[LOCKED] OT: California's Travel Ban

Submitted by Carcajou on


 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/23/us/california-travel-ban/index.html

It forbids state funds to be used to travel to non-LGBTQ-friendly state, including Texas and much of the South.

Doesn't this apply to their coaches' recruiting in those states as well?

I guess UCLA and Cal would be the most relevant (to Michigan recruits and fans anyway) as Staford and USC are private.

Not that they can't invite out-of-state recruits for visit, and there isn't plenty of in-state and regional talent to keep them busy.

Still, I wonder if something like this applies to them, or if there is some sort of work-around, as it says "state funds".

MOD EDIT - Take an evening off the blog and.....yeah, we're locking this because some people cannot behave around these issues. - LSA

MGoBoard
Recruiting
rules

ijohnb

June 24th, 2017 at 7:29 AM ^

there is no cause for that. A person can weigh the complicated issues invlolved and come to their own conclusions, but calling women who have had an abortion "muderers" is patent bullshit. Comparing first term abortions to infanticide is reckless, offensive, and mysoginistic. That is not a really immature take.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

M-Dog

June 24th, 2017 at 7:46 AM ^

But he does make the point that "intolerance" is in the eye of the beholder.

It would be just as easy for North Carolina to ban travel to California because CA "kills babies", as it is for California to ban travel to North Carolina because NC "violates LBGTQ human rights."

Everybody thinks they are on God's side and all others must cease to exist.

That's a slippery slope.

A pox on all your fucking houses.  

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257573

xtramelanin

June 24th, 2017 at 7:54 AM ^

more frequently.  and yes, they are children- separate life systems, different and unique DNA, and science now confirming those heart beats and organ developments so early.   

maybe if they don't sell the body parts it doesn't count as a murder?  

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15438

xtramelanin

June 24th, 2017 at 8:06 AM ^

so maybe they are more than talking points.   i mean, we should stop the rape of women and children, i can put some talking points up, and would you be so dismissive?  of course not.   you just don't have a ready answer b/c there really isn't any moral answer to those issues.  you can try and candy coat it and say 'its her right' to kill the child, but then how is that different than 'it was hitler's right to kill millions'?   it really isn't, is it? 

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15438

M-Dog

June 24th, 2017 at 8:13 AM ^

I'm not defending him.

What I am saying is that everybody thinks they are so damn right that the "other side" has no legitimacy at all.  And they go to extreme lengths and name calling to point that out.

Based on this never-ending "outrage", If CA can ban travel to TX because it does not like TX's LGBTQ policy, then TX can ban travel to CA because it does not like CA's abortion policy. 

In a few years, nobody will be able to leave their house.  The extremists will win the day.

Fuck you all.  This extremist bullshit needs to stop.

The rest of us get to live in this country too.

 

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257573

Wolverine 73

June 24th, 2017 at 7:43 AM ^

We certainly need national policies on. Other things, we would be way better off if we let the people of each state decide how they want to handle them. The hard part is deciding where the line goes. Obviously (from my perspective) there should be no room for discrimination in employment anywhere in the US, for example. But I can't get especially excited about bathrooms, so long as everyone has access to one. Again, my perspective. We should argue (if necessary) about what really matters, and try to tolerate divergent views on things of lesser consequence. It seems we as a society have lost that ability to tolerate people who disagree with us on even relatively minor matters.

Joined: 08/03/2009

MGoPoints: 27532

ijohnb

June 24th, 2017 at 7:23 AM ^

did not apply only to untraceable immigrants, and most of the countries with the deepest terrorist roots were not included in the ban. It was a shitty order. If he knew the first thing about constitutional law he could have drafted a much better order that would have been upheld. But that requires, ya know, knowing what the fuck you are doing.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Mitch Cumstein

June 24th, 2017 at 7:56 AM ^

If I were a state employee or an employee with some state funding and had actual business to do in another state. I'd do it and ignore this idiocy. If that wasn't ok with my superiors, I'd dust off the resume.

Joined: 10/02/2009

MGoPoints: 14072