Disgusting pigs, every last one of you. Attacking people with the LEAST amount of power.Federal legislation to ban transgender women and girls from competing on sports teams for women and girls will be heard for the first time Wednesday morning, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce announced Monday.
Nothing like that at all and it was the democratic party keeping blacks from team sports.
Let's be clear: A speaker at CPAC basically said to kill all the transgenders - and not only did they not throw his ass out, they cheered him.Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:21 pm Nothing like that at all and it was the democratic party keeping blacks from team sports.
This is another one of those topics where liberals have to cast out common sense. Of course a person born male and transitioned in most cases would have a decided advantage.
Which is why the NCAA has changed the rules making it virtually impossible for a transgender athlete to compete.
Let me add I completely agree it is a ridiculous thing for congress to get involved in.
Link please and this thread is about transgender participants in sports
. I see you are lying once again nowhere in that statement did he say anything about killing trans people.gounion wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:43 pm https://mobile.twitter.com/ErinInTheMor ... 9930702850
I'm sure you'll defend this.
It means deport or execute.
He was talking about eradicating them from team sports. Which is the topic of this thread.
No, it was largely the owners and managers of professional sports that did that - refused to let Jackie Robinson play for the Dodgers, etc.
Depends on the sport.This is another one of those topics where liberals have to cast out common sense. Of course a person born male and transitioned in most cases would have a decided advantage.
It was JFK that forced the owner of the Washington Redskins to hire black players.Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:21 pm Nothing like that at all and it was the democratic party keeping blacks from team sports.
This is another one of those topics where liberals have to cast out common sense. Of course a person born male and transitioned in most cases would have a decided advantage.
Which is why the NCAA has changed the rules making it virtually impossible for a transgender athlete to compete.
Let me add I completely agree it is a ridiculous thing for congress to get involved in.
That is something I have never heard before.
You need to get your facts straight. https://www.bigblueview.com/2016/12/31/ ... n-marshallGlennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:35 pm That is something I have never heard before.
I know they first had black players in 1962. I doubt JFK had anything ti do with it. Seems to me he had more important things on his plate than the roster of the Redskins.
You are correct the owner was a devout racist. I suspect he was tired of losing to Cleveland.
The Redskins were considered “the team of the South” as it was the NFL’s southernmost franchise. Marshall actually “claimed” the southern states as his territorial rights. Before every game the club’s marching band would play “Dixie” as well as the team’s fight song, “Hail to the Redskins” which also had lyrics that stated “Fight for Dixie!”
Marshall was steadfast about his team’s policy on not hiring black players. He didn’t draft any nor did he make any attempts to trade for any. And he didn’t back down from the subject, either. The Washington Post wrote several articles on these facts and that the team was the only one in professional sports devoid of black athletes. This was the time that civil rights was on everyone’s tongue and changes regarding race issues were eminent. One reporter wrote that the Redskins were “the whitest and worst team in professional football.” The team colors were noted as burgundy, gold and Caucasian.
By autumn of the 1960 season Marshall’s stance had become humiliation for the nation’s capital not only with segregation but also on the field. The last winning season for the Redskins was 1955 and the club went 1-9-2 during the 1960 campaign. And soon, the Skins would be playing in a brand new stadium – a stadium built on land owned by the Department of the Interior (DOI). Something had to be done, and someone had to be the one to start the process.
That someone was Stewart Udall, President John F. Kennedy’s newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior.
The Redskins had just signed a 30-year lease to begin play at the new stadium slated for completion in October of 1961. Not only was the $24 million ballpark completely financed with public funds, but was built at Anacosta Flats; which was a part of the National Capital Parks system. Because the DOI was basically the landlord and also a government entity, they could renounce usage from any entity that practiced discrimination and unfair hiring practices.
All government buildings had defined rules that did not allow discrimination in regards to hiring employees. D.C. Stadium wasn’t any different than any other federal structure. Udall contacted President Kennedy about the quandary to address the issue to which Kennedy told him to proceed with vigor and accomplish the task. Udall was instructed to force Marshall’s hand and then he fired off a letter with the advice that his team would be in violation of the government’s new regulations.
Interesting historygounion wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:46 pm You need to get your facts straight. https://www.bigblueview.com/2016/12/31/ ... n-marshall
Sigh. Glen, you should know better. That wasn’t the Democratic Party of today. That was conservatives who sided with slave owners. Why were there Republicans who supported the Civil Rights act besides, iirc, Goldwater, and fewer Democrats? It wasn’t Democrat vs Republican. It was liberal vs conservative.Glennfs wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:21 pm Nothing like that at all and it was the democratic party keeping blacks from team sports.
This is another one of those topics where liberals have to cast out common sense. Of course a person born male and transitioned in most cases would have a decided advantage.
Which is why the NCAA has changed the rules making it virtually impossible for a transgender athlete to compete.
Let me add I completely agree it is a ridiculous thing for congress to get involved in.
I wonder how many here families voted for democrats prior to say 1960. If so were they devout racist.bird wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 10:39 am Sigh. Glen, you should know better. That wasn’t the Democratic Party of today. That was conservatives who sided with slave owners. Why were there Republicans who supported the Civil Rights act besides, iirc, Goldwater, and fewer Democrats? It wasn’t Democrat vs Republican. It was liberal vs conservative.
Then Nixon latched onto the Southern strategy to pick up conservatives in the South pissed off due to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Conservatives in the South moved into the Republican Party because the racism of Nixon et al welcomed them with open arms.
So, the so-called Party of Lincoln which is used to stake a claim which no longer exists abandoned the Black man as Reconstruction collapsed. Monied Republican interests in the North wanted to resume economic relations with Conservative Democratic wealth and property owners in the South. Jim Crow might never have existed had conservatives not been allowed to dictate policy due to a series of weak presidents and shoddy congresspeople.
I would suggest reading Jeremi Suri’s Civil War by Other Means but I know you won’t bother.
Finally, what, exactly, is the process for transgender? What hormonal treatments are involved? What impact do those treatment have on muscle mass? What is the percentage of transgender people involved in NCAA athletics?
Nope. Wrong again. But you are consistent.
