TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

Gotcha.

aergia wrote:

---

OK flame away. I missed the part where transgender people abuse children and others.
I did not know trans people were pedophiles.

Or was this covered elsewhere?

---

 Sigh.  Yes, it was.  The transgenders are not the issue - no one is claiming they are pedophiles or anything else.  

But Target's policy opens the bathrooms and dressing rooms up to ANYONE.  

aergia wrote:

---

ok just checking
Sometimes it is hard to see through all the smoke

---

 Do you think ANYONE should be able to walk in and use the bathroom with little girls?

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 I don't know enough about Chick-fil-a boycott to comment.  Besides - it appears to be somewhat ineffective . . .

---

We have a thread on it.  The MAYOR of NY called for a boycott of Chik-fil-a.  But is the problem that the Target boycott is actually having an effect?  I thought boycotts didn't mean anything?  

---

 Right - because our threads are full of reliable information that make me an informed consumer    And yes - for it to actually be a boycott, people have to DO IT.  Otherwise its not a boycott.  THat's sort of the definition.  And I never said that boycotts don't mean anything - I am, however, aware of how they work . . . 

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 Hence why she is boycotting Target. No one should have to worry about their daughter responding to a creeper in the first place. I still haven't heard a good reason why creeper as you call it has more right to the bathroom than a child.

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 So grown women never get attacked, either? 

But I see.  You care more about an unneeded and unnecessary policy than you do the safety of girls and women.  

First it's don't be a helicopter parent, and then if you let your 12 year old go to the bathroom, you are not parenting well enough.

 

I guess it's just whatever fits the argument at the moment.

---

 You're the one unable to find middle ground and switching the argument (or insulting my intelligence - which is the ONLY time that anyone on this thread has come close to name calling, btw) when you don't like someone's response.  So don't put that on me.  You are responsible for your kids.  Grown women are responsible for themselves.  Bathroom attacks are pretty rare and happen in single sex bathrooms as well, so making a huge deal out of this is fear mongering.  

---

 If pointing out the fact that the point is being lost on you is insulting your intelligence, then I can't help that.  Because you are missing the point.

And NOW you are saying that women are responsible if they are attacked.  Got it.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 So grown women never get attacked, either? 

But I see.  You care more about an unneeded and unnecessary policy than you do the safety of girls and women.  

First it's don't be a helicopter parent, and then if you let your 12 year old go to the bathroom, you are not parenting well enough.

 

I guess it's just whatever fits the argument at the moment.

---

 You're the one unable to find middle ground and switching the argument (or insulting my intelligence - which is the ONLY time that anyone on this thread has come close to name calling, btw) when you don't like someone's response.  So don't put that on me.  You are responsible for your kids.  Grown women are responsible for themselves.  Bathroom attacks are pretty rare and happen in single sex bathrooms as well, so making a huge deal out of this is fear mongering.  

---

 If pointing out the fact that the point is being lost on you is insulting your intelligence, then I can't help that.  Because you are missing the point.

And NOW you are saying that women are responsible if they are attacked.  Got it.

---

 Wow.  Way to twist words AND insult my intelligence at the same time.  And here I've actually thought you really were above that sort of behaviour.  Oh well.  I guess it comes out when your argument can't stand on it's own.

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 So grown women never get attacked, either? 

But I see.  You care more about an unneeded and unnecessary policy than you do the safety of girls and women.  

First it's don't be a helicopter parent, and then if you let your 12 year old go to the bathroom, you are not parenting well enough.

 

I guess it's just whatever fits the argument at the moment.

---

 You're the one unable to find middle ground and switching the argument (or insulting my intelligence - which is the ONLY time that anyone on this thread has come close to name calling, btw) when you don't like someone's response.  So don't put that on me.  You are responsible for your kids.  Grown women are responsible for themselves.  Bathroom attacks are pretty rare and happen in single sex bathrooms as well, so making a huge deal out of this is fear mongering.  

---

 If pointing out the fact that the point is being lost on you is insulting your intelligence, then I can't help that.  Because you are missing the point.

And NOW you are saying that women are responsible if they are attacked.  Got it.

---

 Wow.  Way to twist words AND insult my intelligence at the same time.  And here I've actually thought you really were above that sort of behaviour.  Oh well.  I guess it comes out when your argument can't stand on it's own.

---

 Can't rationally argue, start playing victim.  Telling you the point is lost on you is NOT name calling.  And you said what you said.  I didn't twist it.  "Grown women are responsible for themselves."  In the context of safety.  

You want to play victim instead of actually addressing safety concerns?  You are the one that IGNORES the safety concerns and dismisses them as invalid.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

---

 Can't rationally argue, start playing victim.  Telling you the point is lost on you is NOT name calling.  And you said what you said.  I didn't twist it.  "Grown women are responsible for themselves."  In the context of safety.  

You want to play victim instead of actually addressing safety concerns?  You are the one that IGNORES the safety concerns and dismisses them as invalid.

 

---

 Actually, you are the one who decided what I do and do not ignore and do and do not understand and what I do and do not have the intelligence to comprehend.  I guess actual conversation is too much to ask.  

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

Really?  I'm losing? LOL!

You want me to shop at Target.  I will not shop at Target until their policy changes.

I'm pretty sure I won.... 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 Hence why she is boycotting Target. No one should have to worry about their daughter responding to a creeper in the first place. I still haven't heard a good reason why creeper as you call it has more right to the bathroom than a child.

---

 Exactly.  If I don't think my kid will be safe there - I'm not taking them there.  

But that's just silly, because bathroom attacks are RARE.    But they happen, and now, they will happen more easily at Target.  It doesn't even have to be an attack, it can be a peeper making my kid uncomfortable.  Target says my daughter's comfort and safety DOES NOT MATTER.  Why on earth would I continue to shop there?  

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

---

 Can't rationally argue, start playing victim.  Telling you the point is lost on you is NOT name calling.  And you said what you said.  I didn't twist it.  "Grown women are responsible for themselves."  In the context of safety.  

You want to play victim instead of actually addressing safety concerns?  You are the one that IGNORES the safety concerns and dismisses them as invalid.

 

---

 Actually, you are the one who decided what I do and do not ignore and do and do not understand and what I do and do not have the intelligence to comprehend.  I guess actual conversation is too much to ask.  

---

 You have to actually address the questions asked to have a conversation instead of just dismissing the concerns and playing victim.

---

 I did address the questions.  And then the insults, baiting and word twisting started.  I think I'll come back when conversation is back on the table because right now it's just insults and name calling.

---

 No, not really.  You completely dismissed safety concerns as stupid, said I need to hover over my 12 year old to be a good parent, that as a grown woman I'm responsible for my own safety, and said the Chik-fil-a boycott doesn't matter because it didn't work. 

So, where have you addressed the REAL issues of the numbers related to safety.  The numbers of registered sex offenders, the numbers of attacks against women and children, and why have you wholly and completely dismissed my concerns simply because you think those issues are rare?  Why haven't you responded to the numbers that there are more registered sex offenders in this country than there are transgenders and yet my concerns are unwarranted?  Why is the point that someone IN THE GOVERNMENT even CALLED for a boycott against Chik-fil-a an issue instead of just ignoring it because it didn't work?  

Those are the issues.  Not your hurt feelings b/c I said you were missing the point in a way you didn't like.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

---

 Can't rationally argue, start playing victim.  Telling you the point is lost on you is NOT name calling.  And you said what you said.  I didn't twist it.  "Grown women are responsible for themselves."  In the context of safety.  

You want to play victim instead of actually addressing safety concerns?  You are the one that IGNORES the safety concerns and dismisses them as invalid.

 

---

 Actually, you are the one who decided what I do and do not ignore and do and do not understand and what I do and do not have the intelligence to comprehend.  I guess actual conversation is too much to ask.  

---

 You have to actually address the questions asked to have a conversation instead of just dismissing the concerns and playing victim.

---

 I did address the questions.  And then the insults, baiting and word twisting started.  I think I'll come back when conversation is back on the table because right now it's just insults and name calling.

---

 Where is all this name calling? I'm not seeing it but I guess it's as good an excuse as any to run away from the discussion...

---

 Exactly.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

 

And quite frankly - I do NOT understand the liberal mindset on this one.  Target has family unisex bathrooms in every store I've been in.  This isn't about a transgender being able to safely use a restroom, this is about making a political point.  When you do that - you alienate those that don't agree with you.  And businesses who have a duty to their shareholders, and their employees, should not be doing that.  

And WHY do liberals think it is ok to ignore safety concerns?  There are more registered sex offenders in this country than there are transgenders. It is not a stupid concern.

---

 

---

 crickets

flan327 wrote:

---

Yesterday's entire Daily could have been written by six-year-olds...

flan

---

well thank you.

some do not always feel the need to participate in ummm the constant snark.  I do my best to stay off the threads I am sure I would add nothing too, but I DO not make rude unnecessary comments about those who participate. (well til now I suppose)   

Some may come to the boards to relax, catch up with peeps and not always have to always be on the defensive and whatever it is.

I have apologized in the past and meant it, in that I did not say anything intentionally to hurt anyone and if I did, I do mean I was sorry.  It is not my intent to hurt anyone here, but FFS (For Frogs Sake, for anyone offended easily) I just do not get it, why having ONE thread be light and fun, well for the majority I suppose.

well go back to any bashing and saying hurtful things to each other cause we all know what buttons to push to cause disrespect.

looks for my coloring book and colors and leaves the *adults* to sharing all their *wisdom*

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And nobody NAME CALLED.

Is this flippin' kindergarten?

---

I am wiping a booger on LL!

<smear> 

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Target has opened the doors to sexual predators being able to use any bathroom or dressing room they like. They have now made it clear that their policy does not just apply to transgenders, but it "inclusive" to everyone.

But thanks for ignoring the valid concerns of parents.

---

Same policy as always. I guess people didn't care enough to check before.

Policy has not changed...you have.

---

 I don't get this.

If you become aware of something you don't agree with, can you not change your opinion? 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And attacks on women and children are NOT rare.

But being transgender IS.

---

 You need to support your first statement if you want us to believe you.

flan

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I would still like to know why the boycott of Chick-fil-a was all good, but the Target one is not...

---

 Well because they agreed with the Chik-fil-A boycott but they don't agree with the Target boycott so one is good and the other is bad. Liberal logic...

---

 Of course, Chik-fil-a doesn't actually discriminate, welcomes everyone, and has gay employees......but let's ignore that little bit.  Nobody cares about those jobs.

---

 Losing ground on the Target argument...

 

Switch to Chick-fil-a.

 

Gotcha.

---

 LOL.  Deflect, deflect, deflect.  No one has lost anything on the Target argument.  I do not have to shop there for whatever reason, nor does anyone else. 

 

You, however, have ignored the questions about ignoring safety concerns and how the Chik-fil-a boycott is ok but the Target one is not.  

---

 Why is it Target's job to watch your children?  Shouldn't YOU be doing that?

---

 I should be able to let my 12 year old try on clothes while I continue to find things for her, or let her go to the bathroom.  She's 12, not 2.

---

 Then you have nothing to be worried about.  12 year olds know how to respond when a creeper shows up and know to kick and scream.  Either you have something to worry about, or you don't.  Either way YOU are responsible for your kids.  

---

 So grown women never get attacked, either? 

But I see.  You care more about an unneeded and unnecessary policy than you do the safety of girls and women.  

First it's don't be a helicopter parent, and then if you let your 12 year old go to the bathroom, you are not parenting well enough.

 

I guess it's just whatever fits the argument at the moment.

---

 You're the one unable to find middle ground and switching the argument (or insulting my intelligence - which is the ONLY time that anyone on this thread has come close to name calling, btw) when you don't like someone's response.  So don't put that on me.  You are responsible for your kids.  Grown women are responsible for themselves.  Bathroom attacks are pretty rare and happen in single sex bathrooms as well, so making a huge deal out of this is fear mongering.  

---

 If pointing out the fact that the point is being lost on you is insulting your intelligence, then I can't help that.  Because you are missing the point.

And NOW you are saying that women are responsible if they are attacked.  Got it.

---

 Wow.  Way to twist words AND insult my intelligence at the same time.  And here I've actually thought you really were above that sort of behaviour.  Oh well.  I guess it comes out when your argument can't stand on it's own.

---

 I'm sorry, Tig, but it's hard for a person to keep hiding their true colors.

Your points are valid and reasonable.

flan