Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
Will educators make a difference in Lt Gov Race?
8,925 Views |
129 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Oldbear83
and by the way, you have very good hindsight...probably 20/20
I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
It may not have happened yet in TX but it will. It already has in other states at a handful of schools. This will lead to issues. I would rather be proactive. If we are proactive about things then we can prevent many things. Like school shootings, future 9/11 type attacks, etc. But you only want to respond once something happens.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
And I am sure you are the same type of person who drives through an intersection and says that intersection is dangerous... the city,state, etc should do something about it.... but they should wait until someone dies and it is an issue.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/teen-girls-uncomfortable-with-ccsd-allowing-male-to-change-in-their-locker-room/
Again I am not even talking about bathrooms....but you keep focusing on that one issue.
You do realize there are already laws in EVERY STATE that extend into the bathroom thus regulating the bathroom. Sex in the bathroom, cameras in the bathroom, standing nude in a bathroom of the opposite sex, etc.
I actually remember reading something that talked about how the argument of a transgender (or person pretending to be) going into a bathroom to take pictures, peep, etc on the opposite sex/children would already be breaking about 5 current TX laws and the whole transgender thing would just make it another law.
Which is why I do not have an issue with bathrooms. I do have an issue with the locker rooms where one can peep, spy, look at, etc a person much easier as they change without being caught.
And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I'm having more and more problems telling some of the boys from some of the girls and some of the girls from some of the boys in our local HSers around town, college too
Seems they are feminizing the boys and taking masculinity from them and making gals more masculine? What's up with this?
Idk what's going on with that but I don't think I've ever seen such things and I'm wondering where this is coming from?
Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
It's coming from this generation of parents afraid to tell their kids NO or YOU'RE WRONG. I know a parent who let's her child run free...I asked why...she said her parents had all of these rules and she won't do that to her kid. Her kid will barely get out of high school...nice young man, no boundaries and no application towards athletics.Florda_mike said:Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I'm having more and more problems telling some of the boys from some of the girls and some of the girls from some of the boys in our local HSers around town, college too
Seems they are feminizing the boys and taking masculinity from them and making gals more masculine? What's up with this?
Idk what's going on with that but I don't think I've ever seen such things and I'm wondering where this is coming from?
That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
fadskier said:It's coming from this generation of parents afraid to tell their kids NO or YOU'RE WRONG. I know a parent who let's her child run free...I asked why...she said her parents had all of these rules and she won't do that to her kid. Her kid will barely get out of high school...nice young man, no boundaries and no application towards athletics.Florda_mike said:Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I'm having more and more problems telling some of the boys from some of the girls and some of the girls from some of the boys in our local HSers around town, college too
Seems they are feminizing the boys and taking masculinity from them and making gals more masculine? What's up with this?
Idk what's going on with that but I don't think I've ever seen such things and I'm wondering where this is coming from?
Yeah it turned out to be a young man in front of me at quick stop yesterday but couldn't tell by made up hairdo and clothes. I thought, "this kid is 6'2" and WR build, and doesn't know if he's girl or guy!?" Only way I could tell was short pants and hair on legs
What's it coming to?
You could have administered the Crocodile Dundee test just to make sure....Florda_mike said:fadskier said:It's coming from this generation of parents afraid to tell their kids NO or YOU'RE WRONG. I know a parent who let's her child run free...I asked why...she said her parents had all of these rules and she won't do that to her kid. Her kid will barely get out of high school...nice young man, no boundaries and no application towards athletics.Florda_mike said:Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I'm having more and more problems telling some of the boys from some of the girls and some of the girls from some of the boys in our local HSers around town, college too
Seems they are feminizing the boys and taking masculinity from them and making gals more masculine? What's up with this?
Idk what's going on with that but I don't think I've ever seen such things and I'm wondering where this is coming from?
Yeah it turned out to be a young man in front of me at quick stop yesterday but couldn't tell by made up hairdo and clothes. I thought, "this kid is 6'2" and WR build, and doesn't know if he's girl or guy!?" Only way I could tell was short pants and hair on legs
What's it coming to?
I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. Why do you? Why do you want the state telling people who they can marry? Patrick deserves credit for being a Republican who believe in big government as long as it agrees with his beliefs.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Whether or why anyone has a problem with same-sex marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the LGBT agenda has a lot more momentum than you seem to assume. If you support it, by all means vote for it. Just don't vote for it thinking it will never happen.fadskier said:I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. Why do you? Why do you want the state telling people who they can marry? Patrick deserves credit for being a Republican who believe in big government as long as it agrees with his beliefs.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I don't know about the LGBT agenda...other than they wants the same rights as anyone else. I never cared about who anyone married because, quite frankly, it is between them and God. What does same-sex marriage have to do with public schools?Sam Lowry said:Whether or why anyone has a problem with same-sex marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the LGBT agenda has a lot more momentum than you seem to assume. If you support it, by all means vote for it. Just don't vote for it thinking it will never happen.fadskier said:I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. Why do you? Why do you want the state telling people who they can marry? Patrick deserves credit for being a Republican who believe in big government as long as it agrees with his beliefs.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I definitely do not want government ruling through religion...even if it is mine.
I see a connection between same sex marriage, zi, xi what bathroom, what gender do you identify more closely with. We are a nation built on Judeo/Christian values. If we have given up those values as a nation, then the govt need to get out of the marriage business altogether and just be in the civil union business. They could then define it however they pleased.fadskier said:I don't know about the LGBT agenda...other than they wants the same rights as anyone else. I never cared about who anyone married because, quite frankly, it is between them and God. What does same-sex marriage have to do with public schools?Sam Lowry said:Whether or why anyone has a problem with same-sex marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the LGBT agenda has a lot more momentum than you seem to assume. If you support it, by all means vote for it. Just don't vote for it thinking it will never happen.fadskier said:I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. Why do you? Why do you want the state telling people who they can marry? Patrick deserves credit for being a Republican who believe in big government as long as it agrees with his beliefs.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I definitely do not want government ruling through religion...even if it is mine.
The T stands for "transgender." Thus the connection between gay issues, transgender issues, and bathroom bills.fadskier said:I don't know about the LGBT agenda...other than they wants the same rights as anyone else. I never cared about who anyone married because, quite frankly, it is between them and God. What does same-sex marriage have to do with public schools?Sam Lowry said:Whether or why anyone has a problem with same-sex marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only to illustrate that the LGBT agenda has a lot more momentum than you seem to assume. If you support it, by all means vote for it. Just don't vote for it thinking it will never happen.fadskier said:I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. Why do you? Why do you want the state telling people who they can marry? Patrick deserves credit for being a Republican who believe in big government as long as it agrees with his beliefs.Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
I definitely do not want government ruling through religion...even if it is mine.
Marriage is a civil institution. That's why it requires a license.
Voting for one Democrat is hardly giving them power.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Administrative activists? The FWISD backed his decision. Granted as a voter, I would have voiced my displeasure but Danny boy ha don right to grandstand. All it did was unite the LGBT community. The FWISD decision was never out of the hands of voters. Also, if you are going to take federal money, you have to do what they say...which is why districts shouldn't take federal money. IMOwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
;Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
20% of local budgets are Federal. Are you willing to pick up the slack?fadskier said:Administrative activists? The FWISD backed his decision. Granted as a voter, I would have voiced my displeasure but Danny boy ha don right to grandstand. All it did was unite the LGBT community. The FWISD decision was never out of the hands of voters. Also, if you are going to take federal money, you have to do what they say...which is why districts shouldn't take federal money. IMOwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
;Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
Waco1947
So teachers won't be voting for Beto. OK, but what does that have to do with the Lt. Governor race?Waco1947 said:
Yes most teachers think for themselves and they know an idiot when they see one.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Patrick is no friend of teachersOldbear83 said:So teachers won't be voting for Beto. OK, but what does that have to do with the Lt. Governor race?Waco1947 said:
Yes most teachers think for themselves and they know an idiot when they see one.
Waco1947
fadskier said:Administrative activists? The FWISD backed his decision. Granted as a voter, I would have voiced my displeasure but Danny boy ha don right to grandstand. All it did was unite the LGBT community. The FWISD decision was never out of the hands of voters. Also, if you are going to take federal money, you have to do what they say...which is why districts shouldn't take federal money. IMOwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
;Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
It's the Lt. Gov race that matters...much more than Cruz/BetoOldbear83 said:So teachers won't be voting for Beto. OK, but what does that have to do with the Lt. Governor race?Waco1947 said:
Yes most teachers think for themselves and they know an idiot when they see one.
I am in my district.Waco1947 said:20% of local budgets are Federal. Are you willing to pick up the slack?fadskier said:Administrative activists? The FWISD backed his decision. Granted as a voter, I would have voiced my displeasure but Danny boy ha don right to grandstand. All it did was unite the LGBT community. The FWISD decision was never out of the hands of voters. Also, if you are going to take federal money, you have to do what they say...which is why districts shouldn't take federal money. IMOwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
;Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
I would agree with this.fadskier said:It's the Lt. Gov race that matters...much more than Cruz/BetoOldbear83 said:So teachers won't be voting for Beto. OK, but what does that have to do with the Lt. Governor race?Waco1947 said:
Yes most teachers think for themselves and they know an idiot when they see one.
whiterock said:fadskier said:Administrative activists? The FWISD backed his decision. Granted as a voter, I would have voiced my displeasure but Danny boy ha don right to grandstand. All it did was unite the LGBT community. The FWISD decision was never out of the hands of voters. Also, if you are going to take federal money, you have to do what they say...which is why districts shouldn't take federal money. IMOwhiterock said:Sam Lowry said:That's exactly the argument that Democrats at the state level will use to bring the smaller districts into line. It would be naive to think otherwise. A law professor once told me same-sex marriage would never happen in Texas. It happened in less than ten years. Dan Patrick has shown rare foresight here, and he deserves credit. Again, you have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying that whatever you think Patrick has done to the detriment of public schools is nothing compared to the backlash you'll see on this issue if you're wrong.fadskier said:Wow...back away from the cliff. That is not happening in Texas...and that is a far bigger issue than locker rooms. Again, no school district in Texas has allowed shared locker rooms. Dan Patrick was fear mongering. While I can see larger schools district such as Houston/Dallas maybe looking into it, that is up to their voters. If their school board makes such idiotic rules, then those voters can vote them out. It's called Democracy...not theocracy.Sam Lowry said:I support them too, for now. Turn them into gender re-education camps, and my mind will change very quickly. I won't be the only one, either.fadskier said:My vote for Collier is to get rid of Dan Patrick. Dan Patrick does not support public schools. I do.Sam Lowry said:And your solution is to...give power to the party you don't support and a candidate who will likely favor a state-level decision. Collier has described Patrick's bill as an example of "hate and bigotry." That's not the language you use when you're talking about a technical disagreement over the proper role of the state legislature as opposed to local school districts. If keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom is bigotry when the state does it, it's bigotry when local officials do it too. In the minds of today's Democrats, that calls for state action. Collier has pledged to oppose what the left considers discrimination, so it's fair to assume he will.fadskier said:I'm using bathroom as a general term. No district in Texas has allowed boys and girls to share locker rooms...at least it has not been publicized. I do believe in being proactive, but you cannot prepare for everything. Why are you against locally elected officials doing their job?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
;Besides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Just because some states regulate bathrooms doesn't mean my argument fails. My argument is that it should not be a state-level decision. You are opening the door for worse...especially if the party you don't support gets in power.
You have every right to vote for it if you want, but don't kid yourself.
Foresight and courage
He reacted to the decision of the FWISD to implement DOJ guidance on transgendered restrooms, based on new federal regulatory guidance from a lame-duck administration.
Progressives tried to advance their culture war via the administrative state rather than the democratic process. Patrick stopped them cold. Regardless, how you feel on the question itself, his move to take this issue out of the hands of administrative activists and return it to voters should be commended.
Beto will help the Dem ticket. How much who knows? But teachers are pissed. Maybe their crossover to Collier helps Beto and maybe vice vests. But who knows til we count the votes.
Waco1947
How proactive have you been in preventing mass shootings before they occur?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
IBesides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
Beto already lost. It's silly that you have not realized that yet.Waco1947 said:
Beto will help the Dem ticket. How much who knows? But teachers are pissed. Maybe their crossover to Collier helps Beto and maybe vice vests. But who knows til we count the votes.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
cinque said:How proactive have you been in preventing mass shootings before they occur?cowboycwr said:I see You don't believe in being proactive. Only in acting after a tragedy. You are so fixated on bathrooms you fail to see I am NOT arguing about bathrooms. I was talking about locker rooms. But you have a bathroom fixation and can't seem to move away from that.fadskier said:Correct. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it? What was the problem that Patrick was trying to fix? Are you seriously okay with state government regulating bathrooms? What's next? Books we can or cannot read? We have elected officials at the local level to make decisions for school districts.cowboycwr said:So your thought process is because it has not been an issue previously we should not consider it and prepare for it in the future.....Yeah that is great planning. That is the type that has led to lax security at airports, schools, outdated military tactics in numerous wars, identity theft being a huge deal, package theft, etc that have caused governments, police, businesses, etc to be behind the curve and reacting to the issue instead of being proactive.fadskier said:But no school district has allowed that...not one. Dan Patrick started this whole thing by coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem.cowboycwr said:fadskier said:
IBesides, you do realize that people have been able to use the bathroom of their choice since the invention of public bathrooms, right?
To me it isn't about bathrooms. The issue will be locker rooms.
How long does a boy have to declare himself to be a girl? A day? A week?
The issue will be high school boys saying "I'm a girl. I can use the girls locker room" just so they can go in and peep on girls.
That is the issue. Where someone goes #1 or 2 is not.
States already regulate bathrooms in certain ways. So you fail at that argument.
We are discussing bathrooms. Keep up.
But I've been very proactive. Much more than you.
Oldbear83 said:Beto already lost. It's silly that you have not realized that yet.Waco1947 said:
Beto will help the Dem ticket. How much who knows? But teachers are pissed. Maybe their crossover to Collier helps Beto and maybe vice vests. But who knows til we count the votes.
In another sports related area we say, "It's why we play the games."
Waco1947