Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

....from federal law.

"The most bizarre gambit is a bill that has been introduced in the House by two dozen Democrats that would eliminate the words “<a class="" href='http://www.examiner.com/topic/husband'>husband</a>” and “<a class="" href='http://www.examiner.com/topic/wife'>wife</a>” from federal law, as reported Thursday by the Washington Examiner.



Apparently the use of “gendered” terms is considered discriminatory by the Democrats, led by Rep. Lois Capps, D-California. The offending terms would be replaced with a gender neutral word like “<a class="" href='http://www.examiner.com/topic/spouse'>spouse</a>” which is considered not discriminatory. The measure would have the benefit, according to Capps, of equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law. For instance, it is illegal to threaten the wife of the president, but not her husband. This could be a problem if Hillary Clinton or some other woman were ever to be elected to the presidency......"



I don't get it. Are people really wanting to go this far? If you're going to do this then you need to eliminate the words caucasian, african american, hispanic, asian, etc., as well because someone somewhere finds those to be discriminatory. May as well eliminate male and female, too for good measure. And what about folks who aren't married, where is their word?



I mean, where does it end? I get that progress is being made for equal rights for folks but this is a fine line to walk before things get out of hand.

This should explain all of this nonsense for you.

*sigh*

I get where they're going with this, and the logic isn't completely flawed or completely PC-based. That said, I doubt that anyone threatening the husband of a female President would get off on a technicality because of the way the law's written. If this Supreme Court has shown us anything lately, it's that it's more than happy to set precedents based upon the interpretation of a law rather than the text.

And even beyond that, don't we have better things to do than pay a private research firm millions of dollars to scour federal laws in search of the words "husband" and "wife", then re-write them and send them all back to Congress to be voted on?

Lois Capps' name on the bill doesn't surprise me. She's not the farthest left member of Congress by any stretch of the imagination, but she is the typical California liberal. I'd be curious to see who the other 23 names on the bill are, though.

Quote:....from federal law.

"The most bizarre gambit is a bill that has been introduced in the House by two dozen Democrats that would eliminate the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law, as reported Thursday by the Washington Examiner.



Apparently the use of “gendered” terms is considered discriminatory by the Democrats, led by Rep. Lois Capps, D-California. The offending terms would be replaced with a gender neutral word like “spouse” which is considered not discriminatory. The measure would have the benefit, according to Capps, of equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law. For instance, it is illegal to threaten the wife of the president, but not her husband. This could be a problem if Hillary Clinton or some other woman were ever to be elected to the presidency......"



I don't get it. Are people really wanting to go this far? If you're going to do this then you need to eliminate the words caucasian, african american, hispanic, asian, etc., as well because someone somewhere finds those to be discriminatory. May as well eliminate male and female, too for good measure. And what about folks who aren't married, where is their word?



I mean, where does it end? I get that progress is being made for equal rights for folks but this is a fine line to walk before things get out of hand.

I spoke about PC in another thread and asked the same question. When does it ever end?

Quote:

I doubt that anyone threatening the husband of a female President would get off on a technicality because of the way the law's written. If this Supreme Court has shown us anything lately, it's that it's more than happy to set precedents based upon the interpretation of a law rather than the text.

I thought that was a stupid point to make as well. If a woman is ever elected a President they'll rewrite that law. And if it came down to brass tacks and it wasn't but the female Pres's husband was threatened I don't think someone will point to a law and say, "But it's not written!" Then again, they might.

As for the rest of what you said, apparently we don't mind employing people to do that very thing. It's not like the money could be used for more important things.

Quote:I spoke about PC in another thread and asked the same question. When does it ever end?

That's just it. There is no end. It's an endless list of things they find offensive. At some point, they're going to force a new amendment to the Constitution down our throats saying it is a right to NOT be offended. Political correctness has paralyzed many for fear they'll be labeled by the bullies on the left. For them, political correctness is an industry with an unlimited number of targets.

As an example, if the Confederate flag bothers you, fight to have it removed from public display. Before that battle is done, fight to have the monuments honoring the Confederacy dismantled. Before that battle has completed, demand dead Confederates who are buried in some of these memorials be dug up and removed from public view. If a celebrity happens to have been photographed with a Confederate flag, bash him and demand an apology. If he happens to own an iconic car from a television series, badger him into submission to have the flag removed. Force a TV network to stop showing syndicated re-runs of the same show even though there isn't the slightest thing racist about it. See how things snowball just because of political correctness?

Political correctness cascades from liberals more freely than water does from Niagara Falls, and with more punishment.

Oppose the president? You're a racist.

Support traditional marriage? You're a homophobe.

Question whether #BlackLivesMatter or just black lives snuffed out by whites? You're a racist.

You think that while alternative fuel resources are a great idea that we should continue to pursue to do it more in a more affordable manner, cheap, readily available energy resources should still be the primary focus in our energy strategy, you're accused of wanting to destroy the planet.

Disagree with the idea that global warming climate change is all man's fault, and you're labeled a flat earth person.

Speak up for border control and enforcement related to illegal aliens? You're a racist.

You've got successful comedians who are at the top of the industry who refuse to perform on college campuses because political correctness has made it impossible to tell a joke without creating some sort of controversy.

You won't bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious beliefs, and not only are you a homophobe, but you must be sued into bankruptcy and forced to close your business too.

They've got the golden ticket to bully and intimidate anyone into submission, and a list of targets that could and will go on for decades. No matter the issue, if they embrace the cause, anyone who opposes them will get the full power of political correctness brought down upon them, and it's okay for them to do so because they're well intentioned liberals.

It's funny. Those who claim to be the most tolerant? They wind up being the least.

Quote:This should explain all of this nonsense for you.

So Obama and the Progressives are using political propaganda and social psychology in order to influence public opinion and push for radical new laws and social attitudes...what else is new?

Quote:So Obama and the Progressives are using political propaganda and social psychology in order to influence public opinion and push for radical new laws and social attitudes...what else is new?

It's not a new tactic. It's just exercised with far more effectiveness by the left.

Quote:It's not a new tactic. It's just exercised with far more effectiveness by the left.

I know that, I'm just being sarcastic. Honestly, the current political/social environment in the US today, reminds me a lot of Animal Farm.

Quote:I know that, I'm just being sarcastic. Honestly, the current political/social environment in the US today, reminds me a lot of Animal Farm.

You're not the first person to say that, and it's only going to get worse. There's going to come a time when this nonsense is going to rip this country apart, and I don't think it's that far down the road.

Quote:That's just it. There is no end. It's an endless list of things they find offensive. At some point, they're going to force a new amendment to the Constitution down our throats saying it is a right to NOT be offended. Political correctness has paralyzed many for fear they'll be labeled by the bullies on the left. For them, political correctness is an industry with an unlimited number of targets.

As an example, if the Confederate flag bothers you, fight to have it removed from public display. Before that battle is done, fight to have the monuments honoring the Confederacy dismantled. Before that battle has completed, demand dead Confederates who are buried in some of these memorials be dug up and removed from public view. If a celebrity happens to have been photographed with a Confederate flag, bash him and demand an apology. If he happens to own an iconic car from a television series, badger him into submission to have the flag removed. Force a TV network to stop showing syndicated re-runs of the same show even though there isn't the slightest thing racist about it. See how things snowball just because of political correctness?

Political correctness cascades from liberals more freely than water does from Niagara Falls, and with more punishment.

Oppose the president? You're a racist.

Support traditional marriage? You're a homophobe.

Question whether #BlackLivesMatter or just black lives snuffed out by whites? You're a racist.

You think that while alternative fuel resources are a great idea that we should continue to pursue to do it more in a more affordable manner, cheap, readily available energy resources should still be the primary focus in our energy strategy, you're accused of wanting to destroy the planet.

Disagree with the idea that global warming climate change is all man's fault, and you're labeled a flat earth person.

Speak up for border control and enforcement related to illegal aliens? You're a racist.

You've got successful comedians who are at the top of the industry who refuse to perform on college campuses because political correctness has made it impossible to tell a joke without creating some sort of controversy.

You won't bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious beliefs, and not only are you a homophobe, but you must be sued into bankruptcy and forced to close your business too.

They've got the golden ticket to bully and intimidate anyone into submission, and a list of targets that could and will go on for decades. No matter the issue, if they embrace the cause, anyone who opposes them will get the full power of political correctness brought down upon them, and it's okay for them to do so because they're well intentioned liberals.

It's funny. Those who claim to be the most tolerant? They wind up being the least.

The thing is, in history what has happened when such thinking is made the "law of the land"? North Korea anyone?

Look even closer into our own country's history. Are we turning into the FLDS on a national level? Perhaps, only by a different "religion" (or non-religion). We are being told what to say, what to do and what to think. History is being "re-written" and any evidence of our history is being taken away.

Quote:This should explain all of this nonsense for you.

Very interesting read. "We are Borg" definitely comes to mind.

"And participants in the mob action cannot comprehend that they are actually cutting off their
own freedom of expression, as well as everybody else’s." My husband and I were just talking about this the other day. What's going to happen to the masses who pushed for all of this when it turns on them? That was the question I posed to my husband and we talked about various things.

And this, "After all, political correctness is primarily a tool for crushing people’s ability to have open conversations in friendship and mutual respect.
" is a very true statement. I've never been politically correct. My mom always told me I was crass and uncouth and I can be, I suppose. However, I do try to respect a person's position on a matter even if I don't agree as I realize we all have different points of view and opinions. But when I'm constantly being told I'm wrong by those who do not respect my POV even though they don't agree (reciprocate) then I have no reason to discuss anything further with them on the matter. At that point is where I agree to disagree and move on. No point in beating a dead horse.

"I now pronounce you, Man and Maid"..

Quote:"I now pronounce you, Man and Maid"..

Pretty soon we may be genderless as well as raceless and whatever they can come up with.

Quote:Pretty soon we may be genderless as well as raceless and whatever they can come up with.

I don't wanna end up a Ken Doll Sad

Quote:Pretty soon we may be genderless as well as raceless and whatever they can come up with.

If they do away with gender and race, then what? Seriously, that would pretty much negate most special interest groups to irrelevance. That's a pretty big industry to abandon.

Quote:It's not a new tactic. It's just exercised with far more effectiveness by the left.

You should strongly consider changing your avatar to a picture of Antonin Scalia. Just saying. It's always about left vs. right, good vs. evil with you. If you'd start looking at the merits of the situation, you might see that the world isn't such a "one way or the other" place. Pulling the Dukes of Hazzard was stupid, taking Jeb Bush out of context is bullhonkey, and the ACA is a good idea stuck in a flawed package that will, over time, figure out what it needs to look like and get there. It's not always as simple as "four legs good, two legs better".

And if you really are considering the merits of each situation and arriving at the same conclusions every time, then hey, more power to you, but you lose all credibility in an argument when you can't post without name-calling and/or blaming everything on the libs, the proggies, the PC police and the gay mafia, who are, of course, the only groups that would ever disagree with you. Admin tag or not, I really don't care, I'm calling you out because there are people on this board from both sides of aisle, some from far across the aisle of each other, who make debating in this forum fun and engaging, and then there's you throwing names around and belittling anyone (forum member or not, person or group) who disagrees with you about anything.

So is this bill about the libs, the proggies, the PC police and the gay mafia sitting around a poker table in a smoky back room of an Italian joint plotting the downfall of America? No. It's a liberal politician who's hoping that Hillary Clinton wins the White House, and is angling for a position on her Cabinet if that happens. Unless the 23 other names on that bill are a true bipartisan split (hint: they're not), the thing won't even pass. It's not an attempt by the evil liberals (who, if you're to be believed, always work in perfect unity with each other) to subvert society. It's a politician using a hot-button issue to get her name out there, an action that, in politics, knows no gender, no party and no position.

Quote:I don't wanna end up a Ken Doll

Sauerkraut and knockwurst almost ended up on my laptop. Lol

Quote:If they do away with gender and race, then what? Seriously, that would pretty much negate most special interest groups to irrelevance. That's a pretty big industry to abandon.

I don't disagree but the way things are going someone somewhere will think that up and others will think it's a 'good idea' just to have something to do.

Quote:You should strongly consider changing your avatar to a picture of Antonin Scalia. Just saying. It's always about left vs. right, good vs. evil with you. If you'd start looking at the merits of the situation, you might see that the world isn't such a "one way or the other" place. Pulling the Dukes of Hazzard was stupid, taking Jeb Bush out of context is bullhonkey, and the ACA is a good idea stuck in a flawed package that will, over time, figure out what it needs to look like and get there. It's not always as simple as "four legs good, two legs better".

And if you really are considering the merits of each situation and arriving at the same conclusions every time, then hey, more power to you, but you lose all credibility in an argument when you can't post without name-calling and/or blaming everything on the libs, the proggies, the PC police and the gay mafia, who are, of course, the only groups that would ever disagree with you. Admin tag or not, I really don't care, I'm calling you out because there are people on this board from both sides of aisle, some from far across the aisle of each other, who make debating in this forum fun and engaging, and then there's you throwing names around and belittling anyone (forum member or not, person or group) who disagrees with you about anything.

So is this bill about the libs, the proggies, the PC police and the gay mafia sitting around a poker table in a smoky back room of an Italian joint plotting the downfall of America? No. It's a liberal politician who's hoping that Hillary Clinton wins the White House, and is angling for a position on her Cabinet if that happens. Unless the 23 other names on that bill are a true bipartisan split (hint: they're not), the thing won't even pass. It's not an attempt by the evil liberals (who, if you're to be believed, always work in perfect unity with each other) to subvert society. It's a politician using a hot-button issue to get her name out there, an action that, in politics, knows no gender, no party and no position.

This really isn't a partisan issue, or left vs right argument here; it's about the future of this country. The trends that are happening in this country right now- along with the speed in which many of these social changes and policies are happening without a comprehensive debate taking place, is very disturbing.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

americus 2.0

FBT

TJBender

jagibelieve

americus 2.0

FBT

Guest

FBT

Guest

FBT

jagibelieve

americus 2.0

WingerDinger

americus 2.0

WingerDinger

FBT

TJBender

americus 2.0

americus 2.0

Guest