T1B

So some states have laws that say people can use any bathroom they want regardless of their sex. If States or cities feel this is a good thing for them, great. They have the ability to decide for themselves.

It starts getting dumb when cities and states start trying to legislate this across other cities and states outside their borders. Two examples from California (yeah yeah, big surprise).

First- California is now preventing State funds being used to pay for travel expenses to certain states that the AG deems to be LGBT unfriendly. Ok great CA can spend their money how they want. But this also ends up costing the state far more money than it saves. Texas and Louisiana have a ton of convention business due to location and weather. State employees in CA now can no longer attend conventions here where they can learn, share and network. This also means continuing education has to be done elsewhere. It also means the state can’t compete for some business like conventions if the decision makers are in one of these states since CVB can’t pitch their locales in person.

Second - San Francisco will not accept proposals from companies that are officed or headquartered in these non LGBT friendly cities/states. So SFO recently put out a RFP for their airport noise management contract. Two of the top firms that do this business are based in South Dakota which is on San Francisco’s naughty list. So these two major suppliers are unable to compete for this contract. Instead the remaining company knows this as well so they can price their service at an above market price. So SFO will pay above market to take a stand on bathroom issues outside their state.

Seriously we are really trying to legislate bathroom usage in other states now?

Left Seater wrote:State employees in CA now can no longer attend conventions here where they can learn, share and network. This also means continuing education has to be done elsewhere.

You give government employees way too much credit here. State employees traveling are more likely spending more time getting drunk, banging coworkers and finding dope hook ups than they are cultivating or gaining any skills that would result in any benefit to the taxpayer for the money spent.

So SFO will pay above market to take a stand on bathroom issues outside their state.

The entire gay area is corrupt and crooked beyond belief. I worked for an equipment manufacturer and we took equipment to the National Golf Show there. Even after paying our contract fees and getting 3 semi loads of equipment there, the fucking mob union logistics company charged us an additional .10 cents a pound, and demanded we have two of their spotters on each move at $ 50 per person per move. Told us to go fuck ourselves if we complained about it to the CITY OWNED facility.

That whole shit hole could fall into the ocean and the country would be better for it.

After a century or so of abusing the shit out of the commerce clause, this might be a situation where it actually does apply. The trouble is, the courts have been politicized so they will find for the LGBT fascists.

How about we all just go piss and shit in the woods until brainiacs can figure out where a dick is supposed to be drained?

I suspect what we will see before too long is public individual bathrooms. Problem solved. It's not really that big an expense to build them that way. The only ones that will be pissed is single women under 25 who seem to use public rest rooms as conference rooms.

Left Seater wrote:So some states have laws that say people can use any bathroom they want regardless of their sex.

Sounds good to me. I've used the womens restroom twice in the last month in public establishments. I'm not going to stand there like a jackass tapping my toes when I've got to piss like a race horse waiting for some slob to finish his dump. When you gotta go, you gotta go.

smackaholic wrote:After a century or so of abusing the shit out of the commerce clause, this might be a situation where it actually does apply.

Do tell.

Brain dead politics, welcome to California. The Democratic National agenda is to follow suit.

No fuckin' thanks.

....and Democrats wonder how Trump won the election......


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

This is about a year old LS. What recently came to light is the effect this will have on college athletics. Yep, the public schools i.e. Neither can CSU and UC teams schedule games with teams from the naughty list nor can coaches go on recruiting trips to said states. Games that are are already scheduled in, I believe, are grandfathered in, but no more after that.

I've lived here my entire life and the state legislature never fails to amaze.

atmdad wrote:
I've lived here my entire life and the state legislature never fails to amaze.

Translation: The state legislature rarely fails to fuck over the majority of its citizens.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:After a century or so of abusing the shit out of the commerce clause, this might be a situation where it actually does apply.

Do tell.

Notice my wording. I said might. I am noT an attorney, so I may be completely full of shit. It would be like someone who doesn't know a fukking thing about soil stating as fact that adding sand turns it to stone.

I will wait for an attorney that isn't a demonstrated fukking idiot comment on it.

88, please pick up the white courtesy phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes you are completely full of shit.

Yes Leftpedo some people care about things besides money. Shocking I know.

atmdad wrote:This is about a year old LS. What recently came to light is the effect this will have on college athletics. Yep, the public schools i.e. Neither can CSU and UC teams schedule games with teams from the naughty list nor can coaches go on recruiting trips to said states. Games that are are already scheduled in, I believe, are grandfathered in, but no more after that.

I've lived here my entire life and the state legislature never fails to amaze.

So if/when Arizona shows up on this "naughty list" UCLA will not be allowed to travel to play in Arizona. That would mean a forfeit for them or a private entity would have to step forward and pay for the trip. Sounds just about right for California.

That is my understanding.

I would be willing to bet that if a private entity ponied up the funds to fly the men's BB team to a naughty state then that would amount to countless NCAA violations. If it didn't they better be prepared to fund travel for any women's sports or face Title IX violations.

A shit ton of ramifications that the legislature did not consider when wearing their social-justice warrior costumes.

But hey, we are going to have the Billion Dollar MoonBeam Express that will travel between Neckersfield and Fresneck at the same speed of a regular train.

Yes Leftpedo some people care about things besides sports. Shocking I know.

California, where the rights of a few are more important than the rights of the majority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

If all public toilets were like Port-A-Potties, wouldn't that be just swell?

I don't know about swell, ripe yes....

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I would imagine the outcry would be long and loud. There would likely be some compromise that allows for “University” travel. This would mean the entire thing is a sham and stupid.

I could also see this going another way. Schmick sees UCLA recruiting someone from Texas and waits until that player signs with UCLA and then via open records requests is able to prove UCLA used state money to recruit said kid and visited him in a naughty state and UCLA then faces whatever punishment the state wrote into this stupid law.

Well according to Southern Conservatives, it should be OK for a grown man to have sex with a 14 year old girl with her parents' permission. Should that be OK?

What happened next?

schmick wrote:But nobody in the south is voting for Roy Moore

Roy Moore got 49% of the vote.

Try again, asshat.

schmick wrote:Don't you like mexicans? One of those open border cocksuckers wanting them to come here in droves and keep their culture. They fuck 12 year olds there.

When my son was 7 his baseball coach was a county sheriff and I got to go on a ride along. While we were out they busted a 20 year old illegal immigrant fucking a drunk 12 year old illegal immigrant in a car that belonged to a third party. Turned out the 12 year olds mom was pissed that they arrested the 20 year old because she not only approved of the relationship but she bought the 2 of them the beer and they were in her car when they got caught fucking. She told us it was her culture and we were wrong to interfer....or she said that through the interpreter.

Yeah, right

Screw_Michigan wrote:Well according to Southern Conservatives, it should be OK for a grown man to have sex with a 14 year old girl with her parents' permission. Should that be OK?

As Schmick pointed out the hypocrisy is rich. You support these illegal aliens and their “rights” where age of consent is 12, but want to call out Alabama for consent at 14. Typical.

Left Seater wrote: As Schmick pointed out the hypocrisy is rich. You support these illegal aliens and their “rights” where age of consent is 12, but want to call out Alabama for consent at 14. Typical.

Nobody believes him, a full of shit bbs poster making some preposterous example. Numerous people made credible allegations against Moore.

I know you're hurt this AM and marinating in your own pity, but wake up, already.

Left Seater wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Well according to Southern Conservatives, it should be OK for a grown man to have sex with a 14 year old girl with her parents' permission. Should that be OK?

As Schmick pointed out the hypocrisy is rich. You support these illegal aliens and their “rights” where age of consent is 12, but want to call out Alabama for consent at 14. Typical.

He is a liar you stupid fuck.

Settle down liar fail.

Mexican federal law sets the age of consent at 12.

"Keep their culture" is this the new dog whistle?

Left Seater wrote:Settle down liar fail.

Mexican federal law sets the age of consent at 12.

There is not a single place in Mexico where you (or Roy Moore or mvspedocal) can have sex with a 12yo.
Shedick is lying and you are an idiot.

Easy liar fail.

The legal age of consent – the minimum legal age at which you can decide to have sex with someone – varies quite a bit around the world.

To give just a few examples of the heterosexual age of consent: If you are living in some parts of the United States, or in Egypt, it's 18; in Northern Ireland, it's 17; in Namibia, 16; in Sweden, 15; in Canada, 14; in Korea, 13; in Mexico, 12. But 16 is by far the most common age of consent.

Mexican states may have different laws but the Feds say 12. And there are plenty of places in Mexico where Federal law is the law like military bases.

Further no one is saying they want to have relations with a 12 year old. We are just pointing out the continued hypocrisy that is you and the left.

No one is having sex with 12 yos on Mexican military bases. The point is that shedick is a liar and you don't care because he is pimping your cause. You really are a disgusting POS.

Roach wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:Well according to Southern Conservatives, it should be OK for a grown man to have sex with a 14 year old girl . . .

At least mvsPedocal thinks it needs to be 15 years old. So he has that going for him.

Gee going from 14 to 15 makes All the difference. Any 15 year old is completely aware of the implications of having sex with a fukkin' perv like him, and able to make a rational decision about it. Surely mvsKiddieFukcal will be pleased as punch when His 14 year old slut-to-be comes home with someone like and aged the same as he.

I was going to use Goober or 'Spray for the metaphor, but they are decent guys.

There's also the fact that I strongly believe that adults should not be having sex with non-adults. I don't post at .net. I think 'Spray kind of agrees, but he does think it's OK that his mom is his old lady.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:There's also the fact that I strongly believe that adults should not be having sex with non-adults. I don't post at .net. I think 'Spray kind of agrees, but he does think it's OK that his mom is his old lady.

You're still bitter about that?

Bitter?!? I think it's hilarious. Mommy-fucker.

Goober McTuber wrote:...adults should not be having sex with non-adults.

"Don't lay your uptight, morality trip on me, you fascist."

Sincerely,

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:...adults should not be having sex with non-adults.

"Don't lay your uptight, morality trip on me, you fascist."

Update your spreadsheet you snowman fucking asslick. We have new (actual) pedos like leftpedo and 880pedos to make fun of. Why are you still playing that old saw you worthless POS.

You are one angry little man.

Oh I see it's MY fault you are a stupid POS.

Did the cool kids dunk your head in the toilet at school?
Let me guess...you did a lot of flipping over of the checkers board at summer camp, right?

Just go and scoop yourself out some pistachio-walnut w/chocolate syrup and calm down, you little bundle of rage.

Ok don't listen. Keep posting your 10yo wytching. I really don't care if you want to look like a mo-ron.