funhusker

Interesting. You find 1-3 to be more private than 4. Why is that? I'm not following....That's the opposite of what I said.

The reason I keep hearing that TG and TS need to use bathrooms of the gender they aren't is so they are more comfortable. Are they uncomfortable because of a modesty issue or because they fear being assaulted? If it is the former then you have protected the modesty of .2% of the population while making uncomfortable probably half or more of the total female population. If it is the later then "well we got some laws against that". I don't know how long it has been since you were in high school or been around high school boys but if you think some will not push the envelope to find a way to successfully spend time in the girls locker room and bathrooms and come away with pics/video, then your head is a long way up your keester. Your correct! This may surprise you, but I agree. It isn't a modesty issue, it's a fear of assault. Welcome to the discusssion. A person should have the right to use the restroom where they feel the most comfortable. A place they can pee, wash hands, and get out. Anything else, there are laws already in place. The Target policy does NOT give me the right as a male to peep on women. It also gives the rigth to a "masculine" person to use the mens room to not freak out the 8 year old girl with his/"her" beard. And persuantly being beat to death by the 8-year-olds father when he finds the TG person in the girls bathroom....

Solid response JJ, even though we may disagree on the "mental health" of TG people. Your reponse kind of matches the way "I" interpret the President's policy. We are grown ups. We can tell if a person "belongs" in a restroom. If they pee, wash hands, and get out; have a great day. A person should be able to choose which restroom makes them more comfortable in regards to that. However, if a 16 year old boy claims to be a girl so he can position a video camera in the girl showers, well we got some laws against that and the Administration acknowledges that. I'm sad because the President had to come out with a policy that should be common sense that is already being practiced.

f#*k...Mo is about to LOSE IT ON YOU Why? Because I think it is rediculous that "non-stereotyped" women should be questioned before peeing? I'll take my chances, thanks for the heads up.

I'll go with 1-3. Why not? As far as #4...do you really want to be present when Trump, Clinton, or Sanders has to "prove it"? I would never ask a fellow American to do something I'm not willing to do myself! Checking Trump would ruin Runza mini-corndogs for me, forever!!!!!

I never want to be in a position where I tell people how they should live there lives, as long as they are being good citizens. That said, I think on a basic level this policy is meant to help a small, very small group of poeple. If a 5'8" cute blonde female with perky breasts and short shorts walks into the womens room no one thinks twice, even though she may have a penis. However, her friend, who has a vagina, but is 6'1", deep voice, broadly built and slight facial hair is kept out of the same restroom because she "might" be a man is rediculous. We are at a point where we just need to rely on common sense and hope our laws against peeping, assault, and other crimes are adequate. Didn't Einstein say something about human technology surpassing human understanding? Maybe he's right..

You're ridiculous. I think that is the point Sorry, but that is not the point. See my reply to NM. I truly don't get that there is much difference except that the species thing would seem to be even rarer than the gender thing, even though my personal experience is opposite of that. Have you ever thought a girl looked/acted "masculine" or ever thought a male looked/acted "feminine"? I'll save you the response and "dangerously" assume that you have. These people have grown up being told that they are too "manly" or too "girly" when they are just being themselves. They think they are doing it right, but are told they are doing it wrong. They see another group of people acting just like them but being praised instead of criticized. They ask themselves "why" and come up with the answer that it is because the other group has the "correct" genitals and/or appearance. They want to be comfortable in their own own skin and be "accepted" by others and seen as a person who's appearance matches their personalities. Now, I don't mean to pretend that every single TG person out there fits this scenario, but I'm guessing I've covered a large segment. To you point about the girl who thought she was a fox. Male and females humans are of the same species. Bringing in the "species" argument is like bringing up the "marry your toaster" point at a gay marriage debate. A male human can physically/mentally become female human physically/emotionally as far as hormones and body parts. If medicine ever allows a person to physically become a "fox" then I guess we will worry about it, but the brain transplant might make the argument obsolete. Since foxes (fox's, foxii, what is plural form of fox?) don't seem to be asking to be treated equally to humans, unlike other people

My opinions of Trump have been formed by watching him during the debates and his own rallies. I didn't rely on MSNBC's, FoxNews', CNN's or other media outlets' opinions of him to sway mine. What I've witnessed him say with full context has led me to believe he is a complete clown. That list is a joke! Again, things I've witnessed: 1. Inspires and motivates others - The inspiration and motivation he has created has been at the expense of tapping into anger and hatred of others. Immigrants, Muslims, media members, and so on. He isn't a motivator, he is a fear monger. 2. Displays integrity and honesty - ha, fricken, ha!!! Making fun of an opponents wife solely on looks.... Name calling on a Presidential debate stage.... Talking about PENIS SIZE on a Presidential debate stage.... That is not integrity, that is a sleeze ball. I don't know if I can call him dishonest, but he is full of sh#t. His wall, can't happen. Muslims out of the country, cant happen. Other countries bowing down to his trade demands, good luck. 3. Solves problems and analyzes issues: see second point on what I think of his problem solving. 4. Drives for results: Got me. He wants the result of becoming President and leader of the free world is willing to say absolutely anything, no matter how incoherent, to get there. 5. Communicates powerfully and prolifically: I don't believe being a loudmouth is communicating powerfully, and it is sad that the media has given him the attention he's gotten. They are to blame for a lot of this mess. 6. Building relationships: he is the most unliked and devisive candidate in US history. (I'm only 36, but he is the only candidate I remember ever thinking is a complete mess and would actually do more harm than good in office, Sarah Palin aside: but putting Trump into that category says a lot) 7. Displays professional or technical expertise: "2 Corinthians" and "Tan ZAY nia" not to mention his attitudes on war crimes and the constitution. 8. Dispays strategic prospective: if aiding ISIS in recruiting Muslim youth sounds like a good plan, well, he's your guy. 9. Develops others: maybe he does, I just don't want my kids lives to be shaped by him in any way. 10. Innovates: well, he did find an efficient way to cut to the front of the line in the GOP. By spewing nonsense that people eat up on Facebook everyday and spinning it into a political platform. And being so loud and crude that the media can't look away. I'll give him credit for that, if he really wants it. These are things I've witnessed while watching him trying to tell myself that things will be okay if he's elected. I've tried to find something good about him. I don't want to not like him, I just can't help it.

I blame the free market. A group of people had a need: they felt uncomfortable in their own skin. Another group of people found a way to satisfy that need and make money: surgeons, counselors, and pharmaceutical companies. ...maybe

Private citizens, who happen to claim they work at the Justice Dept., donated to her campaign. Should public school teachers not be able to donate to a campaign? They should be politic neutral. What about police and firemen? Soldiers? I am not surprised that people who are paid by the federal government would support a party/candidate that doesn't see "shutting the federal government down" as a negotiating tool.

I just spent some time on "Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash" Facebook page. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but it is downright scary that many people think these posts are from real Bernie supporters. And then they equate actual Bernie supporters with complete whackjobs. I'm sure there are similar pages dedicated to Trump and Hillary. The fact is, there are a large poplulation of truly ignorant people and they help play a role in how these elections go. A two party system has it's flaws, but if we could actually approach it with common sense and some simple fact-checking it would work much better. VectorVictor nailed it, the "news" has done nothing to combat this, hell they've only seemed to inflame it! And BRI, in Nebraska I switch parties depending on the primary. Switching "allegiances" on a whim and the internet is also "liberating" And a lot of fun when friends say something like, "you Dems are all the same" and I respond with, "but I'm a Republican...", or vice versa.

That is absolutely sickening... What is it about Trump that you (or anyone else) dislikes so much? I'd love to see a list. Here you go... LIST I found a list of 40 reasons from a conservative site. It took me all of 5 seconds on Google to find this. I could put together my own list, but this seemed much simpler. I guess we could all start adding to it...

Would you want your son or daughter to work a job like that? I know I have much higher goals for my kids than trading their whole lives away working in a factory. Whose sons and daughters are going to work at all these factories that Trump will bring back? If not "ours" then it must be "theirs", but if "theirs" aren't allowed past "the wall" then it shall be "ours". If it was "our" sons and daughters doing these jobs, Nickerson most likely would have approved the plant. This facility would have paid better than the local gas station. It would have paid better then the waitress at the bar. It would have paid better than most hourly positions in the entire community. Not to mention the dozens of management and skilled labor jobs that are adequate for "our" children. So what's your point? That since I am voting for Trump that I don't have perspective on these types of things? I'd say that the "jobs" part of Trump's campaign is one of the least important in my mind. IMO, we need more people going out creating jobs and opportunities for others, and less people looking & training for jobs. Technology has the ability to replace every cashier in the country if we wanted it to. I say let it, especially if McDonald's employees think they need $15/hr. ^^^The red is my point. A company was going to create 1100 jobs, but because they aren't "good enough" jobs we don't want them. I didn't mean to necessarily single you out, I just know that you are outspoken about your Trump support. A lot of Trump supporters I've talked to like him because he says he will keep manufacturing jobs in America and get rid of illegals. Well, if we keep all our "crappy" manufacturing jobs and get rid of all the people willing to work them, I just don't see how that works....

To add: I as a man, can report a "suspicious" man in the men's room. Same as a women can report a suspicious "man" in the women's room. If someone looks out of place or is acting inappropriately, report it. F**k, it isn't rocket science people....

I think the argument is that this creates an unnecessary risk. You send your 8-year-old daughter into the potty while you stay outside with your 3-year-old. Some perv is in there on the pretext that "all people have access to all bathrooms" or "you can choose which bathroom you use based on which gender you feel like today" and they do something bad to your daughter. It's a terrifying scenario for any parent. Also, women do not want to use the same bathroom as men. Not one woman I've asked about this is OK with guys in their bathroom. Yeah, that's anecdotal, but it's 100% so far. Again, just presenting arguments and "facts," not advocating for which way this should go. I still haven't made up my mind. I have a fear of being a victim in a car accident caused by a person driving too negligently. I know there are laws against drunk driving, wreckless driving, speeding, not properly working tail lights, not using a seat belt, texting while driving, etc.... But what we really need is a law that car manufactures can only make cars that top out at 25 mph. We have laws against everything people are scared of in the bathroom. Will someone take advantage of the law policy (edit)? Maybe. Same as someone is going to top out their Corvette on the interstate because "they can". Hopefully that person is reported before something bad happens. Target is responding (I don't think they even needed to) to a topic raised by unneccesary legislation by far right lawmakers. This whole thing is stupid and it originates in North Carolina and other states that have manufactured fear among constituents. What gets me is when people to the right make fun of Target for "worrying about bathrooms" when it is their own elected officials that felt the need to worry in the first place. The best example I've seen is the meme of "Today at Target..." with a picture of a man holding hands with a presumed TG at the urinal. When in fact, that picture is exactly what Target doesn't want to happen. If anything, a courthouse in NC will have a bearded man, with a vagina, washing hands next to an 8-year-old girl in the womens room. This whole thing is (or at least was) a non-issue and it is frustrating to hear people say Target is pushing some sort of Liberal agenda; when Target is cleary, albiet unneccesarily, pushing back against an ingnorant and pointless Conservative agenda.

^^^^I agree Coach! If Nickerson doesn't "need" it, than more power to them for voting it down. It would change some things for the worse as well as for the better; it is up to them to weigh the options. But the people who went on record as saying "as a Christian town, we don't want Somalis" along with other "bigoted" statements, it leaves a bad look for the situation. I'm all for Nickerson turning them down because they like the "cozy" little town feel, but then they also better never complain about being "cozy" again. And I don't know if they ever did complain....

Would you want your son or daughter to work a job like that? I know I have much higher goals for my kids than trading their whole lives away working in a factory. Whose sons and daughters are going to work at all these factories that Trump will bring back? If not "ours" then it must be "theirs", but if "theirs" aren't allowed past "the wall" then it shall be "ours". If it was "our" sons and daughters doing these jobs, Nickerson most likely would have approved the plant. This facility would have paid better than the local gas station. It would have paid better then the waitress at the bar. It would have paid better than most hourly positions in the entire community. Not to mention the dozens of management and skilled labor jobs that are adequate for "our" children.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind". Not OK. Completely separate issue, and not relatable to this discussion whatsoever. ummmm....are you aware of what "transgender" means??? It's exactly what the entire issue is about.

IMHO..as a Christian. If a Church is operated the way I feel comfortable with and not out to seek profit, they wouldn't have to pay taxes because every cent of "profit" would go to a charity of somesort. I understand that that is a simplistic view of income taxes and Churches, but I think laws could easily be written to tax "for profit" Churches. And yes, taking offering to expand your sound system is "for profit" in my book or to give the minister a private jet....

I do not really care to argue over this one way or the other, but I have to wonder how this example is the same as having a man ,at least in physical status, walk into a restroom with women and children using the restroom and go right next to them. Like I said, I am not arguing for or against, I just don't see how the two situations are the same. My situation happens thousands of times per day. The situation the law is aimed at preventing (a transgendered person assaulting another person while using the restroom) is rare if ever happened at all, anywhere. Both situations involve a person with the wrong genitals going in the wrong room. To add, there are already laws against lewd conduct and sexual assault. A "pervert" can still be convicted of a crime if he/she truly is a "pervert" and does something "perverted" in the restroom. But if simply "using" a restroom is a crime, there will be unintended consequences.

I have young children. On several occasions during road trips or shopping I have heard the panic stricken child say "I need to go potty, NOW!" I find the first gas station or restroom I can find. As my child is doing the peepee dance I find the mens room either too filthy to be used by my daughter or it was occupied. A clean womens restroom was being unused next door so without hesitation I take my child in to use it. When we exit the restroom a woman has been waiting. EVERY time I exit with an "excuse us, we couldn't hold it" and EVERY time the woman has smiled and said, "trust me, I understand". My point is, that under these "restroom laws", I would be committing a crime and putting myself at risk of being labeled a sex offender by entering the wrong bathroom. This is one thing I agree with Trump on, it isn't a problem, we don't need any new laws to explain how to use a bathroom.

...and Fyfe likes to run out of bounds for a 8 yard loss ...Bush carries the ball like a loaf of bread ...O'Brien can't handle a snap or escape 3rd string pressure They should have just moved Darlington back for the game and played him the whole way.

I watched that one on TV; and I thought the drills were awesome. Probably because the camera was right there. I could see how it would be lame in person though...

I love MadLibs!!!!

Nope, this is only about the recruiting camps. It doesn't stop Harbaugh from doing spring practice in Florida again either. OK....you are going to have to explain that to me. So, we can't do satellite camps but we can go to California and hold spring training? Big difference. One is working with recruits off your campus. The other is working with your players off your campus. Who gives a flying rats azz? It's clear that both are for recruiting and so recruits in that area of the country can come see the program and meet the coaches. Both are for recruiting, yes. But the camps allow for "unknowns" to perform in front of coaches in hopes of earning a scholarship without making a trip to Lincoln.