Hillary Sucks.

[marshallnoise]

So what if they don't fit your definition of "normal". They are still people and have a right to exist. They also need to use the bathroom. Just ignore them if they bother you so much, like everyone else. You probably would never notice them.

Its not my definition of normal dude. By normal's own definition they aren't normal. Its a fact. I can't change it.

Of course people have a right to exist. Did I advocate murdering them or something? Why bring this up at all?

I fail to see how the same standard doesn't work in reverse here. Why can't a transgendered person use the restroom that their plumbing dictates? Plumbing doesn't discriminate. If you have a dick but dress like a waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles, go to the mens room. If you whack your dick off, take hormones, shave everything and grow a set of tits, go to the womens room.

Why is this so fucking hard for people?

[nando]

So what if they don't fit your definition of "normal". They are still people and have a right to exist. They also need to use the bathroom. Just ignore them if they bother you so much, like everyone else. You probably would never notice them.

How hard exactly is to to say "no, I don't agree with David Duke/the KKK". It takes like 5 seconds, and you're done. It's not a difficult decision to make and it costs you nothing. You've set the bar so low for what is acceptable, but then you rail against somebody wanting to use the bathroom or get married.

[marshallnoise]

please point to the section of the constitution that says your opinion of what is "normal/abnormal" is to be legally enforced

i can point to the part about "life, liberty, and happiness" and address that it doesn't have any clauses about "unless marshallnoise thinks otherwise"

Cute. I wasn't referring to anything constitutional. I was talking about society.

More over, this country was founded at a time where transgendered people and the concept of it didn't exist. Regardless, normal is normal. Transgendered people are not normal.

nor·mal
ˈnôrməl/
adjective
adjective: normal
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
synonyms:usual, standard, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted; More

It simply isn't up for discussion. You can be what you want. Have at it.

[decay]

No one cares that transgendered folks want to use the wrong restroom. What should matter is that it is being legislated that abnormal is forced down people's throats. Once again. Left aggression.

please point to the section of the constitution that says your opinion of what is "normal/abnormal" is to be legally enforced

i can point to the part about "life, liberty, and happiness" and address that it doesn't have any clauses about "unless marshallnoise thinks otherwise"

[marshallnoise]

because if you don't, it makes it seem like you agree with them. That you would openly say you'd gladly take his vote isn't surprising, but it is very sad.

Grow a pair - good come back. All you have to do is read everything Trump has done and said for the last year. Over and over and over again. It's not like it's even one thing. And it's not just the "lefty" news outlets that report it.

It's aggressive to not allow you to discriminate against people you think are not "normal"? Right. It's not aggression to say that two people can't get married because you believe they will burn in a firey hell?

No, if you don't repudiate someone who has a controversial past, that doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of their sins. That's bullshit and a lie. You will never, ever, in a million years, be right about that.

A vote is a vote. I guess winning is sad to you. That's fine. I hope Hillary gives back all the illegal alien votes she gets along with all of the criminal votes she gets since morality somehow matters to you now.

You still aren't supplying details about anything. You simply dislike the guy and expect everyone to nod their head and agree with it. How dumb do you think people are? Very telling, this disdain for people.

Passing a law for a need that never existed is aggressive. It is trying to redefine society. In fact, its much worse than that. The left is using bathrooms as a way to completely shift thought processes. People have grown up for millennia understanding that a dick belongs to a man and waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles belongs to a woman. The insertion (haha) of this into debate is designed to make everyone question everything they have ever held to be true. Maxims do not exist anymore. This whole thing is designed to destroy society as a whole in order to manipulate it. Its fucked up and sick. If you have a dick, pee in the mens room. This isn't difficult, discriminatory or anything like that. There is nothing wrong with knowing (not thinking), factually, what normalcy is when it comes to what piece of plumbing belongs in which restroom.

Marriage shouldn't be an issue of the state at all. But being that it is, religious folks have a right to influence the laws in accordance to their beliefs. I don't agree with it. But its their right. And no, its not aggressive; its defensive. The LGBT community has been a pawn of the left in order to "reorder" society.

[nando]

You say its quite obvious, but don't go so far as to actually enumerate your hypothesis. Grow a pair and come out with it. Don't be a waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles.

I wouldn't care one tiny bit if I was running for president why David Duke would support me or not. I am not responsible for him or his actions, or his past. And I'd gladly take his vote. A vote is a vote. Drug dealers vote for Hillary; should she repudiate them? You'll never ask.

No one cares that transgendered folks want to use the wrong restroom. What should matter is that it is being legislated that abnormal is forced down people's throats. Once again. Left aggression.

because if you don't, it makes it seem like you agree with them. That you would openly say you'd gladly take his vote isn't surprising, but it is very sad.

Grow a pair - good come back. All you have to do is read everything Trump has done and said for the last year. Over and over and over again. It's not like it's even one thing. And it's not just the "lefty" news outlets that report it.

It's aggressive to not allow you to discriminate against people you think are not "normal"? Right. It's not aggression to say that two people can't get married because you believe they will burn in a firey hell?

[marshallnoise]

is that why you stopped posting about DJT's tax plan yesterday when I pointed out that it's a disaster?

you're a coward and a liar

Whoa whoa whoa. So DJT wants to reduce the amount of money flowing into the Fed's coffers and because that would, in fact, reduce the amount of money going to the government, you say it isn't sound?

Ever thought for a moment that reducing revenues is on purpose? Maybe its designed to reduce the size and scope of government? You know, that conservative value?

Its a disaster for big government Republicans and liberals. That's it.

[BraveUlysses]

ok didn't really want to do this but your posts rarely add anything of value or add to the debate other than to point out supposed errors in everyone's opinions. you do not post original thought. your a drive by commentator, an agitator at best (or worst)

to the ignore list you go

is that why you stopped posting about DJT's tax plan yesterday when I pointed out that it's a disaster?

as an idiot trump supporter I can see why you can't handle the truth and prefer to live in a bubble.

[marshallnoise]

Sorry, but I'm not the one who is delusional. It's quite obvious why the white supremacists have come out to support Trump. But that wasn't the original question - it was, why was it so difficult for him to disavow the support? Why did he have to think about it? I asked if you or GWB would have to think about it - my assumption is no, obviously you wouldn't have to think about it, but you can't see the forest for the trees, nor directly answer a simple question.

Who cares if they want to use the other bathroom. Seriously? I bet they were already doing it, and nobody ever noticed, or cared. It's not like they are this huge population of people that are going to rampage everyone into oblivion.

You say its quite obvious, but don't go so far as to actually enumerate your hypothesis. Grow a pair and come out with it. Don't be a waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles.

I wouldn't care one tiny bit if I was running for president why David Duke would support me or not. I am not responsible for him or his actions, or his past. And I'd gladly take his vote. A vote is a vote. Drug dealers vote for Hillary; should she repudiate them? You'll never ask.

No one cares that transgendered folks want to use the wrong restroom. What should matter is that it is being legislated that abnormal is forced down people's throats. Once again. Left aggression.

[nando]

Sorry, but I'm not the one who is delusional. It's quite obvious why the white supremacists have come out to support Trump. But that wasn't the original question - it was, why was it so difficult for him to disavow the support? Why did he have to think about it? I asked if you or GWB would have to think about it - my assumption is no, obviously you wouldn't have to think about it, but you can't see the forest for the trees, nor directly answer a simple question.

Who cares if they want to use the other bathroom. Seriously? I bet they were already doing it, and nobody ever noticed, or cared. It's not like they are this huge population of people that are going to rampage everyone into oblivion.

[marshallnoise]

can't give a straight answer, so you deflect. What's the answer to the last question?

Creepy people are going to be creepy. I have two young boys who are just as likely to be molested by some asshole as a girl is.

That's not deflection.

But, to answer your question:

wait, what? which party is passing bathroom laws because of their fear of the 0.00001% of "transgender" people? Which party wants to regulate that you can only marry a man and a woman? Which party constantly tries to pass laws to make it difficult for minorities to vote? Which party had their nominee endorsed by the KKK and it's ex leader?

That the democrats of the pre-civil rights era were racists isn't news. Neither is that they switched with the republicans in the south after the 1960s.

Make America White Again, right?

You have the cart before the horse here. Society already said dicks go in the doors without skirts, pussies go in the ones with skirts. Then some fucktard liberal comes up with the idea that being born with a dick doesn't make you a man. THEN the laws have to get passed to ratify the societal norm that existed prior to the sick thought of a mentally challenged liberal.

If not for the affront to 99.9999% of people via legislation, then laws to reinforce that dicks go to the restroom where dicks belong would not be necessary.

Not all republicans give a shit about gays marrying or not; you are painting with a very large brush. Just like the lie that all gays want to be able to get married in the first place. That's a big brush too. Ever heard of the concept of "good gays vs bad gays?" Either way, conservatives of the non-evangelical variety don't care about sexual orientation. Just make sure you pee in the proper place. Duh.

If getting a drivers license or state ID is a difficult task for a minority, then you are telling minorities that they are too stupid to breathe. You are an asshole of you believe that minorities are that dumb. Its shitty. Once again, painting with a broad brush.

Donald Trump is not responsible for who endorses him. You have no idea why David Duke endorsed Trump. For all you think you know about it, its probably because he wants strong borders, fiscal conservatism, and pro-business. In your head, you honestly think that David Duke is endorsing Trump because Trump "wants the KKK restored back to full power, blacks unable to marry whites, and to legalize lynchings."

You are a delusional man and I feel sorry for you. Your inherent racism comes through in the way you speak and write. You desperately want these fantasies to come true but they simply aren't. You are Don Quixote slaying dragons that do not exist. Ride off into the sunset my friend. Ride off on your donkey.

[nando]

can't give a straight answer, so you deflect. What's the answer to the last question?

Creepy people are going to be creepy. I have two young boys who are just as likely to be molested by some asshole as a girl is.

[gwb72tii]

wait, what? which party is passing bathroom laws because of their fear of the 0.00001% of "transgender" people? Which party wants to regulate that you can only marry a man and a woman? Which party constantly tries to pass laws to make it difficult for minorities to vote? Which party had their nominee endorsed by the KKK and it's ex leader?

That the democrats of the pre-civil rights era were racists isn't news. Neither is that they switched with the republicans in the south after the 1960s.

Make America White Again, right?

do you have a daughter?

[nando]

Dude. Nothing has changed in the Democrat party. Nothing. Relentlessly profiling people, dividing them in to classes, races, genders, et al is the same practice as segregation.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

wait, what? which party is passing bathroom laws because of their fear of the 0.00001% of "transgender" people? Which party wants to regulate that you can only marry a man and a woman? Which party constantly tries to pass laws to make it difficult for minorities to vote? Which party had their nominee endorsed by the KKK and it's ex leader?

That the democrats of the pre-civil rights era were racists isn't news. Neither is that they switched with the republicans in the south after the 1960s.

Make America White Again, right?

[Massive Lee]

$25 million from Saudi Arabia donated to the Clinton Foundation thru GoldStar dad Khzir Kahn, obviously to influence the US government in its foreign policies mostly against Iran and Syria, two ennemies of the Saudis. Yup. Hillary sucks. Way more than Monica. ;-)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

All Trump would have had to do to minimize Khan's attacks would have been to disclose Khan's ties to the Clinton Foundation and the Saudis. That way, Khan wouldn't have been a simple muslim dad having lost a son on the battlefield. He would have become one of Clinton's personal propaganda tool to the general public. Attack the character, not the message. Veterans are a US taboo. You just don't touch them, and that's allright.

BTW In regard of Hillary's 30,000 missing emails. They were most likely linked to the Clinton Foundation dealings (they are a private matter, aren't they?). But as these dealings involve the US government one way or another, then maybe Loretta Lynch shouldn't have abdicated to Bill's cunnilingus in her plane at the airport...

Bill Clinton - 1995 : "I swear Monica never blew me."
Crooked Hillary. 2016 : "I swear I never sent top secret emails thru my private server."

Obviously all the above comments are for entertainment only. ;-)