U.S. Gives Sweeping Guidance to Schools on Transgender Students

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If the the states want "states rights" then they shouldn't be so dependent on the federal government for that sweet, sweet cheddar.

You don't collect an allowance from your parents and then refuse to do your chores.

What's ironic is that the states that are the most dependent on the federal government are the ones that advocate doing their own thing and reject federal mandates:

Interestingly enough, red states, which tend to advocate for a lesser influence by the federal government, are much more dependent on the federal government than blue states. Blue states combined to form an average ranking of 18.3 (with 1 being most dependent and 50 being least dependent), while red states combined to rank 33.2 overall.

Business Insider

Correction taxpayers money..my money. The government don't give ma an allowance, we the people give them an allowance for now. I can survive without the Government but can the government survive without the taxpayer? Nope.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Go ahead and stop paying taxes. Let me know how that works out for you when you get slapped with a bunch of IRS tax liens...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: amicktd

But bigots are the only ones who only want to pee with people exactly like them. The rest of us don't care so much if people we are peeing next to are different than us. So, the bigots get what they want, and the rest of us are happy. Win/win.

Careful with that giant paintbrush your weilding.
What I read you saying is anyone who wants privacy in a restroom is a bigot.

Is that what I said? I don't think so. Did I say we should have one big communal toilet bowl where we all hang out with our drawers down waiting to use it? I don't think so. Privacy is a relative term in a public restroom. I mean, you can have stalls, so there's that sense of privacy. But if you don't want to even be aware that there is anyone in the stall next to you, then maybe a public restroom isn't the place for you.

You stated"Bigots are the only ones who only want to pee with people exactly like them."
When confronted with that fantastic statement your fall back to "Privacy is a relative term in a public restroom". Which is not true.
Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room[1] and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3]
Perhaps a reasonable expectation of privacy is too much to expect from you? That is what this will come down to. No one has a problem with the 2 year old boy who goes to the toilet with his mother it is the 40 year old man that follows young ladies in where the problem lies.
Expectation of privacy.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not disputing that.

What I'm saying is that the congressmen from these states who might face funding cuts shouldn't be asking or accepting that funding in the first place.

If the other members of congress vote to cut funding to a state, that's their deal.

So you agree the doj or the executive branch should not be threatening anyone with funding?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Is there are is there not a law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded education? Based on that, couldn't non-adherence to this law result in lawsuits or removal of federal funding?

Isn't Obama just pointing out facts that currently exist? How is that authoritarian?

How is it sex discrimination?

The LGBT movement has been busy telling us forever that sex and gender are not the same.

a reply to: kaylaluv

And lets focus on this fact, pedophiles and perverts, by their very nature, do not head the laws. This crap will make it easier for them to assault/rape/install cameras or whatever they do. Because when it becomes the norm to see cross dressers or trans or whatever in the women's room, then they will have an easier time of doing their pervert thing. When has a law ever stopped a crime? On the flip side, how many times have people gotten off because of loopholes in the law?

Whats next? Divide boys locker rooms up based on size? Or women's based on bra size, so you know, those with extra small or extra large parts don't develop self esteem problems?

I'm not saying I am against anything being done or changed, but refusal to see and accept the possibilities in the blaze of righteous political correct fury is blindness bordering on stupidity. (this last sentence not aimed at anybody, especially who I quoted)

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: amicktd

But bigots are the only ones who only want to pee with people exactly like them. The rest of us don't care so much if people we are peeing next to are different than us. So, the bigots get what they want, and the rest of us are happy. Win/win.

It seems from this comment that you would be peeing with us bigots?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: awareness10

It's the far religious right who'd like to see all women in burqas - can't have 'em showing any skin to the menfolk. People have penises and vaginas - shocking!

Yep ... definitely peeing with the bigots in the bigots room.

Just pointing this out.

Obama is using the money we provide to the government, to distribute to the states and schools as a weapon to force his will upon our schools, teachers and students. Bypassing completely the local state and community governments that represent us.

It is time to disarm Obama and the government as a whole. They have forgotten their place and need to be leashed.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Where in my statement did it say I was going to quit paying my taxes?...........right, nowhere. The government cannot give out an allowance without the taxpayer. Sorry I'm off topic.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If Congress had any balls, they could nip this in the bud.

originally posted by: tnhiker
This crap will make it easier for them to assault/rape/install cameras or whatever they do.

Prove it. Prove that "this crap" has made it easier for criminals. Not that it has happened, but that it has made it easier. Men can dress up in a dress and pretend to be a woman right now, regardless of "this crap".

I'm not saying I am against anything being done or changed, but refusal to see and accept the possibilities in the blaze of righteous political correct fury is blindness bordering on stupidity. (this last sentence not aimed at anybody, especially who I quoted)

Gawwd, that sounds like what I say when advocating for common sense gun restrictions.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nope, peeing with the transgenders. You gonna join me?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Nope, peeing with the transgenders. You gonna join me?

No, no, no, you'd be peeing with the bigots. You're statement displays clear bigotry, so you have earned that spot with the bigots.

I'll bet everyone is in the bigot restroom one way or another.

My first thought was, how many trees needed to be chopped down to send out this stupid letter to every school district across this nation? Ridiculous waste of trees and I'm not even an environmentalist.

Second, this is not the age group to attempt to do something like this with. Looking back at my HS days or younger, if some dude who decided to "identify" as a girl decided to go into the ladies room while my girlfriend was in there or decided to use the locker room while my girlfriend was changing in there, there would have been a fight. Many others in that age group will feel the same. That's not ignorance, that's the reality of teenagers.

We have an environment now where people can't even wear a Trump hat in public without being threatened violently as Obama and the progressive schmucks expect teenagers to be able to handle any kid who decides to "identify" with the opposite sex to just walk into school bathrooms and use them without problem?

Someone contact me when we get back to dealing with reality instead of this make-believe land the leftists live in.

BTW, it's not lost on me that Obama sends his teen daughters to schools where this is not the rule.

If the left is so concerned with transgendered right in this age group, it's on them to create bathrooms they can use while respecting the rights of everyone else, the majority.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The POTUS has limited powers to do that:

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.

Link

The DOJ can withhold funding if a state isn't complying with the criteria set forth in the appropriation bill approved by congress. If the state opts out of following the requirements to receive the federal funding for the program by not enforcing or enacting the provisions, they can have their funding cut by the department overseeing the distribution of the funds.

You either play by the rules in the appropriations legislation to get the money -- or you don't get the money. If you want a shot at getting that money again without playing ball, have your congressmen sit on the appropriations committee and change the requirements and stipulations so their state complies.

Essentially: "We want more than we pay in taxes to you in funding-- but we don't want to go along with what decisions you make and have included for that funding!"

The money comes with strings that were agreed upon and passed by congress. The DOJ can say, "Well, you're not following the requirements or mandates to qualify you for this federal funding...so, no money for you..."

a reply to: ketsuko

Psssst. Admitting there are bigots doesn't make one a bigot. Admitting there are criminals doesn't make one a criminal. Admitting there are transgender people doesn't make one a transgender person.

a reply to: MysticPearl

I'm thinking this is the perfect group to protest this with though. Let's remake Porkies!

Get the boys to group up and start just using the girls' restrooms and locker rooms all the time. They can rub it in how much they are obviously enjoying the experience too, and when someone complains, all the boys do is group up and explain they feel like women that day. The law is right now that badly written so as not to discriminate. It's insane.

If enough do it all at once, something will have to be done or every high school boy in the country will be a sex offender.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: shooterbrody

The POTUS has limited powers to do that:

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.

Link

The DOJ can withhold funding if a state isn't complying with the criteria set forth in the appropriation bill approved by congress. If the state opts out of following the requirements to receive the federal funding for the program by not enforcing or enacting the provisions, they can have their funding cut by the department overseeing the distribution of the funds.

You either play by the rules in the appropriations legislation to get the money -- or you don't get the money. If you want a shot at getting that money again without playing ball, have your congressmen sit on the appropriations committee and change the requirements and stipulations so their state complies.

Essentially: "We want more than we pay in taxes to you in funding-- but we don't want to go along with what decisions you make and have included for that funding!"

The money comes with strings that were agreed upon and passed by congress. The DOJ can say, "Well, you're not following the requirements or mandates to qualify you for this federal funding...so, no money for you..."

Did you read your own post?
The president can propose and THEN the house and senate get to vote.
Congress maintains the power of the purse.
Ryan and Mconnell can squash this idiocy today, as they enjoy a majority, with votes to deny the presidents proposal.

a reply to: ketsuko

And if we let gays marry, people will be marrying their toasters and it will be legal! Something must be done to stop this!