Thank You MR. Cavness

[5GallonBucket]

Just want to thank Mr. Cavness(PNG Super) for being a real leader! 

[AHUDDLESTON]

Way to go, Rodney.

[baddog]

Well, I need more info than this. What did he do?

[stevenash]

He essentially told the Feds/Pres that he was not going to abide by the new transgender bathroom rule passed down to all public schools

[baddog]

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

He essentially told the Feds/Pres that he was not going to abide by the new transgender bathroom rule passed down to all public schools

Wow, I almost guessed at that as a joke and decided against it. Kudos to the man for having a pair and using them.

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

smh

[PhatMack19]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[baddog]

Why not just have one bathroom? You could save millions on signs alone, and the kids in Porky's would not have to bore holes.

[NDNation]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

A few more schools chime in. They all have the same message, Mr Cavness just got a little bit more real with it..lol

I personally don't want to see any kid hurt or picked on. I also don't want my 14 year old daughter seeing male parts in the bathroom/locker room.

[mat]

Many don't see the problem with Target allowing transgender to use the restroom they choose. This issue has grown to where the government will cut funding if you don't comply in the school systems. This includes locker rooms. How many are OK with their teenaged daughter being forced to undress or shower with the opposite sex?

This single issue could change the presidency. Trump will force Hillary to support Obama's decision or denounce it. This is not good for the democratic party.

[NDNation]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not a LAW yet. Cutting funding is ridiculous. That would punish kids in the school district. Each school should be allowed to handle this on an as needed basis.

I've worked with homosexual people (not transgender), and one of the ladies told me that all this attention is embarrassing. They want to blend with the community they live in, not stick out like a sore thumb. 

 

[baddog]

We have gotten to a point where common sense is thrown out the window in favor of forcible legislation.

Why do we even dress ourselves? If you can go into a bathroom/locker room and see anthing you want, why hide it when you come out. Common sense tells me there is no difference.

Sometimes you have to "offend" or discriminate for the common good.

Liberal thinking has become"anything goes". No rules, no morality, just let it all hang out.

I sure hope I offended the living crap out of someone with my post.

[stevenash]

I am terribly curious about one thing.  How does one go about being officially designated as "transgender"?  Or do you  go to any bathroom you want and if someone confronts you, you simply claim you are transgender?

[baddog]

1 minute ago, stevenash said:

I am terribly curious about one thing.  How does one go about being officially designated as "transgender"?  Or do you simply go to any bathroom you want and if someone confronts you, you simply claim you are transgender?

I guess one would have to drop trou. Either way, there is no penis.....or a real one anyway.

Why not have their own restroom. All you need is a toilet.

Oops, did I offend?

[NDNation]

If you have to stand up to tinkle, I don't want you in the bathroom with my daughter.

If you have a female child that is transgender, do you really want her in a locker room full of boys.

 

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

26 minutes ago, NDNation said:

If you have to stand up to tinkle, I don't want you in the bathroom with my daughter.

If you have a female child that is transgender, do you really want her in a locker room full of boys.

 

 

 

Agree...they are opening the door for bad things to happen...and then more bad things in reaction.

[tvc184]

Change you can believe in!!

[Hagar]

I liked the statement from Vidor.   Girls will use the girls bathroom and boys will use the boys bathroom.  As for as I'm concerned, that sums it up.

Congratulations to all the Districts standing up for common sense!

[NDNation]

Nederland will comply. In the end, if it comes down to funding, all schools will fall in line. 

When a Transgender girl who id's as a boy walks in the the boys locker room, will there be special accommodations inside the locker room? Because that would be defeating the purpose of them fitting in with male gender and would still be separation as if they would have just went in the girls locker room.

I want to see the full lay out of this. The instructions.

[tvc184]

12 hours ago, NDNation said:

Nederland will comply. In the end, if it comes down to funding, all schools will fall in line. 

When a Transgender girl who id's as a boy walks in the the boys locker room, will there be special accommodations inside the locker room? Because that would be defeating the purpose of them fitting in with male gender and would still be separation as if they would have just went in the girls locker room.

I want to see the full lay out of this. The instructions.

The only leverage the government has is to withhold funding. 

I cannot remember the case but at least once in the Obama administration they tried to withhold funding from a state for some reason. The federal court decided that they had no authority to withhold statutory funding because they didn't like something. 

They can withhold funding if it is a federal law allowing it within their taxing authority such as the national drinking age of 21 such as in the case of SD v. Dole. They cannot force the age law on the states but can withhold funding as the federal law states where a whopping 5% of funding can be withheld. In that case the federal law  was upheld as passing the taxing authority of Congress and because it was no coercive and because it complied with a written law.

There is no such law on the federal books and there is no mention in Title 9 of transgender or sexual orientation. Those are made up by this administration or amounts to legislating from the administrative branch which is unconstitutional. 

Nederland might not fight it but I'll bet that the state of Texas does as will other states and I can almost assure you that a federal court will toss it out. Then it will depend on the circuit courts and possibly eventually the SCOTUS. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Isn't the money that the fed gov is threatening to withhold, money that the states have sent them waiting for them to redistribute?

Basically, the fed gov is threatening to steal from the states, right...no??

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Isn't the money that the fed gov is threatening to withhold, money that the states have sent them waiting for them to redistribute?

Basically, the fed gov is threatening to steal from the states, right...no??

I don't think so. I thought the education money came out of the general fund or in other words, from federal taxes paid. The state doesn't send them money per se just so they can send it back. 

The Constitution (I think Article I) says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. I believe that roughly means under the way it was written, equal. So if California sends in 5% of all taxes, they should get about 5% of anything given to states.

Along came the 16th Amendment (I think because of some Supreme Court rulings making income taxes illegal) and part of that amendment was to officially allow income taxes and to end apportionment. Assuming that I am correct, that means that the US Congress can collect what they want in taxes and can give it out as they please without regard to who paid it in...... assuming they pass a bill that is signed into law by the president. 

I believe that by the Constitution, including amendments, allows the federal government to levy taxes and spend them where they wish. The key being there has to be a law. That is what I was talking about above where the federal government did pass a law allowing highway funds to be slightly restricted if the states do not go with the suggested drinking age but there is no federal law that requires restroom accommodations for transgender or gender identification.

[Hagar]

A big ATTABOY to Dr. Caveness.  Not only for his stance, but the eloquent SETX way he put it.   To bad he's not running for president!

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I don't think so. I thought the education money came out of the general fund or in other words, from federal taxes paid. The state doesn't send them money per se just so they can send it back. 

The Constitution (I think Article I) says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. I believe that roughly means under the way it was written, equal. So if California sends in 5% of all taxes, they should get about 5% of anything given to states.

Along came the 16th Amendment (I think because of some Supreme Court rulings making income taxes illegal) and part of that amendment was to officially allow income taxes and to end apportionment. Assuming that I am correct, that means that the US Congress can collect what they want in taxes and can give it out as they please without regard to who paid it in...... assuming they pass a bill that is signed into law by the president. 

I believe that by the Constitution, including amendments, allows the federal government to levy taxes and spend them where they wish. The key being there has to be a law. That is what I was talking about above where the federal government did pass a law allowing highway funds to be slightly restricted if the states do not go with the suggested drinking age but there is no federal law that requires restroom accommodations for transgender or gender identification.

I should have stated that more clearly...the money comes from taxpayers within the states.

Good explanation...thanks.

[PhatMack19]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I don't think so. I thought the education money came out of the general fund or in other words, from federal taxes paid. The state doesn't send them money per se just so they can send it back. 

The Constitution (I think Article I) says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. I believe that roughly means under the way it was written, equal. So if California sends in 5% of all taxes, they should get about 5% of anything given to states.

Along came the 16th Amendment (I think because of some Supreme Court rulings making income taxes illegal) and part of that amendment was to officially allow income taxes and to end apportionment. Assuming that I am correct, that means that the US Congress can collect what they want in taxes and can give it out as they please without regard to who paid it in...... assuming they pass a bill that is signed into law by the president. 

I believe that by the Constitution, including amendments, allows the federal government to levy taxes and spend them where they wish. The key being there has to be a law. That is what I was talking about above where the federal government did pass a law allowing highway funds to be slightly restricted if the states do not go with the suggested drinking age but there is no federal law that requires restroom accommodations for transgender or gender identification.

From what I was told, a majority of the Federal money sent to schools is used to pay for free breakfast & lunches for those that qualify.  So Obama threatening to withhold funds disproportionally affects the kids that need it the most.  That sounds about right......