[ Liberalism is a mental disorder. Nasty liberal scum destroying this nation. How stupid is it to punish the person complaining about a fucking guy hanging out in
the women's locker room? It's asinine. ]
[h=1]lanet Fitness terminates woman's membership after she complained about a transsexual[/h]
Published: 00:29 EST, 8 March 2015 | Updated: 09:49 EST, 8 March 2015
15
View comments
A Michigan mom who complained about a transgender woman using the female locker room at her gym had her membership instantly revoked after making the complaint.
Yvette Cormier says she was undressing at the Planet Fitness in Midland when she realized 'there was a man' in the change room.
The 48-year-old went to the front desk to alert them, however staff informed her the person was transsexual and was allowed to be in the locker room.
When Cormier pressed ahead with her complaint, the gym said she had violated their much-touted 'no judgement zone' policy and canceled her membership.
+4
Membership revoked: Yvette Cormier was kicked out of her gym in Midland, Michigan, after complaining about a transgender woman in the female locker room
'I was stunned and shocked,' Cormier told WNEM.
'He looked like a man.
'He did not look like a woman.'
Cormier maintains she wasn't complaining because the person was transsexual, but because she thought there was a man in the women's room.
'This is very unprofessional,' she added.
'This is very scary.'
+4
Change room: This is a photo from the locker room at the Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan. Yvette Cormier said she believed a man was using the facility
Kicked out: Yvette Cormier is no longer allowed to go to Planet Fitness for violating their policies
However, despite her explanation and the media attention that has surrounded it, Planet Fitness have not budged on the stance they took with Cormier.
The gym says that Cormier has been talking about the incident with other people at the gym and she has been inappropriate.
[h=2]RELATED ARTICLES[/h]
[h=2]Share this article[/h] Share
'Planet Fitness is committed to creating a non-intimidating, welcoming environment for our members,' the gym said in a statement.
'Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity.
'In expressing her concerns about the policy, the member in question exhibited behavior that club management deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was canceled.'
+4
+4
Yvette Cormier, 48, said she was walking into the Midland Planet Fitness locker room last Saturday when she saw someone 'dressed like a man'
Planet Fitness Director of Public Relations McCall Gosselin told ABC News that Cormier handled the situation poorly.
'As our statement outlines, her membership was not cancelled as a result of complaints about our policy, as we welcome all feedback from our members,' Gosselin told ABC.
'Rather, it was the manner in which her concerns were expressed that club management felt was inappropriate, which resulted in the cancellation.'
the women's locker room? It's asinine. ]
[h=1]lanet Fitness terminates woman's membership after she complained about a transsexual[/h]
- Yvette Cormer, 48, complained to Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan, after seeing a man changing in the women's locker room
- Staff told her it was not a man but a transgender woman
- She pressed ahead and had her membership revoked
- The gym said she acted inappropriately and was in breach of their gender identity non-discrimination policy
- Planet Fitness promotes itself as being non-judgmental
Published: 00:29 EST, 8 March 2015 | Updated: 09:49 EST, 8 March 2015
15
View comments
A Michigan mom who complained about a transgender woman using the female locker room at her gym had her membership instantly revoked after making the complaint.
Yvette Cormier says she was undressing at the Planet Fitness in Midland when she realized 'there was a man' in the change room.
The 48-year-old went to the front desk to alert them, however staff informed her the person was transsexual and was allowed to be in the locker room.
When Cormier pressed ahead with her complaint, the gym said she had violated their much-touted 'no judgement zone' policy and canceled her membership.
+4
Membership revoked: Yvette Cormier was kicked out of her gym in Midland, Michigan, after complaining about a transgender woman in the female locker room
'I was stunned and shocked,' Cormier told WNEM.
'He looked like a man.
'He did not look like a woman.'
Cormier maintains she wasn't complaining because the person was transsexual, but because she thought there was a man in the women's room.
'This is very unprofessional,' she added.
'This is very scary.'
+4
Change room: This is a photo from the locker room at the Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan. Yvette Cormier said she believed a man was using the facility
Kicked out: Yvette Cormier is no longer allowed to go to Planet Fitness for violating their policies
However, despite her explanation and the media attention that has surrounded it, Planet Fitness have not budged on the stance they took with Cormier.
The gym says that Cormier has been talking about the incident with other people at the gym and she has been inappropriate.
[h=2]RELATED ARTICLES[/h]
-
Former Playgirl centerfold model and Man Of The Year...
Student at elite Anglican boys school banned from taking a... -
Hurled to his death in front of a baying mob: ISIS...
[h=2]Share this article[/h] Share
'Planet Fitness is committed to creating a non-intimidating, welcoming environment for our members,' the gym said in a statement.
'Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity.
'In expressing her concerns about the policy, the member in question exhibited behavior that club management deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was canceled.'
+4
+4
Yvette Cormier, 48, said she was walking into the Midland Planet Fitness locker room last Saturday when she saw someone 'dressed like a man'
Planet Fitness Director of Public Relations McCall Gosselin told ABC News that Cormier handled the situation poorly.
'As our statement outlines, her membership was not cancelled as a result of complaints about our policy, as we welcome all feedback from our members,' Gosselin told ABC.
'Rather, it was the manner in which her concerns were expressed that club management felt was inappropriate, which resulted in the cancellation.'
[h=1]Obama More Guilty of ‘Treason’ than Senate Republicans[/h] 191
5
94
The Associated Press
by Joel B. Pollak11 Mar 2015471
Tom Cotton on 'Fox & Friends,' 3/9/15
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[h=2]Democrats and the mainstream media have used the words “traitor” and “treason” to describe a letter to Iranian leaders, drafted by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and signed by 47 Republican Senators, that warns any nuclear deal President Barack Obama signs may be voided by a future administration or Congress if it is not ratified by the Senate. Since they have brought the “t-words” into the debate, it is worth examining the case against Obama himself, which is far more damning.[/h] Obama’s explicit policy is to elevate a sworn enemy of the United States to a “regional power,” in what he has called a “new equilibrium” that would balance the Shia regime against Sunni powers and Israel. To that end, he has undermined existing UN Security Council resolutions negotiated by previous administrations that ban any nuclear enrichment at all by Iran. He has also turned a blind eye to Iranian terrorism–including attacks planned in the heart of Washington, D.C. on his watch.
Iran remains committed to destroying the United States, as well as Israel. It has the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers on its hands. It is engaged in war crimes in Syria and elsewhere, and continues to sponsor deadly terror attacks around the world, including attacks against civilian and diplomatic targets. Yet Obama is committed to elevating and supporting the Iranian regime–even to the point of failing to assist the Iranian opposition when it rose up in 2009.
Along the way, President Obama has neglected his oath of office, if not violated it outright. He has declared explicitly that whatever agreement he signs with Iran will not be subject to congressional approval, ignoring the Constitution’s explicit requirement that the Senate ratify treaties–certainly on issues as weighty as nuclear enrichment or armament. So Obama has not only failed to defend the country against a sworn enemy, but has failed to defend the U.S. Constitution itself.
As more than one critic has observed, if Obama were deliberately collaborating with the enemy, his policies would hardly look different. Add to that the fact that he refuses to identify radical Islamic terrorism in general as a threat, and the case against Obama becomes even stronger.
Nevertheless, it is Obama who has accused Republicans of conspiring with Iran–a claim reiterated on Tuesday by Hillary Clinton, and which State Department spokesperson Marie Harf refused to deny. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) even called Cotton, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, “Tehran Tom”–reiterating the outrageous lie that Cotton’s letter is actually an effort to aid Iran.
Democrats clearly savor the rare opportunity to play the part of patriot, but they are trying a bit too hard. The fact that Iranian hard-liners might also be skeptical of a nuclear deal does not make Republicans traitors, any more than Al Qaeda’s opposition to George W. Bush made Democrats terrorists.
In the past, Democrats have also used Congress to conduct an independent foreign policy from the White House, but the Cotton letter is more than just tit-for-tat. It is distinguished by the fact that its purpose is not just to advance a different agenda but to uphold the Constitution itself.
That is not treason–quite the opposite.
Clearly, both sides of the divide believe they are acting in the national interest. But if the question of “treason” is to be raised, it should be pointed in the right direction.
5
94
by Joel B. Pollak11 Mar 2015471
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[h=2]Democrats and the mainstream media have used the words “traitor” and “treason” to describe a letter to Iranian leaders, drafted by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and signed by 47 Republican Senators, that warns any nuclear deal President Barack Obama signs may be voided by a future administration or Congress if it is not ratified by the Senate. Since they have brought the “t-words” into the debate, it is worth examining the case against Obama himself, which is far more damning.[/h] Obama’s explicit policy is to elevate a sworn enemy of the United States to a “regional power,” in what he has called a “new equilibrium” that would balance the Shia regime against Sunni powers and Israel. To that end, he has undermined existing UN Security Council resolutions negotiated by previous administrations that ban any nuclear enrichment at all by Iran. He has also turned a blind eye to Iranian terrorism–including attacks planned in the heart of Washington, D.C. on his watch.
Iran remains committed to destroying the United States, as well as Israel. It has the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers on its hands. It is engaged in war crimes in Syria and elsewhere, and continues to sponsor deadly terror attacks around the world, including attacks against civilian and diplomatic targets. Yet Obama is committed to elevating and supporting the Iranian regime–even to the point of failing to assist the Iranian opposition when it rose up in 2009.
Along the way, President Obama has neglected his oath of office, if not violated it outright. He has declared explicitly that whatever agreement he signs with Iran will not be subject to congressional approval, ignoring the Constitution’s explicit requirement that the Senate ratify treaties–certainly on issues as weighty as nuclear enrichment or armament. So Obama has not only failed to defend the country against a sworn enemy, but has failed to defend the U.S. Constitution itself.
As more than one critic has observed, if Obama were deliberately collaborating with the enemy, his policies would hardly look different. Add to that the fact that he refuses to identify radical Islamic terrorism in general as a threat, and the case against Obama becomes even stronger.
Nevertheless, it is Obama who has accused Republicans of conspiring with Iran–a claim reiterated on Tuesday by Hillary Clinton, and which State Department spokesperson Marie Harf refused to deny. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) even called Cotton, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, “Tehran Tom”–reiterating the outrageous lie that Cotton’s letter is actually an effort to aid Iran.
Democrats clearly savor the rare opportunity to play the part of patriot, but they are trying a bit too hard. The fact that Iranian hard-liners might also be skeptical of a nuclear deal does not make Republicans traitors, any more than Al Qaeda’s opposition to George W. Bush made Democrats terrorists.
In the past, Democrats have also used Congress to conduct an independent foreign policy from the White House, but the Cotton letter is more than just tit-for-tat. It is distinguished by the fact that its purpose is not just to advance a different agenda but to uphold the Constitution itself.
That is not treason–quite the opposite.
Clearly, both sides of the divide believe they are acting in the national interest. But if the question of “treason” is to be raised, it should be pointed in the right direction.
Suspicious Fires Destroy Al Sharpton's Key Financial Records -- Twice!
Al Sharpton ran for mayor of New York City in 1997 and for president in 2003, fires at his offices reportedly destroyed critical financial records, and he subsequently failed to comply with tax and campaign filing requirements.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...yed-key-sharpton-records-jillian-kay-melchior
Al Sharpton ran for mayor of New York City in 1997 and for president in 2003, fires at his offices reportedly destroyed critical financial records, and he subsequently failed to comply with tax and campaign filing requirements.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...yed-key-sharpton-records-jillian-kay-melchior
[ These sleazy lying fuckers have no shame ]
[h=1]After Hillary Deletes Emails, Team Obama Still Claims To Be Most Transparent Administration In History[/h] 98
2
140
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
by Charlie Spiering11 Mar 2015522
During the White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked if the administration still considered itself the most transparent administration in history, even after the scandal surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.
“Yes,” Earnest responded, “And the reason for that is that there are large number of ways that reporters and the public have access to the administration and to decisions made at the administration.”
Earnest pointed to the public release of visitor access records and making FOIA requests more efficient as proof that this White House is “much more transparent” that previous administrations.
At the White House, Earnest explained, government smartphones couldn’t be used to access personal email. He noted that in 2012, however, software was developed allowing White House staffers to use personal smart phones to access their official government emails.
Each agency of the administration, he said, had its own rules and guidelines about personal and government emails.
Earnest was reluctant to say whether or not the White House considered Clinton’s email revelations closed, but pointed to her assertion that she properly returned business emails back to the State Department.
“There is no evidence that’s been marshaled thus far to demonstrate that there should be a lack of trust in that regard,” Earnest said.
[h=1]After Hillary Deletes Emails, Team Obama Still Claims To Be Most Transparent Administration In History[/h] 98
2
140
by Charlie Spiering11 Mar 2015522
During the White House press briefing today, Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked if the administration still considered itself the most transparent administration in history, even after the scandal surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.
“Yes,” Earnest responded, “And the reason for that is that there are large number of ways that reporters and the public have access to the administration and to decisions made at the administration.”
Earnest pointed to the public release of visitor access records and making FOIA requests more efficient as proof that this White House is “much more transparent” that previous administrations.
At the White House, Earnest explained, government smartphones couldn’t be used to access personal email. He noted that in 2012, however, software was developed allowing White House staffers to use personal smart phones to access their official government emails.
Each agency of the administration, he said, had its own rules and guidelines about personal and government emails.
Earnest was reluctant to say whether or not the White House considered Clinton’s email revelations closed, but pointed to her assertion that she properly returned business emails back to the State Department.
“There is no evidence that’s been marshaled thus far to demonstrate that there should be a lack of trust in that regard,” Earnest said.
[h=1]Hillary ’07: I Applaud Pelosi Going To Syria, Congress Must Engage Iran[/h] 194
11
166
Hillary
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
by Pam Key11 Mar 201534
Yesterday at her press conference, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Republican senators who sent a letter to the leaders of Iran in an attempt to “engage” in the process of the nuclear deal President Barack Obama is attempting to negotiate.
In 2007, against the wishes of the Bush administration and roundly criticized for the move, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually went Syria to have a meeting with President Bashar Assad.
In 2007 at a MoveOn.org Virtual Town, Hillary Clinton came to the defense of Pelosi saying, “I have long advocated engagement with countries in the region, including Iran and Syria, and I applaud Speaker Pelosi and her delegation for going to the region, as I applaud the Republican delegation that did like-wise. We have to start a process to deal with those countries.”
11
166
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
by Pam Key11 Mar 201534
Yesterday at her press conference, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Republican senators who sent a letter to the leaders of Iran in an attempt to “engage” in the process of the nuclear deal President Barack Obama is attempting to negotiate.
In 2007, against the wishes of the Bush administration and roundly criticized for the move, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually went Syria to have a meeting with President Bashar Assad.
In 2007 at a MoveOn.org Virtual Town, Hillary Clinton came to the defense of Pelosi saying, “I have long advocated engagement with countries in the region, including Iran and Syria, and I applaud Speaker Pelosi and her delegation for going to the region, as I applaud the Republican delegation that did like-wise. We have to start a process to deal with those countries.”
[ fact checker says Obama is a fucking liar. Go figure. ]
[h=1]Obama Says ‘You Think I’m Exaggerating’ on Guns. Fact Checker Says…[/h] Mar. 12, 2015 1:15pm Fred Lucas
[h=2]0[/h] Shares
President Barack Obama told a college crowd last week he wasn’t “exaggerating” when it comes to some of the proposals the pro-gun crowd has thrown around.
The Washington Post’s fact checker begs to differ.
Speaking during a town hall event at Benedict College on Friday, Obama asserted that in some places, it’s easier to buy a gun than it is “to buy a book” or “a fresh vegetable.”
President Barack Obama participates in a town-hall meeting at Benedict College, Friday, March 6, 2015, in Columbia, S.C.. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
“And as long as you can go into some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable — as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence,” Obama said.
Post Fact Checker columnist Glenn Kessler called the assertion “a very strange comment that appears to have no statistical basis.”
Obama also said during the town hall: “What we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries. I mean by like a mile. And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.”
This is a stretch, according to the Post, citing Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which measures “industrialized countries” as having an average homicide rate of 4.1 per 100,000 people. While the United States is above the global average at 5.2 per 100,000, it is well behind Brazil’s 25.5 or Mexico’s 23.4. Still, Germany, France and the United Kingdome are below 1 per 100,000.
Obama also said at Benedict: “People just say well, we should have firearms in kindergarten and we should have machine guns in bars. You think I’m exaggerating — I mean, you look at some of these laws that come up.”
Because what he said was classified at mostly hyperbole and exaggerations — not outright lies — Obama earned just three out of four Pinocchios.
“The president was playing fast and loose with his language here—to a group of college students no less,” Kessler wrote. “There’s little excuse for the claim that in some neighborhoods, it is easier to buy a gun than vegetable — or to say he’s ‘not exaggerating’ when he claims that some people have proposed laws that would allow machine guns in bars.”
[h=1]Obama Says ‘You Think I’m Exaggerating’ on Guns. Fact Checker Says…[/h] Mar. 12, 2015 1:15pm Fred Lucas
[h=2]0[/h] Shares
President Barack Obama told a college crowd last week he wasn’t “exaggerating” when it comes to some of the proposals the pro-gun crowd has thrown around.
The Washington Post’s fact checker begs to differ.
Speaking during a town hall event at Benedict College on Friday, Obama asserted that in some places, it’s easier to buy a gun than it is “to buy a book” or “a fresh vegetable.”
President Barack Obama participates in a town-hall meeting at Benedict College, Friday, March 6, 2015, in Columbia, S.C.. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)“And as long as you can go into some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable — as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence,” Obama said.
Post Fact Checker columnist Glenn Kessler called the assertion “a very strange comment that appears to have no statistical basis.”
Obama also said during the town hall: “What we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries. I mean by like a mile. And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.”
This is a stretch, according to the Post, citing Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which measures “industrialized countries” as having an average homicide rate of 4.1 per 100,000 people. While the United States is above the global average at 5.2 per 100,000, it is well behind Brazil’s 25.5 or Mexico’s 23.4. Still, Germany, France and the United Kingdome are below 1 per 100,000.
Obama also said at Benedict: “People just say well, we should have firearms in kindergarten and we should have machine guns in bars. You think I’m exaggerating — I mean, you look at some of these laws that come up.”
Because what he said was classified at mostly hyperbole and exaggerations — not outright lies — Obama earned just three out of four Pinocchios.
“The president was playing fast and loose with his language here—to a group of college students no less,” Kessler wrote. “There’s little excuse for the claim that in some neighborhoods, it is easier to buy a gun than vegetable — or to say he’s ‘not exaggerating’ when he claims that some people have proposed laws that would allow machine guns in bars.”
Do you mean those people who say we need to negotiate with the people who want to mass murder us, but won't tolerate that we disagree? And then throw tantrums calling us terrorist supporters, welchers, tout scammers and lying liars? All while they won't negotiate an inch from their position. Those people? No, they're not very liberal now are they?
Only one of us doesn't tolerate dissent, Collaborator. And it ain't me. Lets ask DuckHunter how tolerant you are about disagreement, and how you label people who diasgree with you about anything Israel related. And you got Welching Zit agreeing with you, which would make a normal person seriously reevaluate.
