Lifted from Wikipedia (Margaret Sanger);

(for distribution of contraceptives) Sanger and Byrne went to trial in January 1917. Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on a hunger strike. She was force-fed, the first woman hunger striker in the US to be so treated. Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law was she pardoned after ten days. Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have

"the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception."

Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: "I cannot respect the law as it exists today."For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.

So, Bobby, what is the 2020 Republican platform?
“Block Democrats from any progress”, absolutely nothing else.
There wa a proposal for a Republican Party platform….”1) raise taxes by $4500 on all low income people who today don’t pay taxes because they are below the poverty level and 2) end all social programs like Medicare, Medicare, social security, food assistance programs, etc. by “sun setting” any social program every 5 years and requiring the new legislature to start over from scratch (unless the right has control, then forget it).

“We cannot blame republicans (for rich people not paying taxes) when HOUSE democrats have the majority” 1) the tax breaks for the rich were enacted when Republicans held the house, senate, presidency, and a supermajority in the Supreme Court…a simple majority in the house and no where else after the fact does not give Democrats the ability to repeal a horrific law.

Then he wants to blame the California legislature for local groups fighting against low income housing in their neighborhood, for zoning and construction laws that severely limit where and how you can build. Such nonsense. The housing crisis in California is not limited to the homeless, there just aren’t enough houses to buy or rent. Pretending there are just no programs to secure housing, that the legislatures just don’t care and are ignoring the issue isn’t just ignorant, it’s outright dishonest. No surprise at all considering the source. California has a housing crisis, not simply an “ignoring the homeless “ problem. Property in California is so in demand that average workers are priced out of the market and fully employed people find themselves homeless. Red states have cheap property because successful professional people don’t want to live there, which leads to more affordable housing and fewer homeless. My property has quadrupled in value over 20 years, and I’m not in any town or city.

California just approved $12 BILLION to spend on our homeless issues. Red states pass laws essentially making homelessness a crime, so many homeless migrate to “blue states” where services exist and they aren’t put in jail for sleeping in public or loitering.

Texas just made it illegal for homeless people to camp in tents.

So, Bob, tell me about the Republican plans to house the homeless in red states. About all the services and assistance they want to provide but are blocked by democrats from moving forward. Show me the high end Republican neighborhoods inviting low income housing into their neighborhoods, keeping in mind that many, even in California, are right wing neighborhoods with Republican led local government that blocks construction.

You’ve tried this nonsense propaganda before, about 6 months ago when it was originally posted if I recall, I debunked it thoroughly then. So sad @bobknight33 can’t remember anything for over 3 seconds or he would recall the last time he posted this nonsense opinion piece and I rubbed his nose in it.

Downvote into oblivion this right wing projection,

Yes, Missouri. The unhinged ignorant governor wants to prosecute reporters for viewing source data, but there’s no law about this, no hacking required, just a left click, and despite the governor’s politically motivated attempts to force a case, the prosecutor has declined to file any charges against the reporter who noticed and reported that the government website had publicly posted the social security numbers of every teacher in the state….likely because the only crime was on the government’s part….including the continuing politically motivated retaliatory investigations against the reporter who discovered this inexcusable lapse in security under the governor’s nose.

He (the prosecutor) should file charges against the website administrator for exposing 100000 teachers to identity theft, and the governor for abuse of power for trying to prosecute the whistleblower for reporting the non existent security to the government, he even held off publishing his report to give the school system time to fix the issue before it became public knowledge.

Anyone surprised the governor is a Republican, a moron, is more than willing to abuse his power to try to avoid embarrassment for his administrations incompetence, and has absolutely zero idea of how websites, the internet, meta data, or hacking work, or in many cases what they even are (probably thinks the internet is a bunch of tubes, hackers use hatchets, and that meta data is secret proprietary data)?

Sweet zombie Jesus, these morons get worse daily….I think Trump secretly requires them to eat >1gram of pure lead per day. Stupider by the minute.

You can’t be that dumb.

1) these rich people pay our “leaders” to write unfair tax code so they can not pay taxes. Legalized by Republican pushes to allow unlimited corporate donations and bribes. In many cases, they DO in fact write the code, then hand it to those “leaders”.
2) these “leaders” writing tax loopholes for the super rich, all Republicans, are also rich people, legislating for personal gain.

If the top 1% made 80% of all income, they underpayed by more than half if flat tax were the law or in any way fair. In the 50’s, the time period conservatives want to return to, the top 1% paid 91% tax rates, and America was booming. Today it’s actually <24% and you whine.
How much did they pay AFTER their last massive tax cut, much less than 40%….not that I’m taking your word for those statistics, you are hardly a trustworthy source, the actual number in 2018 is 37% of personal income taxes, which ignores a lions share of non income taxes we all pay.

If you count ALL federal taxes, they payed <24% of taxes collected.
Their highest income tax rate for the rich was +-25% (before deductions, exemptions, loopholes, tax heavens, etc), 66% less than in the 50’s. Under Clinton they paid almost 40% income tax (not 24%), and the economy was again much stronger and growing much faster.

Edit: it was possibly the highest share of that portion of federal taxes paid by the top 1% since 1982, although your track record indicates that’s also a huge exaggeration, but if it’s even remotely true that would be because they took (not really earned) that much more income, not because they paid a higher percentage of earnings. In the 90’s they paid 40%, not today’s 25%…yet today they pay more….can you understand what that means? It means they take almost twice as much “income” as they did in the 90’s when the economy was strong.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html

Republicans are ALL stupid people who do not think, proven every time they are forced to think and realize they have everything backwards. You idiots think Covid is a fraud, the election was stolen, and CRT in grade school is a thing.

Such a nonsensical blatant red herring. They often do “just write a check to the irs” btw. I’m not rich, but I don’t take deductions I legally could because I want to pay my share, not weasel out of it. That’s called being patriotic, not attacking congress and shirking any and all civic duties.
Pushing for a fair tax code, unlike Republicans who plan to raise taxes on anyone making under $250k AND end social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and any other social safety nets they can think of, is not just the ethical and moral thing, it’s the only sane economic move based on ALL economic history ever.

Right, stop wasting, like billions wasted on useless monuments to failure (Trump’s failing fence), trillions more on stupid failed trade wars, billions on political stunts like blockading the border (Texas), trillions to try to fix the disastrous Covid (lack of) response thanks to insane mismanagement and the removal of safeguards, billions to fight the non existent CRT in grade school nonsense…etc. you are ecstatic to waste billions-trillions on idiotic Republican nonsense with absolutely zero return for the money, not complaining once while Trump tried to double the debt in 4 years (nearly succeeding), but not on programs that keep the poor from turning to crime because they have literally nothing to lose, or start to fix our crumbling infrastructure, you call that pork. 🤦‍♂️

So fucking stupid, bob. Delusional, dumb, prejudiced, and always wrong. You must be playing the character of ignorant moronic trumptard, no real human being is this deluded or dumb. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you are like a clock specifically designed to NEVER show the correct time….you actively avoid being truthful.

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

Offset? How cute, you think they’ll try to offset their massive carbon footprint.

…and how will they get all that jet fuel to refuel those (mostly private) jets and to provide power for the resort? By barging it across that reef. No other option. There will be spills, the reef will die, then there’s no reason for it to exist at all.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

Right, then you go on to argue that they have good reason to exclude these people. Pretty much negated your first statement….or indicates that you agree with denying them rights, but not with using that as a political wedge (on either side?), possibly because it paints those denying others rights as evil assholes that would deny rights over ignorant and false equivalencies. Hard to tell since you won’t answer any questions.

If you believe that, why have you spent an entire day trying to get me to admit women couldn’t ever compete fairly with trans women? Because you have done exactly that.

Your position, that genetic male athletes are always better athletes than genetic women athletes …and trans women are the same as genetic males…is exactly the false and ignorant position and argument used to deny trans people their rights to participate. It’s just like you were using the old trope that black people aren’t actually humans so often used to deny them rights and opportunities….then claiming that just because you argue that doesn’t mean you think they should be denied opportunities. WHAT?!

Finally you admit males aren’t always better athletes. If genetic women can be better, there’s no reason to deny trans women their rights at all. Ms Macho Man is hyperbole, not reality. Men can’t put on a dress and claim trans status.

Pointing to two athletes that are excelling as proof that trans women will crush genetic women if allowed to compete together, to say trans women always have advantages, is also a red herring. That’s the “evidence” anti trans people use to prove that they can’t fairly compete. You may not have done that exactly, but you seem to use the same positions people who do say that use to imply it.

Really? And describe again those standards of fairness….because what I read was a ridiculous conflation between allowing trans people to compete and removing any gender separation….you pretended that’s the same thing.

Yes, because pretending trans women are the same as athletic men is hateful, malicious, and denying trans women’s rights to exist as women.

When I hear/read someone trying to give excuses for denying trans people their rights, I see a villian. How could you not?

Discussion? LMFAHS!!
Excuse me….when did you answer ANY of MY questions? You decry being called a villain, but in what way did you explain how your position isn’t dehumanizing, dismissive, and aimed at denying one group of people their right to participate in public events based on assumption and ignorance? Absolutely none. You moaned that I didn’t answer one of your questions the way you expected….but cannot answer any of mine. Try it, you might learn something.

ONE LAST TIME…HOW DO YOU EXCUSE DENYING TRANS PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLICLY FUNDED SPORTS? If you don’t support that, you have certainly hidden that fact with all your arguments supporting doing that, so you might want to ANSWER THE QUESTION…..unless you just love to argue, then we’re done.

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

You got a very straight answer, you just didn’t like it. Ironic to claim something you don’t like doesn’t exist while arguing that something that doesn’t exist bothers you.

I’ll try again, but I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. Women can outperform men, so clearly there’s more to it than just gender, more than just the shape of your 23/24th chromosome. If there wasn’t, the worst man would always outperform the best woman. That being the case, discriminating based on gender is not just wrong, it’s illegal. That goes for trans people too, they aren’t excluded from having rights just because you seem to want it that way.

I note there’s no answer at all about excluding a group of citizens from publicly funded events. Don’t like that question I guess. No answer for it, I guess. Straight or otherwise. Last try to get anything resembling a answer at all.

Absolutely a blatant Red herring. I refuse to cooperate with your ridiculous loaded cherry picked false premise fantasy.
Try asking a realistic question on point instead of a loaded, ridiculous fantasy hypothetical you think makes your point. Your question implies that you believe trans women are just ordinary men.

If we pick the 100m sprint and had the two categories and trans people were allowed to compete with their current gender (with specific requirements, like they are), would you expect the trans athletes to always dominate?
Same question, but 50k race.

If so, why?
If so, explain why that hasn’t happened even though they’ve been competing in the Olympics under those rules for near 20 years now.
If not, what’s your point? I think I know, your point is that trans women are men, an ignorant, inflammatory, intentional insult to them and what they go through to be comfortable in their own bodies.
No surprise since you support just excluding them because you assume wrongly that a trans woman is a man in a dress. It’s ignorance and intolerance dancing together in your mind, making false assumptions and attempting to deny rights to others based on them. I might note, sexual orientation and gender are two categories that in America we are barred from using to discriminate against someone. I must assume you aren’t American, so what’s your dog in this fight? Just trans hatred?

Now explain why trans kids shouldn’t be allowed to compete in school competitions. Last try to get an answer.

Now explain how this is different from the racist arguments for excluding blacks from sports.

Edit: now explain why women like these need protection from other women….

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

Using people as a wedge is upsetting. I wish the right would stop, but their platform is based on mutual hatred of the “other”, so ostracism is a main tool for them.
Trying to secure the rights of Americans to compete in publicly funded sports is not creating a wedge, it’s being a civic American where tolerance and inclusion of those different from you is a cornerstone of our national identity.

No, that’s not common sense. It’s a red herring you would use to deny non binary people the right to participate. As I showed, divisions based on biological “sex” lead to men (biological women) like the boxer above fighting against girls. Is that more “fair”? Hardly.

Yes, trans people follow those rules, and must be hormone supplement free for years before being allowed to compete in most arenas. Non trans people have access to the same supplements, and also need to stop them before they can compete professionally. People naturally have different levels of hormones, we don’t force them to suppress or enhance them to compete, nor do we exclude those with medical needs for supplemented hormones…unless they’re trans. Red herring.

What genitalia you have has no bearing on your performance in sports, unless there are competitive orgies I’m unaware of.

One or two trans athletes being outstanding proves the point that there isn’t a noticeable advantage….otherwise every sport would be dominated by trans athletes….and that’s simply not the case. I bet statistical analysis would show trans athletes are not better, but worse on average than their non altered counterparts for many reasons.

Funny how denying a group their rights to participate (or exist?) in your eyes is “equality” and equitable.

Edit: How do you feel about hormone testing to decide which group you compete in? Too much testosterone, or not enough estrogen, compete with the “Ts”,…below the line on testosterone, or above the line on estrogen, compete with the “Es”. Or how about just separate by body mass index? Now is the problem solved? Do you concede that now the debate is settled? LMFAHS!!

In your biased, ignorant little mind it’s settled, not the real world where facts override your ignorant feelings and misconceptions and people’s rights to participate in publicly sponsored competition aren’t over ridden by ignorance and thinly veiled hatred.

🤦‍♂️

CRT is not real outside of law school. It’s a big racist lie. It’s not taught in grade school.

Edit: Yes, if true, actual CRT, the law school class, was banned in grade school, nothing would change….but you want the intentional misuse and bastardization of the phrase to mean any mention of racial disparity, racist actions, slavery, Jim Crow, racist policies including those adopted by the Republican Party at the same time those racist policies were abandoned by Democrats in the late 60’s early 70’s, any mention of lynching, the KKK, the fact that non whites were not allowed to vote, the fact that non whites were not considered full human beings in the constitution, etc to all be under the name “CRT” and want it all to be removed from schools. You want to rewrite history so it resembles the false image you think you project. It’s absolutely moronic, attempted forced ignorance. The Republican plan for children because ignorance makes it easy to abuse and control the populace.

American history is real….and really racist.
By intentionally mislabeling anything about our racist history as “CRT”, a right wing buzz word they have stripped of any actual meaning to create some fantasy racial boogeyman they can point to to excuse blatant racist policy and actions, you think that allows you to pretend it doesn’t exist, to deny it, and to return to it. Removing any mention of our racist history is racist, stupid, and is a ploy to convince right wing morons that racism isn’t real, never happened, and so doesn’t need any fixing or even teaching. It erases an ENORMOUS part of American history, and all of black American history. You love that.

You bold faced liar. That’s EXACTLY what “anti CRT” is about, renaming the slave trade as “Africans immigrating”, calling slavery “job security”, pretending that Lincoln ended racism completely (but being confused because in your mind slavery is a hoax), ignoring the murderous atrocities during reconstruction, ignoring the blatant often deadly racism that was the norm through the 70’s, and the institutional racism that still exists, never mentioning and pretending attacks against blacks like Tulsa and others, mass murders, arsons, terrorism, all by law enforcement so there’s no legal remedies for the survivors….(The Tulsa race massacre took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of White residents, some of whom had been deputized and given weapons by city officials, attacked Black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, US)…never happened. The anti CRT movement is about erasing that history so they 1)don’t feel guilty or uncomfortable for trying to defend or excuse having a murderously racist history, and 2)so it’s easier to return to that racist society with minimal effort because they won’t know where it leads.

Why? Because the senators that were complicit all switched to the Republican Party after the southern strategy, and those who believed in equality and rights for all switched to the Democratic Party. Another bit of racist history you personally love to deny despite it being the historical, undeniable record of our history. They don’t want to be asked, because they either answer truthfully and are proven to be racists, or lie and lose their racist voter base. Racists are nearly all…99%+-, right wingers. They do not belong to the party trying to eradicate racism. They belong to the party that openly accepts and fosters racism, and pretends, often insists it doesn’t exist when they’re in public….your party. The party of racists, white nationalists, insurrectionists, revisionists, anti American, pro Russian, sexist, anti democracy, anti education ignoramuses.

Quit bringing nothing but dishonest bold faced lies and rewritten history to the table. That means you leave, because dishonest bold faced lies and revisionist history are all you ever spout….because you are a dishonest liar and blatant consistent racist….and a sexist.

LBGTOW (little boys going their own way)….that describes you people well, we wish you would follow through. Go on now…shoo. Go your own way, buy your own country and go there. See for yourself just where unopposed right wing nonsense leads, just leave the US out of it. Ask Musk to forget Twitter and buy Guatemala or an island nation, invite Trump to lead for life, then GO! You have so many issues with other people having rights, so GTFO and create your own white male controlled, white right wing utopia…or move to Russia….but don’t expect to get to come back when it devolves into criminal despotism, economic collapse, and ecological disaster.

@newtboy,

1. Given how few people are affected, I'd love to see way less coverage of trans-sports as a wedge issue to rally political bases

2. Failing that, isn't it clearly 100% common sense that the Men's and Women's sports divisions are NOT divisions applied based upon gender but instead upon biological sex, and as such should always have been a non-issue.

3. I really can't see the issue, if it must be raised, as anything other than a request for special exemptions to be made. Existing competitive sports are divided based on biological sex and most have requirements around usage of drugs, hormones and other performance enhancing substances. We have existing and established testing for both the biological sex and PED requirements. Applying those equally to everyone IS equality.

/s There, now the debates all settled /s

More overtly racist propaganda from @bobknight33, who can always be counted onto take the racist side of any argument….and to make one if it doesn’t exist.

Who always sees white mass shooters as heroic or victims but bat shit crazy black mass shooters as racist mass murderers and terrorists….and pretends he isn’t a blatant consistent racist.

Good job, bob. Proved it again.

I would point out, Rittenhouse had an entire political party supporting his planned and targeted racist murders and calling him a hero, this crazy nut bag has no one supporting his random mass shootings.