion we're having? I don't think you posted anything that anyone I know on this board would say belongs in a school.

There are certainly extreme examples of where schools have gone too far. Even during this discussion I have made it plain that parents should have the right to have discretion on such matters.

However, I would like to point out this was a college. This involves adult college students, not children. They had the right to walk out of class at any moment. There was nothing to prevent them from walking out of class if they felt offended.

And actually if you don't think racists are giving talks and lectures on college campuses, that's a can of worms I can easily show you that happens.

But then again we were discussing children and not adults.

I see you didn't actually read the article. There were children as young as 14 there. Highschool kids were invited.

As far as the discussion. I'm staying on topic of the trans/drag commentary. You're trying to deflect and go off on a tangent to make imaginary points nobody is interested in talking about. Same stupid whataboutisms you do daily.

Pitdawg: "Gee, Eve is right. Well whatabout this, whatabout that! Oh the outrage! Whatabout! Whatabout!"

So they were invited to a drag show event and it was not actually at their schools. Parental consent for such events is a very real part of this discussion. I know you don't wish to talk about it but in case you missed it, you're not everybody.

And in case you missed it, you and others brought up these issues in a thread titled "Cuckoo Republicans, what they have become pt.8" if you think comments being relative to the thread are so importaant.

I'm talking about parental consent on topic. You're twisting it into parental consent for every controversial subject ever, just to keep it open ended so you can whatabout and deflect.

Anyways, I have a job and have to work. Enjoy being wrong.

So then you should easily be able to explain why parental consent isn't the topic and it can and should only be discussed in one area of parental consent while not discussing parental consent in the big picture. Trying to limit the discussion to only one phase of parental consent seems to be your goal to avoid looking at the entire topic.

I'm retired. I hope you enjoy being wrong as well.

So no only is that a giant misrepresentation of what you said ... I guess I would liken it to anyone not talking about gun reform after a mass school shooting and then having someone say ""So, what you are saying is that yes, you do support mass shootings"" ... F'n ridiculous.

Drag shows are often very sexually explicit, and can be visually inappropriate for children.

Not that a KKK rally is appropriate for children but there is a difference between a rally and a "show", which is what I was getting at.

When it comes to law, and what can and can not be done, it can be all about the terms.

If the Drag queens were having a rally and performed some suggestive stuff, while it might fall under indecent public behavior, it probably would not be stopped unless it got overly suggestive.

I'm not saying either is correct, but you seem to be equating a protest/rally to a show. Anyone putting on "shows" needs to have permits and it has to fall under certain decency standards to be a public performance. Even protests and rallies need permits files beforehand in most cities to be legal.

And I don't disagree with you that there should be limits to what can be shown in public. But the law as it is written is quite plain that no such limits are set. That any drag show or even female impersonator is in violation to the law. It is also often times required by cities for a permit to be required to hold any public event in a park or public setting. So as it pertains to permits being required it pertains to not only rallies but public shows in many cases. The difference only seems to be that permits for any such events will be allowed by hate groups but not any drag show or anyone presenting themselves as a different gender.

Like I said, the legal terms for "show" versus "public gathering" can mean a lot, and most likely you won't know until someone challenges it by applying for a "public gathering" permit for a Drag Queen "rally".

The way the law is written it would obviously be illegal for someone to provide with a permit for any show or rally. And a crime for anyone to even so much be displaying anything that could be categorized as entertainment in drag. The law is quite plain in regards to this.

TN banned "adult cabaret entertainment " from public places.


I highly doubt followers of the old Bard doing a traditional performance fits this.

It would be a good start, or re-start to put phys-ed back in to schools. Not just jumping jacks and tossing some ball around for 45 minutes. Also include classroom type study with testing. Training the mind and body. I was all for Michelle Obama and her initiative on nutrition. It wasn't pulled off very well, but the idea was worthy.

I know things have changed from when I was kid and we were outside all the time doing things, but kids today are pretty much slugs. We need to get them moving and a graded class in school would be a good way to help do that.

I understand some kids aren't all that physical, and I wouldn't want to screw up some straight A students GPA because they can't run a timed mile fast enough so that is the purpose of the classroom portion.

Donald Trump calls for defunding federal police after his arrest in New York

Trump and a handful of allies in the Republican-led House favor cutting money for the Justice Department and FBI ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government.

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump is egging on Republicans in Congress to “defund” federal law enforcement ahead of a government funding deadline this fall.

“Republicans in Congress should defund the DOJ and FBI until they come to their senses,” he posted on his social media platform, writing in all-caps. “The Democrats have totally weaponized law enforcement in our country and are viciously using this abuse of power to interfere with our already under siege elections!”

Trump’s comment came one day after he was arrested and pleaded not guilty to criminal charges in New York related to falsifying of business records in connection with the 2016 election. Hours after his arraignment, he gave a speech at his Florida residence blasting the various legal probes he faces, including by the federal government.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has also suggested that the Republican-led House use its purse strings to limit federal law enforcement.

“We control the power of the purse. We’re going to have to look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies, particularly the ones who are engaged in the most egregious behavior,” Jordan said Sunday on Fox News.

Asked by host Maria Bartiromo if he means the DOJ and FBI, Jordan responded, “Yeah.”

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, a member of party leadership in the Democratic-controlled Senate, said that’s not going to happen.

“There are no circumstances under which we will defund federal law enforcement. There will be enough bipartisan votes to ignore this demand. It’s nonsense, it’s bad policy, and it’s worse politics,” Schatz told NBC News.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the vice chair and top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, rejected the call from Trump.

“Reforms may be needed, but I strongly oppose defunding the FBI and the Department of Justice,” Collins said in a statement provided by her office, in response to a query.

Jordan has, for months, railed against the alleged “politicization” of the Justice Department and the FBI, accusing them of unfairly targeting conservatives. The two law enforcement entities are a major focus of the new House panel he leads, the committee on the weaponization of the federal government.

Congress faces a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or force a shutdown of federal agencies. With the two parties far apart on priorities, it’s not clear what a deal might look like. It's also unclear whether there'll be enough support in the GOP's narrow House majority to pass a bill slashing funds to the Justice Department and FBI. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, has supported higher federal and local police funding.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., who is investigating Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, said he’ll get on a phone call with Jordan and Speaker Kevin McCarthy later this week to “figure out a path moving forward,” calling their probe into Bragg's investigation “very serious.”

“Alvin Bragg doesn’t even know where his funding comes from. But he gets federal funding, and that’s where it falls into the jurisdiction of the House Oversight Committee,” Comer said Wednesday in an appearance on Fox News.

The back-and-forth presents a new twist in a long-running political clash between the parties. For years Republicans have attacked Democrats as the anti-police party, seizing on a “defund the police” slogan created by left-wing activists during the 2020 protests against the murder of George Floyd.

But when Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence was searched by the FBI last August in connection to a probe involving classified documents, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a Trump ally, tweeted: “DEFUND THE FBI!”

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Tommy Garcia fired back on Wednesday: “Donald Trump joining extreme MAGA House Republicans in attacking law enforcement and government agencies that keep us safe and secure reminds us just how dangerous the Republican Party is. They cannot be trusted with power, or to uphold the rule of law.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ubEguJTEa65PHLczpeuFy165Fgz44LnQvBEjsQYw

I suppose Republicans must have forgotten that the current director of the FBI was selected by trump. He was approved by a Republican controlled Senate in 2017. And I mean trump told us that he "only hires the best people". It seems as if when things aren't going their way they wish to blame someone else. Even when the very people they approved of and placed in power are in charge.

I think the crux of this problem in many instances is that parents want to be their kids friends rather than their parents. They are afraid to say no to their children. Other times they are just disinterested because they really don't want to be parents. But this is a discussion for its own thread.

I think that's true. I also think it's true [because I have personally witnessed it] that some parents think drug use is okay. In turn, they allow their children to do illegal drugs long before they are adults. I think certain laws need to be in place to protect children from predators, poor parents, and from themselves. I think we can agree that most everyone had some issues w/making rational decisions before adulthood.

And many afterwards

If you have to wait 21 years to drink booze you sure as hell should have to be 21 to get your wiener, or boobs cut off.

Good for Kansas. They should not let boys compete vs Girls. It is not fair to the girl. I have had 2 Daughters play College athletics. One Division 1 College Basketball. I would not want her to compete vs a man. I have spoken to each of them about this and both get angry about this topic because they will tell you it is unfair for the girl/woman to compete vs a man. They both feel this transgender athletic thing needs fixed soon or it will ruin girls/woman's sports. The Men/boys already have a league and when they men transition, they are taking over girls/women's sports. That is not right.

Agreed. My daughter played multiple sports in high school and college softball. She is an advocate for the transgender community, but she did not agree that naturally born males should be permitted to compete in women's sports. She said that males try and take everything away from us.

Has anyone read the actual bill passed and can confirm?

Do we know the bill number or legal section affected?

According to this article it's not included in the bill... but opponents are voicing it'll come to that. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article274047620.html

Didn't y'all get your genitals inspected to play sports? I did... every year... typically involved a doc grabbing them and making me cough