Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array title="Shoes has a reputation beyond repute"> Shoes's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    5,687

    NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Roger Goodell destroyed the NFL, now he is forcing his distorted political views on NFL teams.

    (Reuters) - Texas lawmakers could hurt the football-loving state's chances to attract a future Super Bowl if they adopt a measure that restricts access to bathrooms for transgender people, a National Football League spokesman said on Friday.
    The comments, which come after Houston hosted Super Bowl LI on Sunday, appear to be the most critical by the league yet of legislation that has become a focal point in U.S. culture wars.
    "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said when asked for the league's stance on the Texas bill.
    McCarthy added: "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard."

    http://wsau.com/news/articles/2017/f...-bowl-hosting/
    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are
    the easiest person to fool."

    --Richard Feynmann

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,262

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Sadly, I am not in the least bit surprised. Gotohell is a major assclown

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array title="DesertSteel has much to be proud of"> DesertSteel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Arizona
    Gender
    Posts
    942

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Players beating their wives is ok, however.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoes View Post
    Roger Goodell destroyed the NFL, now he is forcing his distorted political views on NFL teams.

    (Reuters) - Texas lawmakers could hurt the football-loving state's chances to attract a future Super Bowl if they adopt a measure that restricts access to bathrooms for transgender people, a National Football League spokesman said on Friday.
    The comments, which come after Houston hosted Super Bowl LI on Sunday, appear to be the most critical by the league yet of legislation that has become a focal point in U.S. culture wars.
    "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said when asked for the league's stance on the Texas bill.
    McCarthy added: "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard."

    http://wsau.com/news/articles/2017/f...-bowl-hosting/
    Texas clearly has the right to pass any statute it wants, subject to it not being unconstitutional or in violation of federal law, and organizations have the right to not do business with Texas as a consequence.

    The NFL is all about $$$ - the NFL's statement presumably is based upon there being more financial upside than downside to threatening to withhold a Super Bowl bid in the future

    The NBA changed the site of its All Star game from Charlotte and the NCAA pulled events from North Carolina after that state passed its bathroom bill - since San Antonio is hosting the Final Four in 2018 that would seem to be a more immediate concern than the NFL's statement

    FWIW consider the possibility this mostly is driven by some state legislators and the Lt. Governor pandering to their base and imposing their distorted political views on Texans rather than a need to address a pressing public safety danger, given that Texas managed to tolerate this until somebody apparently read about what North Carolina did - since the GOP Speaker of the Texas House is opposing the bill it probably is not going anywhere fast

    A Texas 'bathroom bill' is being torched by an unlikely source
    http://www.businessinsider.com/texas...-rights-2017-1

  5. #5
    Old School Misfit Array title="silver & black has a brilliant future"> silver & black's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Massillon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,786

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Fuck the NFL.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array title="Butch has a reputation beyond repute"> Butch's Avatar
    3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion!

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Gender
    Posts
    2,932

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by silver & black View Post
    Fuck the NFL.
    This a million times over

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,262

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Gotohell just wants to pander to the politically correct crowd because he wants to make sure they know he is on their side because he is afraid of possibly receiving backlash from left-wing elitist and unemployed snowflakes living in their parents basement who only ever made money showing up for protests organized by left-wing political organizers

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array title="Bluecoat96 has a reputation beyond repute"> Bluecoat96's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bucyrus, OH
    Gender
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Remember, it's the tv networks and their liberal agendas that give a shit ton of money to the nfl. Like you guys said, it's all about who "butters their bread," if you catch my drift.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
    http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL1850/7714131/15251346/321617073.jpg

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by st33lersguy View Post
    Gotohell just wants to pander to the politically correct crowd because he wants to make sure they know he is on their side because he is afraid of possibly receiving backlash from left-wing elitist and unemployed snowflakes living in their parents basement who only ever made money showing up for protests organized by left-wing political organizers
    Showing up for protests must pay pretty well or those unemployed snowflakes must have pretty big trust funds based on this article in Forbes (which nobody sane regards as left wing) published last November on the economic losses incurred following the passage a similar bathroom bill in North Carolina

    The ‘Bathroom Bill’ is the colloquial, if crude, name for the state’s law that has cost the state at least $630 million in lost business since March, according to FORBES’ estimates. And that number could go even higher.




    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#24fcda96eb5c

    It's not a matter of ideology - it's all about the Benjamins - which is why Texas will not pass a similar bill

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,262

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Showing up for protests must pay pretty well or those unemployed snowflakes must have pretty big trust funds based on this article in Forbes (which nobody sane regards as left wing) published last November on the economic losses incurred following the passage a similar bathroom bill in North Carolina

    The ‘Bathroom Bill’ is the colloquial, if crude, name for the state’s law that has cost the state at least $630 million in lost business since March, according to FORBES’ estimates. And that number could go even higher.




    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#24fcda96eb5c

    It's not a matter of ideology - it's all about the Benjamins - which is why Texas will not pass a similar bill
    left-wing elitist and unemployed snowflakes
    I separated the rich liberal elites who boycotted the state to protest the bill (i.e. the celebrities who refused concerts) from the unemployed snowflakes. Besides what economic downside is there to not caring what legislation a state is passing? Was he really going to suffer a loss if he didn't try and get in the act of threatening the state?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Explain the 'research' section of the graph please.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by st33lersguy View Post
    I separated the rich liberal elites who boycotted the state to protest the bill (i.e. the celebrities who refused concerts) from the unemployed snowflakes.
    Those who you describe as "rich, liberal elites" covers a lot more ground than celebrity musicians. I get that you do not like what they are doing but it includes mainstream U.S. and multinational businesses who are focused on their bottom line.

    In May, the NBA moved its All-Star game from the state to New Orleans. That move cost the state $106 million in revenue. At the same time, Michael Jordan threatened to take his Charlotte Hornets out of state (he didn’t).

    College sports are also taking a timeout from the state. The NCAA and ACC pulled their championships, costing the state $51 million and $40 million, respectively....

    Financial services firms are also paying attention. PayPal and Deutsche Bank froze expansion plans in April that would have added 650 jobs and an annual payroll of $42 million. The local paper put a price tag of $109.2 million on the PayPal loss, including new economic activity stemming from the jobs. ...

    Google Ventures placed a moratorium on NC investments despite many life-science companies in the Research Triangle being ripe for venture capital. The venture capital arm of Alphabet invested an average of $4.7 million in each of its initiatives in 2014 and it has never invested in an NC-based company. Now, it never will, unless HB2 is repealed.

    Nearly 70 companies signed a ‘friend of the court’ document against the discriminatory law, 11 of which are on FORBES’ Most Valuable Brands list. Investment managers have also taken up against the law.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#6a1611556eb5

    Besides what economic downside is there to not caring what legislation a state is passing? Was he really going to suffer a loss if he didn't try and get in the act of threatening the state?
    Goodell's statement addresses a hypothetical (the Super Bowl site currently is set through 2021). NBA Commissioner Adam Silver had to deal with a real life situation with the NBA All-Star game being scheduled for Charlotte in 2017.

    Silver explained the economic downside that prompted the decision to move the game out of North Carolina (aka "get in the act of threatening the state") as follows:

    NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Friday that moving the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte was a difficult decision but one that was ultimately driven by business....

    “Many of our sponsors, business partners, frankly many of the employees of the NBA -- remember this is a large national organization -- told us they would feel uncomfortable being in North Carolina,” Silver said from Rio de Janeiro in an interview with reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin....


    “In terms of my personal politics, whether that’s relevant ... I was not in favor of it in North Carolina. But putting that aside, ultimately it as a business decision,” Silver said.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article96628947.html

    The same rationale applies to any major sporting event - having "uncomfortable" sponsors and business partners is bad for business

    In other words, as Michael Corleone put it



    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Explain the 'research' section of the graph please.
    An embedded link in the Forbes article I linked in my previous post breaks down the calculated losses

    CoStar Realty, a real estate research firm, cited HB2 when it picked Richmond, VA over Charlotte for its $250 million investment, thanks to the bill. Google Ventures won’t invest in any NC companies despite many life-science companies in the Research Triangle being ripe for venture capital.



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#759be4b4405c

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    8,262

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Those who you describe as "rich, liberal elites" covers a lot more ground than celebrity musicians
    I wasn't just referring to celebrity musicians, I was using it as just one of many examples.

    Plus do we know for sure that the motivations are purely business based and not political based when there were people refusing to business with the state purely based off of their political objections?

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by st33lersguy View Post
    I wasn't just referring to celebrity musicians, I was using it as just one of many examples.

    Plus do we know for sure that the motivations are purely business based and not political based when there were people refusing to business with the state purely based off of their political objections?
    You were the one who stated Goodell was playing to a narrow leftist segment of U.S. society

    Who are your other examples of leftist, rich, liberal elites, other than celebrity musicians, to which you were referring in your post?

    As far as motivations go, companies are in the business of making money - a publicly traded corporation is not going to get tied up in pursuing a political agenda to the detriment of the bottom line - if you click on the link in the Forbes article in my last post that referred to the 70 corporations that joined the friend of the court brief opposing the NC bill, it included these businesses

    Accenture, Affirm, Inc., Airbnb, Inc., American Airlines, Apple, Biogen, Bloomberg LP, Boehinger Ingleheim USA, Box, Brocade Communications System, Inc., Capital One Financial Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., Consumer Technology Association, Corning Incorporated, Cummins Inc., Dropbox, Inc., Dupont, eBay, Inc., Etsy, Everlaw, Expedia, FiftyThree, Galxyz, Gap Inc., General Electric Company, Glassdoor, Inc., Grokker, Hilton Worldwide, Honor, IBM Corporation, IKEA North American Services, LLC, Instacart, Intel Corporation, John Hancock, Levi Strauss & Co., LinkedIn Corporation, Logitech, Marriott International, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Microsoft Corporation, Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, Morgan Stanley, Nextdoor, NIKE, OppenheimerFunds, Orbitz Worldwide, PayPal, Pepo, Quotient, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Red Hat, Replacements, Ltd., Salesforce, Slack, SV Angel LLC, Symantec Corporation, TD Bank, NA, Teespring, The Dow Chemical Company, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, ThirdLove, Tumblr, UnifyID, United Airlines, Inc., Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Yelp, ZestFinance, and Zynga.

    That is a lot of leftists in the executive suites of corporate America - are General Electric, American Airlines and Intel (the CEO of which was visiting with President Trump in the Oval Office this past week) members of the liberal elite?

    And FWIW the lead author of that friend of the court brief was Theodore Olsen, Justice Department Solicitor General from 2001-2004 under George W. Bush and lead attorney for Bush in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore - another liberal elitist?

    I respect your opposition to those who object to the NC bill and a similar bill in Texas but respectfully submit contending they are simply leftist losers and "liberal elites" does not accurately describe the scope of the opposition.


  15. #15
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Those who you describe as "rich, liberal elites" covers a lot more ground than celebrity musicians. I get that you do not like what they are doing but it includes mainstream U.S. and multinational businesses who are focused on their bottom line.

    In May, the NBA moved its All-Star game from the state to New Orleans. That move cost the state $106 million in revenue. At the same time, Michael Jordan threatened to take his Charlotte Hornets out of state (he didn’t).

    College sports are also taking a timeout from the state. The NCAA and ACC pulled their championships, costing the state $51 million and $40 million, respectively....

    Financial services firms are also paying attention. PayPal and Deutsche Bank froze expansion plans in April that would have added 650 jobs and an annual payroll of $42 million. The local paper put a price tag of $109.2 million on the PayPal loss, including new economic activity stemming from the jobs. ...

    Google Ventures placed a moratorium on NC investments despite many life-science companies in the Research Triangle being ripe for venture capital. The venture capital arm of Alphabet invested an average of $4.7 million in each of its initiatives in 2014 and it has never invested in an NC-based company. Now, it never will, unless HB2 is repealed.

    Nearly 70 companies signed a ‘friend of the court’ document against the discriminatory law, 11 of which are on FORBES’ Most Valuable Brands list. Investment managers have also taken up against the law.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#6a1611556eb5



    Goodell's statement addresses a hypothetical (the Super Bowl site currently is set through 2021). NBA Commissioner Adam Silver had to deal with a real life situation with the NBA All-Star game being scheduled for Charlotte in 2017.

    Silver explained the economic downside that prompted the decision to move the game out of North Carolina (aka "get in the act of threatening the state") as follows:

    NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Friday that moving the 2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte was a difficult decision but one that was ultimately driven by business....

    “Many of our sponsors, business partners, frankly many of the employees of the NBA -- remember this is a large national organization -- told us they would feel uncomfortable being in North Carolina,” Silver said from Rio de Janeiro in an interview with reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin....


    “In terms of my personal politics, whether that’s relevant ... I was not in favor of it in North Carolina. But putting that aside, ultimately it as a business decision,” Silver said.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article96628947.html

    The same rationale applies to any major sporting event - having "uncomfortable" sponsors and business partners is bad for business

    In other words, as Michael Corleone put it





    An embedded link in the Forbes article I linked in my previous post breaks down the calculated losses

    CoStar Realty, a real estate research firm, cited HB2 when it picked Richmond, VA over Charlotte for its $250 million investment, thanks to the bill. Google Ventures won’t invest in any NC companies despite many life-science companies in the Research Triangle being ripe for venture capital.



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/corinnej.../#759be4b4405c
    So investment dollars, not research. Call it what it is. The reasons I am for 'STATE RIGHTS' is exactly the reasons I cannot be supportive of actions against states for standing on those rights. The legislators of NC took a position to represent the populace of NC. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with said policies, but I feel it is fundamentally wrong to force states to 'tow the line' or face economic sanctions. That is a form of extortion and domestic terrorism.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    So investment dollars, not research. Call it what it is. The reasons I am for 'STATE RIGHTS' is exactly the reasons I cannot be supportive of actions against states for standing on those rights. The legislators of NC took a position to represent the populace of NC. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with said policies, but I feel it is fundamentally wrong to force states to 'tow the line' or face economic sanctions. That is a form of extortion and domestic terrorism.
    I did not write the article - I gave you the link you requested. The financial loss is the same no matter what you call it.

    If North Carolina's legislature wants to pass a bill, go for it. As far as "representing" the populace of North Carolina, the bill was hustled through the legislature and signed by the Governor in a special session called on March 21, after which the bill was passed and signed on March 23, with no opportunity for meaningful debate.

    By way of comparison, a similar "religious freedom" bill in the Georgia legislature got vetoed by the GOP Governor in 2016 after leftist elitist domestic terrorists such as Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines had an opportunity to make their opposition known.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/geo...na-lgbt-bills/

    The statute probably cost the GOP the Governor's race last November and appears to be supported by only a minority of NC voters (the linked poll appears to be outside the statistical margin of error).

    HB2 continues to be very unpopular, with only 32% of voters supporting it to 50% who are opposed. In general only 24% of voters think it's helping the state, to 58% who think it's hurting. On the specific issue of the economy, only 10% of voters think it's helping the state while 57% believe it's hurting. And voters don't think it's achieving its intended purpose- only 30% believe it's making North Carolina safer to 52% who think it isn't. Among women- who the bill is purportedly intended to protect- just 26% think it's made the state safer.

    Against that backdrop 51% of voters want to see HB2 repealed, to 37% who think it should be kept on the books. And voters who want to see HB2 repealed are clear on where the blame lies for that not happening in the special legislative session last month. 73% blame the General Assembly more for the lack of repeal, compared to only 17% who blame the city of Charlotte. And within the General Assembly, 68% say the lack of repeal is the Republicans' fault, to only 15% who blame the Democrats. North Carolinians want HB2 repealed, they think the city of Charlotte and the Democrats in the legislature have done their part, and they're waiting for the Republicans to follow through.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...expansion.html

    But no question the NC legislature was within its rights to pass HB2. If the voters do not like it, they can vote the legislators out.

    But if companies elect to vote with their wallets and not invest in the State that is their right - in a capitalist economic system it is not "domestic terrorism" to exercise your choice to take your business to another State anymore than if someone wants to boycott Google, PayPal or the NBA because they do not like the decisions of those organizations to pull investment $$$. If the shareholders of a corporation or owners of a private business do not like the decision not to invest in North Carolina, they can get rid of the managers who made the decision.

    Actions have consequences and being held accountable for those actions applies to actions taken in both the public and private sectors regardless of the political affiliation of those taking the action.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    I did not write the article - I gave you the link you requested. The financial loss is the same no matter what you call it.

    If North Carolina's legislature wants to pass a bill, go for it. As far as "representing" the populace of North Carolina, the bill was hustled through the legislature and signed by the Governor in a special session called on March 21, after which the bill was passed and signed on March 23, with no opportunity for meaningful debate.

    By way of comparison, a similar "religious freedom" bill in the Georgia legislature got vetoed by the GOP Governor in 2016 after leftist elitist domestic terrorists such as Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines had an opportunity to make their opposition known.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/geo...na-lgbt-bills/

    The statute probably cost the GOP the Governor's race last November and appears to be supported by only a minority of NC voters (the linked poll appears to be outside the statistical margin of error).

    HB2 continues to be very unpopular, with only 32% of voters supporting it to 50% who are opposed. In general only 24% of voters think it's helping the state, to 58% who think it's hurting. On the specific issue of the economy, only 10% of voters think it's helping the state while 57% believe it's hurting. And voters don't think it's achieving its intended purpose- only 30% believe it's making North Carolina safer to 52% who think it isn't. Among women- who the bill is purportedly intended to protect- just 26% think it's made the state safer.

    Against that backdrop 51% of voters want to see HB2 repealed, to 37% who think it should be kept on the books. And voters who want to see HB2 repealed are clear on where the blame lies for that not happening in the special legislative session last month. 73% blame the General Assembly more for the lack of repeal, compared to only 17% who blame the city of Charlotte. And within the General Assembly, 68% say the lack of repeal is the Republicans' fault, to only 15% who blame the Democrats. North Carolinians want HB2 repealed, they think the city of Charlotte and the Democrats in the legislature have done their part, and they're waiting for the Republicans to follow through.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...expansion.html

    But no question the NC legislature was within its rights to pass HB2. If the voters do not like it, they can vote the legislators out.

    But if companies elect to vote with their wallets and not invest in the State that is their right - in a capitalist economic system it is not "domestic terrorism" to exercise your choice to take your business to another State anymore than if someone wants to boycott Google, PayPal or the NBA because they do not like the decisions of those organizations to pull investment $$$. If the shareholders of a corporation or owners of a private business do not like the decision not to invest in North Carolina, they can get rid of the managers who made the decision.

    Actions have consequences and being held accountable for those actions applies to actions taken in both the public and private sectors regardless of the political affiliation of those taking the action.
    I certainly never meant any personal attack. I hope you're not taking it that way. We may have very differing views on what defines states rights and how much importance we put on reported statistics. IF the citizens of NC want the bill to be repealed, then it will be repealed. Going to war and making it personal helps no one's cause. Let the voice of the people be heard. With all the 'in your face noise' being shouted by those with the microphones, nobody else CAN be heard. This is not a do it now or we're all doomed scenario. The people of NC will get this repaired so that it best suits the people of NC. And that will be regardless of money lost to the state by boycotting and sanctions. All this noise is doing is causing opposing sides to dig their heels in firmly and refuse to give ground, if on principle only. Disagreements were resolved, and wrongs were righted way before this age of instant gratification and social justification. The system works if allowed to.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    I certainly never meant any personal attack. I hope you're not taking it that way. We may have very differing views on what defines states rights and how much importance we put on reported statistics. IF the citizens of NC want the bill to be repealed, then it will be repealed. Going to war and making it personal helps no one's cause. Let the voice of the people be heard. With all the 'in your face noise' being shouted by those with the microphones, nobody else CAN be heard. This is not a do it now or we're all doomed scenario. The people of NC will get this repaired so that it best suits the people of NC. And that will be regardless of money lost to the state by boycotting and sanctions. All this noise is doing is causing opposing sides to dig their heels in firmly and refuse to give ground, if on principle only. Disagreements were resolved, and wrongs were righted way before this age of instant gratification and social justification. The system works if allowed to.
    No worries - I did not take it as a personal attack.

    And I agree the barrage of personal insults that are generated by both the less influential and the most powerful persons in the country only adds to the problem of getting anything resolved.

    But for better or worse, part of the system is corporations have First Amendment rights too and are stakeholders in States in which they may elect to do business.

    Just as liberal Dems dislike those rights being asserted in such areas as supporting right to work legislation to create what is regarded as a more favorable business climate in a State so GOP social conservatives have to deal with companies not always lining up to support legislation that is regarded as contrary to the interests of a business if it elects to generate jobs for voters in that State.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    No worries - I did not take it as a personal attack.

    And I agree the barrage of personal insults that are generated by both the less influential and the most powerful persons in the country only adds to the problem of getting anything resolved.

    But for better or worse, part of the system is corporations have First Amendment rights too and are stakeholders in States in which they may elect to do business.

    Just as liberal Dems dislike those rights being asserted in such areas as supporting right to work legislation to create what is regarded as a more favorable business climate in a State so GOP social conservatives have to deal with companies not always lining up to support legislation that is regarded as contrary to the interests of a business if it elects to generate jobs for voters in that State.
    That is all true. However, a company that is headquartered in state A, flexes it's financial muscle to effect legislation in state B, is not how the system SHOULD work. Companies have first amendment rights, but should hold no more sway in lawmaking than the voice of the people of that state. Otherwise, we are a nation ruled by the most wealthy and prosperous. I understand 'how things work'. But the people employed by a company have no say in how that company's leaders vote. Therefore, that company does not speak for said employees, but for it's own interests and politics. If we want a true republic, our government cannot be ruled by corporate dollars,but instead allow the vote of the people to be the law if the land. The 1st amendment allows everyone the voice to debate and lobby for laws, it does not allow for that legislation to be bought. But since that is the world we live in, to pull funding or remove jobs to the people if the vote goes in another way, is the very definition of extortion.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    That is all true. However, a company that is headquartered in state A, flexes it's financial muscle to effect legislation in state B, is not how the system SHOULD work. Companies have first amendment rights, but should hold no more sway in lawmaking than the voice of the people of that state. Otherwise, we are a nation ruled by the most wealthy and prosperous. I understand 'how things work'. But the people employed by a company have no say in how that company's leaders vote. Therefore, that company does not speak for said employees, but for it's own interests and politics. If we want a true republic, our government cannot be ruled by corporate dollars,but instead allow the vote of the people to be the law if the land. The 1st amendment allows everyone the voice to debate and lobby for laws, it does not allow for that legislation to be bought. But since that is the world we live in, to pull funding or remove jobs to the people if the vote goes in another way, is the very definition of extortion.
    Well we are in large part ruled by the most wealthy and most prosperous

    And five GOP appointees to the Supreme Court have said deal with it (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas)

    It is irrelevant for purposes of the First Amendment that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” .... All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

    But FWIW Barack Obama appears to agree with you

    Obama was near the end of his speech when he turned his attention to the court's decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling overturned two precedents and left corporations free to use their profits to support or oppose political candidates.

    "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

    "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010012803706

    Enjoyed our back and forth on this

  21. #21
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    Well we are in large part ruled by the most wealthy and most prosperous

    And five GOP appointees to the Supreme Court have said deal with it (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas)

    It is irrelevant for purposes of the First Amendment that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” .... All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

    But FWIW Barack Obama appears to agree with you

    Obama was near the end of his speech when he turned his attention to the court's decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling overturned two precedents and left corporations free to use their profits to support or oppose political candidates.

    "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

    "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010012803706

    Enjoyed our back and forth on this
    Same . And it's about time somebody agrees with me.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Same . And it's about time somebody agrees with me.

  23. #23
    ® Array title="Steeldude "> Steeldude's Avatar
    Hexxagon Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    4,698

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Have to make sure the snowflakes don't get upset.

    If you have a penis you go to the men's restroom.

    If you have a vagina you go to the women's restroom
    Hater = Realist

    Why do liberals whine so much?

  24. #24
    Senior Member Array title="Butch has a reputation beyond repute"> Butch's Avatar
    3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion!

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Gender
    Posts
    2,932

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Here's a solution, just make a bunch of individual toilets with locks on the doors so it doesn't matter if it's men or women who use it. Problem solved

  25. #25
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Anybody remember the men's room pee trough? Like to see a woman try to use that. With like 4-5 guys standing there peeing also.

    Seriously though, we're talking about restrooms. Public restrooms. Does anyone else find this to be the dumbest, most idiotic platform for equal rights? But it's not equal is it? For this issue to be resolved, somebody(meaning people) will lose their rights, regardless. Why even bother to vote anymore?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Butch View Post
    Here's a solution, just make a bunch of individual toilets with locks on the doors so it doesn't matter if it's men or women who use it. Problem solved
    Porta-potties for everyone!!!

  26. #26
    Administrator Array title="fansince'76 has a reputation beyond repute"> fansince'76's Avatar
    Galagon 2004 Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Gender
    Posts
    21,214

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    NSFW...


  27. #27
    Ghost Poster Array title="ALLD has a reputation beyond repute"> ALLD's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Treasure Coast
    Posts
    9,926

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    It's the liberals last stand. They got nothing else but to bash the President on everything good or bad. The bathroom issue is their way to stay in the news. I disagree with it all.
    All Defense!

  28. #28
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    598

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by Butch View Post
    Here's a solution, just make a bunch of individual toilets with locks on the doors so it doesn't matter if it's men or women who use it. Problem solved
    That of course makes too much sense





    Of course everyone knows only girly men and butch women shop at Kroger

    Better to claim this is a liberal plot by enemies of the people

  29. #29
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,640

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post
    That of course makes too much sense





    Of course everyone knows only girly men and butch women shop at Kroger

    Better to claim this is a liberal plot by enemies of the people
    I see that more as 'the people' using common sense and bypassing all liberal/conservative agenda in order to do their own jobs. Job well done , Kroger management.

  30. #30
    OC Hate: BOHICA Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute"> Craic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Just short of crazy
    Gender
    Posts
    7,143

    Re: NFL indicates Texas 'bathroom bill' may affect Super Bowl hosting

    Quote Originally Posted by AtlantaDan View Post

    I respect your opposition to those who object to the NC bill and a similar bill in Texas but respectfully submit contending they are simply leftist losers and "liberal elites" does not accurately describe the scope of the opposition.

    Jumping in on this conversation way late, nevertheless, it interests me since I took a graduate seminar in Greek history through the viewpoint of gender studies, and also because I finally have a few minutes to orchestrate my thoughts.

    The drive, I believe, isn't coming from typical "leftist elites"; instead, it has been driven from academia who created a construct of sexuality and then worked to implement it in among their students. The construct draws from several elements, including feminism, gender studies (which is different, for those of you who are wondering), postmodernism, history/historiographic studies (see Foucault), and various social sciences. In some ways, it has been orchestrated, and in some ways it has not—much as any other academic discipline is both orchestrated and not orchestrated. So, what is this construct?

    The first step is separating biology from the concept of gender. Gender refers to the roles society has separated into categories. In traditional Western thought there has been two roles, masculine and feminine, or male and female, and those roles have been identified by biology. The problem, however, is the reality is quite different than that. For instance, children are a third gender. They were given neither masculine nor feminine roles (although training into those roles did occur). They played, had fun, and did generally whatever until the parents began to train them, usually as they approached sexual maturity. The old, unmarried woman held another gender often referred to as "Spinster." The spinster was thought of as a-sexual and caring for her own needs regardless of the traditional male-female roles.

    The second step, once biology is separated from gender, is to deconstruct the roles assigned to each gender and make them available for anyone who desires to obtain those roles. Most of us would actually agree with 90 percent of the actions in this step, such as allowing women to vote, to run for office, to participate in the work place, etcetera. However, many of us would also disagree with the last 10 percent or so, which is taking roles general assigned to men based on elements associated with biology, and making them available for reassignment as well. This ability to reassign has been enabled by science and the medical world through surgery, hormone "therapy", and other such things.

    The third step is to reconstruct through choice. Each and every person has a choice to accept or reject any gender role placed on them, as it is only a societal role and not driven through biology. In other words, it is the ultimate fulfillment of self-determination and self-agency.

    So, that is the construct that has been built and then pushed into society. There are, however, several problems with it.

    1. As with most academic constructs, it ignores reality. For instance, those who are genetically male are hardwired to, on average, have more physical strength the those who are genetically female. Certain roles in society occur because of that reality, such as a fireman—not because women are unable to fight a fire, but because (again, on average), a much larger majority of men will be able to carry that two-hundred pound human over their shoulder down the stairs and out the door to safety than women.

    2. It has confused the issue of plumbing with the issue of sexuality and gender roles. A bathroom is not about sexuality or gender roles. It is simply about plumbing—proving the best opportunity to relieve oneself based on the plumbing one has. In short, urinals are a heck of a lot easier for men to use than a toilet, and a toilet is a heck of a lot easier for women to use than a urinal.

    3. It has ignored the fact that, for instance, for many who who remain within the traditional gender role of female that is associated with plumbing in many instances, having one who chooses a gender roles opposite of what plumbing would normally indicate enter into their bathroom is intimidating and unsettling. Not to mention the types of abuse of the system this construct opens itself to.

    4. The construct takes to be true, a priori, a complete dissociation between plumbing, gender identity, and roles. Why I agree that 90 percent of the roles associated with a gender are purely societal and has no basis in current reality, the same can't be said for procreation and the biological imperative to mate and further the species. Yes, science has recognized the chromosome that is responsible for switching over the body from female to male after the fourth week of gestation sometimes forgets to switch over everything, leaving a female brain in a male body, or a male brain in a female body (or any such mixture of male and female). But that only accounts for a small number of people. From both my personal experience counseling others, and from conducted studies, it is well known those dealing with gender issues OFTEN are forced into that place by abuse, and more often than not, sexual abuse. It is something this new gender construct completely ignores to the detriment of millions.

    So, who has pushed this construct? It comes out of both academia, and the postmodern idea of rejecting defining metanarratives and instead, allowing individuals to define themselves. For the most part, that aligns with the left within the United States. However, because of the element of self-determination and self-agency, there is room for libertarian conservatives, which is why IMO, you see certain conservatives on board with these changes.

    What does that all mean?

    The same as usual. It is messy when academic constructs meet real life.
    “Life is a series of decisions you make that add up to your reputation. Do the right thing.”
    —Dan Rooney (1932-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •