• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HB2 Strikes Again

Junebug said:
Randleman is not the center of the universe, but it is a hell of a lot closer to the moral and political center than Huntington Beach.
Click to expand...


Is this post serious? Have you ever been to Randleman? BKF is probably still one of the more liberal (both politically and morally) members of that community.
 
Center of the universe is so far removed from this planet. Probably a more advanced race closer to that center as well. Then here we are making dumb decisions like HB2 based off the belief we were created by a God as the sole intelligent species of the universe. Where not only that we take it further where a white Christian male is the pinnacle of the universe.
 
Junebug said:
Note that, consistent with the village idiot's terminology, I said center of the universe, not center of the spectrum. I have both been to Randleman and lived in Huntington Beach. The people I met in Randleman were salt of the earth. As for Huntington Beach, the only thing many of the people I met cared about was whether their frosted tips were spiked enough and what the Joneses were wearing and driving.

Point being: Randlemanites at least live on planet earth, which makes them closer than Huntington Beachites to the center of the political and moral universe.
Click to expand...

Ah Salt of the earth "Real Americans" how could I have forgotten. The homophobic, racist, rednecks of Randleman are just as American as the vain, vacuous, surfer bros of Huntington Beach.
 
oldmandeac said:
RJ failed to see a joke when it stared him in the face... but let me respond to his demand.

I have worked in an office where the office manager was openly gay and hired like minded people. The other half of the office were former beauty contestant winners. It was an interesting place to work to say the least. At an office get together, the office manager was explaining the merits of his lifestyle choice. As I looked at a former Miss Jamaica and one of his hires standing at the bar, my response to him was to point to the duo at the bar and said simply "the day you can explain why his ass is more appealing to you than hers (which was perfect by the way) then maybe I can begin to understand the gay experience".

The point is the fact that he was gay didn't interfere with my assessment of his work performance. Did I mention they all worked for me? Never once did I think in terms of sexual orientation in relation to getting the job done. Or how my religious beliefs were challenged which again didn't interfere with my business judgment. Oh, the office manager was Jewish and the guy at the bar Muslim, but I am the intolerant one.That being said, I would have hated dismissing someone for not getting the job done and being accused of firing a protected class. On the other hand, I have numerous experience with losing promotions and job opportunities to minorities and women (or the impossible to beat female minority). My only sin was being a highly qualified white male. If I have encountered any discremination in the work force during my lifetime it has been against others like me.

Now, throw in my age and I am in yet another great unprotected class of age discrimination. I guess if I could become gay (how about trans to cover all bases) all of my work place issues would come to an end and I could then piss anywhere I want (to bring things full circle to the theme of the title of this thread. I do wonder if I can now piss on a sidewalk or side of a building in public without getting arrested...guess that is the next legal challenge that awaits us. The law is about aligning bathroom choice with gender identity but shouldn't the absolute dire need to go (I am after all of that age dynamic where you can't hold it like you use to) override the where it is I succumb to internal demands and relieve myself?)

Sorry, this is suppose to be a sports board.
Click to expand...

This post right here. Oh man.
 
Aside from all that, if you're an "oldman" deac as your name suggests then you're likely in a protected class for age discrimination.
 
Junebug said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDVUkyRkJUM18xBHNlYwNzcg--
Click to expand...

From your article:

""Claiming ally status for not overturning the progress of your predecessor is a rather low bar," the group's president, Chad Griffin, said in a statement.

"LGBTQ refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason. Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House.""

No matter how you look at that one article YOUR OWN WORDS stated: "although she voted against sexual orientation being a protected class"

That's like saying, "Although your wife has admitted to fucking your next door neighbor, the plumber and the mailman, it can be argued she's never cheated on you."

The person you talked about HAS VOTED AGAINST your premise.

No amount of channeling Gregory Hines or Bojangles Robinson will allow to dance around how ridiculous your position is.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
Note that, consistent with the village idiot's terminology, I said center of the universe, not center of the spectrum. I have both been to Randleman and lived in Huntington Beach. The people I met in Randleman were salt of the earth. As for Huntington Beach, the only thing many of the people I met cared about was whether their frosted tips were spiked enough and what the Joneses were wearing and driving.

Point being: Randlemanites at least live on planet earth, which makes them closer than Huntington Beachites to the center of the political and moral universe.
Click to expand...

The "village idiot" doesn't set up a premise and then in his own defense of the premise directly contradicts it and then say he didn't. That's a very special kind of idiocy.

As discussed before, it's not anyone's fault but your own that you didn't meet many quality people in HB. That's about you and the positions you put yourself in.

Dance monkey, dance!
 
RJKarl said:
From your article:

""Claiming ally status for not overturning the progress of your predecessor is a rather low bar," the group's president, Chad Griffin, said in a statement.

"LGBTQ refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason. Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House.""

No matter how you look at that one article YOUR OWN WORDS stated: "although she voted against sexual orientation being a protected class"

That's like saying, "Although your wife has admitted to fucking your next door neighbor, the plumber and the mailm,an, it can be argued she's never cheated on you."

The person you talked HAS VOTED AGAINST your premise.

No amount of channeling Gregory Hines or Bojangles Robinson will allow to dance around how ridiculous your position is.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use this in the future.
 
WFU Lurker said:
1) Is it a choice or not? You can't seem to make up your mind. You call it a lifestyle choice, but then say you can't understand why a man would be attracted to a man and imply that you can't choose to be gay. To be clear, it is not a choice. As a gay man, I do not slightly understand being attracted to women. I can evaluate them as attractive or not, but I can't be attracted to them. I can accept that other men feel differently and make no judgement about their value as people or as men. I certainly wouldn't demean their attraction to women as a "lifestyle choice".

2) You don't think being gay can create workplace challenges? Really? Straight, white men do much better in the workplace than any other demographic. I assume there's data to that effect... even without it I have been in enough executive meeting rooms to know that it is true. Quit whining. Gay people get fired all of the time. If you receive legal backlash for firing a gay person than it is not just because that person is gay. It probably has something to do with insensitive conversations like you retold in the first paragraph.
Click to expand...

Amazing that a true observation is insensitive in your mind. You don't know the conversations which preceded it nor do you appreciate it was a means to sum up the difference in perspective to which there is no middle ground. As a non-gay man I have no personal point of reference which allows me to truly understand the gay perspective. My comment is one of assessing sexual attraction which I believe is still a major consideration in dating options. That being said, I have an opinion that states if you randomly have a panel of a 100 men (which would include gays, enlightened liberals and the only other class recognized by many on the left, homophobic Christian conservatives alike), and have them judge a group of women based solely on looks and then a group of men based on looks, the results would be fairly consistent for women and several more standard deviations for men. Women on the other hand would rank the two groups far more similarly. Women tend to recognize other attractive women (our pop culture and marketing tends to ensure this) but I don't think non gay men spend a lot of their focus on what makes up a good looking guy.

I still think I have the right as an older male to pee wherever and whenever the urge hits me. I think the legal merits are as strong as any regarding the issues surrounding HB2.
 
Dance monkey, dance.

It's very sad you can't admit that you contradicted your own premise. It's not about "abstract thought" when you have a person on record.

But keep making it about me.
 
We have one fact. She voted against making the LGBTQ community a protected class when she had the opportunity. You want to come up with a hypothetical that she will change.

Trump's VP is very anti-LGBTQ and has great influence on appointments as we have seen. Again, we have a long track record for Pence on these issues.

You are coming up with hypotheticals. I am using track records of years of actual actions.
 
oldmandeac said:
Amazing that a true observation is insensitive in your mind. You don't know the conversations which preceded it nor do you appreciate it was a means to sum up the difference in perspective to which there is no middle ground. As a non-gay man I have no personal point of reference which allows me to truly understand the gay perspective. My comment is one of assessing sexual attraction which I believe is still a major consideration in dating options. That being said, I have an opinion that states if you randomly have a panel of a 100 men (which would include gays, enlightened liberals and the only other class recognized by many on the left, homophobic Christian conservatives alike), and have them judge a group of women based solely on looks and then a group of men based on looks, the results would be fairly consistent for women and several more standard deviations for men. Women on the other hand would rank the two groups far more similarly. Women tend to recognize other attractive women (our pop culture and marketing tends to ensure this) but I don't think non gay men spend a lot of their focus on what makes up a good looking guy.

I still think I have the right as an older male to pee wherever and whenever the urge hits me. I think the legal merits are as strong as any regarding the issues surrounding HB2.
Click to expand...

What even is this?
 
oldmandeac said:
Amazing that a true observation is insensitive in your mind. You don't know the conversations which preceded it nor do you appreciate it was a means to sum up the difference in perspective to which there is no middle ground. As a non-gay man I have no personal point of reference which allows me to truly understand the gay perspective. My comment is one of assessing sexual attraction which I believe is still a major consideration in dating options. That being said, I have an opinion that states if you randomly have a panel of a 100 men (which would include gays, enlightened liberals and the only other class recognized by many on the left, homophobic Christian conservatives alike), and have them judge a group of women based solely on looks and then a group of men based on looks, the results would be fairly consistent for women and several more standard deviations for men. Women on the other hand would rank the two groups far more similarly. Women tend to recognize other attractive women (our pop culture and marketing tends to ensure this) but I don't think non gay men spend a lot of their focus on what makes up a good looking guy.

I still think I have the right as an older male to pee wherever and whenever the urge hits me. I think the legal merits are as strong as any regarding the issues surrounding HB2.
Click to expand...

What. Is. That.
 
I don't even know what the "best" part is. The rambling about rating attractiveness, the aforementioned observed casual sexual harassment of co-workers, the attempt to conflate "allowing individuals to use the bathroom of their gender affiliation" with "I should be able to stop and pee on the sidewalk if the urge strikes me."

I mean truly this is a piece of art. It's...masterful.
 
The fragilest of masculinities that can't acknowledge male attractiveness.
 
We should make this a hot dude athletes thread to get it back on track. I submit Gini Wijnaldum.

Georginio-Wijnaldum.jpg
 
I'd be pretty offended if some old man from WFU didn't recognize my male hotness as well as a gay dude from GOD-KNOWS-Where !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top