- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kids are being taken from ‘non-affirming’ parents.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:50 am to Azkiger
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:50 am to Azkiger
quote:
So how do you explain the states who didn't remove children from non-affirming parents for decades now doing it?
Giving states too much power doesn't mean their standards are static.
quote:
Your logic says people shouldn't have been worried about it happening because it hadn't happened before.
No my argument is states have too much power.
They should have always been worried about the state/CPS.
1
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:50 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Gay marriage allows people to live life as they choose
Taking kids from parents punishes the parents from living life as they choose.
Correct.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
is you abandoning the point.
My point was a hypothetical where Kamala is elected and successfully federalized already accepted progressive policy, be it through more policy or actual legislation.
quote:
This is what you actually replied with:
Yes, you think it's outlandish for someone to think that Kamala would try and push this sort of legislation/outright make it government policy via one of several governmental agencies who've already weighed in on this issue?
This post was edited on 10/19/24 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No my argument is states have too much power.
quote:
a. He hasn't, and he had 4 years.
That was your top reason.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:52 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Gay marriage allows people to live life as they choose
I dont have issues with gay marriage, or gayness in general.
I have major problems with LBGTQ, which is nothing but a political association which has vaulted trannies above normal gay folks.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I open this thread and see it's blown out to 7 pages and i'm so not shocked to see this dumbass in here ignoring the OP (as usual) and trying to completely derail the thread(as usual) with his TDS fueled psychosis (as usual).
A person can easily be against this behavior at the state/local level and not support Trump, because there is no overlap.
This post was edited on 10/19/24 at 9:55 am
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm sure atheist parents have had to deal with over-bearing CPS workers in heavily Christian areas.
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You pull up hypotheticals out of the air and try to pass it off as fact. You’re such a clown.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
have major problems with LBGTQ, which is nothing but a political association which has vaulted trannies above normal gay folks.
Guess what I have a major problem with the same alphabet group plus I only look at them as LGB..no other letters.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:58 am to Azkiger
quote:
That was your top reason.
That was my response to your silly hypothetical.
You made a prediction and I gave evidence why it was silly.
I even later gave a corollary to abortion
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm sure atheist parents have had to deal with over-bearing CPS workers in heavily Christian areas.
Naivety raises its ugly head, again..
Posted on 10/19/24 at 9:58 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
ignoring the OP
I'm not.
I also responded directly to a post who brought up Trump, not the OP.
This post was edited on 10/19/24 at 9:59 am
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That was my response to your silly hypothetical.
You don't need to tell me, I know that shitty response came from you. That's why I'm rubbing your face in it.
Let me re-ask this since you may have missed it.
Despite Kamala wanting to use federal dollars to fund illegal immigrant child transition procedures, and despite progressive states removing children from "non-gender affirming parents", and despite numerous federal agencies that deal with health and child welfare state their stances are that it's harmful for children to remain with "non-gender affirming parents", you felt the need to step into a conversation about "what if" Kamala is able to push this crap at a federal level to argue that it's ridiculous to even entertain such an idea?
Does that about sum up your presence here?
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:04 am to Azkiger
quote:
Let me re-ask this since you may have missed it.
"let me re-word my question since I was exposed earlier and tried to crawfish earlier"
You're not asking me the same question.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:05 am to SlowFlowPro
frick it, the question is simple:
If Kamala could snap her fingers and make this federal policy, would she?
If Kamala could snap her fingers and make this federal policy, would she?
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:06 am to Azkiger
quote:
You don't need to tell me, I know that shitty response came from you.
Shitty hypotheticals don't require much to disprove them.
And you're trying to conflate your hypothetical with my comment that states have too much power (which has been my argument).
Little lesson: you making an argument and giving an hypothetical that is popped by me is not "my argument". That's your argument (being disposed of).
My argument is something else entirely. You don't get to frame everything around your argument and then claim the responses are the only acceptable responses, then plant a flag due to your framing.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Ackshually.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:08 am to udtiger
quote:
If Kamala could snap her fingers and make this federal policy, would she?
Does she want to win elections?
This is just like abortion. There is a reason it never became federal legislative policy when DEMs had all three branches.
You could project the same fear porn (and this actually happened for decades). Could they? Yes. Would they have paid a severe pollical price? Yes. So they didn't.
Same here.
That's why the most you get is some non-binding memorandum. Not even a regulatory rule proposal.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"let me re-word my question since I was exposed earlier and tried to crawfish earlier"
You're not asking me the same question.
So you did see it...
I even modified the language to make it easier for you to answer AND YOU STILL PASSED
Thanks for the answer.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:09 am to the808bass
quote:
Ackshually.
Proving people wrong is not the proper use of that meme.
But it's on brand.
Posted on 10/19/24 at 10:09 am to Azkiger
quote:perfectly
Does that about sum it up?
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News