TH3
-
Posts
3,339 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TH3
-
-
Good to hear The Donald bringing this back to the forefront. He's got to destroy the notion that Hilly is for anyone woman except herself.
So - Since Hillary's husband was a !@#...the saws off Donald's past with women, divorces, misogynistic comments? Gotcha
-
Not sure if this was aimed at me. While I don't think conservatives are wrong for pushing this, I do think they are fighting a losing battle though because they are botching the delivery of the message.
There are 3 separate issues here that have nothing to do with what people "identify" as.
The free for all issue (AKA Target policy) where they openly announce you can do whatever the
you want.The High School Locker Room issue (and any other lockerrrooms) where liberals say it is just fine for anatomically male teenagers to get dressed, and shower with anatomically female teenagers.
The Bathroom issue is the one they are focusing on. I don't think they should be. I think that trans people have been using the opposite bathroom for a long time and it hasn't been a big deal. It is where you get into the first two issues that it causes the problems, but this is the one they are focusing on, and they will lose if it goes to the supreme court.
DooD....NO ONE is saying this - only the conservatives who are projecting.....carry on......
-
DC Tom nicely laid out the applicable nature of the law.
As for the enforcement, you used to be able to throw a man in jail for even peeking in a woman's locker room. Now that man (who saw no harm in reducing himself to peeking in a woman's locker room) can now stroll in, get naked, and observe and you don't see a privacy concern with that. In what scenario could he be removed? Does he have to be obvious in order to be arrested?
No you won't
It is just interesting to note that we are very worried about Trans people's rights and sure that's great, but are opening the door for people to violate privacy rights across the board. I also don't think a grown man getting naked in a woman's locker room is acceptable solution either. But if women are ok with it then whatever, but something tells me they are being bullied into thinking it's bigoted to think it's not ok.
-
Your prejudice is of no surprise to those who read your posts.
Simply answer me this, would the North Carolina Assembly have passed the Hb2 bill (on a bi-partisan vote) if Charlotte had not passed their over-reaching bill ?
Hint: The answer is no.........it wasn't even on their radar.
Here's another "old person's" opinion...........Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ................google her if you need to
One of the parade of imaginary horribles that opponents of the ERA threw at it back then was that it could lead to . . . integrated bathrooms! Nonsense, said the ERA’s advocates. It would never do anything that crazy.
Among the persons saying this prospect was a fantasy was. . . Ruth Bader Ginsberg, writing in the Washington Post in 1975 (great catch by Eugene Volokh on this story):
Here’s a scan of the original article from Eugene. Nowadays, as we learned today from the Obama Justice Department, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX require that bathrooms be open to whatever being you decide you want to be. No new legislation required!
Eugene offers the proper coda:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/bathroom-wars-circa-1975.php
1. So you are against local rule huh?
2. This has nothing to do with integrated bathrooms.
3. Chances are - T people have been going to whatever bathroom unnoticed for years - can you cite a complaint? Ever? Kinda like voter fraud....
Prejudice - I have prejudged? Let's see - state with history of slavery and bigotry against rights of blacks, gays and trans people....
Nah...pretty sure its just a bunch of angry white bible thumpers clinging and trying to pick a last fight.....with someone they see as less perfect than themselves....how historical....
-
Here's where we are thanks to the Left......................
The Obama Administration Provokes a Legal Crisis — the War against North Carolinaby David FrenchThe state of North Carolina and the federal government are now in a state of declared legal war. On Wednesday afternoon, the Obama administration sent a letter to North Carolina governor Pat McCrory demanding that the state “not comply with or enforce H.B. 2,” its so-called transgender bathroom law. According to the letter, a state requirement that people use the bathrooms reserved for their biological sex violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Justice gave the state until today, May 9, to assure the federal government that men can use women’s restrooms and showers in state facilities.Today, the state answered the Department of Justice — with a lawsuit. In its complaint, filed in federal court, North Carolina accuses the DOJ of engaging in a “baseless and blatant overreach,” an “attempt to rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the courts.” Simply put, Title VII does not establish “transgender status” as a protected class, and any effort to do so by executive fiat violates the law.Then the DOJ escalated again. At an afternoon news conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced a “significant law enforcement” action — its own lawsuit. At the same time, Lynch indicated that the DOJ retained the authority to federal funding to key state entities, issuing a not-so-veiled threat of dramatic action before the courts issue a definitive ruling. At the same time, she preposterously compared the act of preserving bathrooms for people of the same sex to, of course, “Jim Crow” and hearkened back to the days of segregated water fountains.A public-relations battle over bathrooms and showers has transformed into a fight over the meaning and indeed authority of the Constitution itself. In its zeal to advance the sexual revolution, the Obama administration has defied the will of Congress, unilaterally rewritten federal law without even bothering to go through a statutory rulemaking process, and now seeks to bring a sovereign state to heel through a combination of threats and lawsuits.Let’s make this simple. Title VII prohibits private and public employers (including state governments) from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” Title IX prohibits federally funded educational institutions from discriminating on the basis of “sex.” Neither statute prohibits sexual-orientation or gender-identity discrimination. For more than 20 years, LGBT activists have sought to amend federal law through the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would essentially add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes within federal nondiscrimination law. For more than 20 years, LGBT activists have failed. ENDA hasn’t passed even when Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435182/north-carolina-bathroom-law-obama-justice-department-governor-pat-mccrory-lawsuit
Obama’s Lawsuit Against North Carolina Isn’t About Civil Rights. It’s About Crushing Dissent
Some of us care little about the debate over public bathrooms. We do, however, care about the ongoing destruction of federalism, individual choice, and good-faith debate.
One reliable way to quash dissent and force moral codes on others is to liken your cause to that of the civil rights fight. Every liberal issue is situated somewhere on the great historical arc of “equality” and “justice.” If a person stands against even one of these causes—which were once great but are increasingly trivial—they have, according to the cultural imperialists of the Obama administration, aligned themselves with the Klan. Literally.
After U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Department of Justice had filed a federal lawsuit to stop North Carolina from passing a “controversial law”—this is the go-to characterization of conservative bills that pass with healthy majorities—requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms matching their birth certificate, she had this to say:
This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation; we saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education; and we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.Likening a spat over biologically segregated boy/girl bathrooms to the genuine, violent, systematic, state-sponsored, society-wide bigotry that took place in this country for a century is both intellectually and morally corrupt. It’s not all a continuum. Yet this administration peddles these kinds of risible comparisons in the cause of self-aggrandizement all the time. Hans Fiene has coined it Selma envy.
.
Puhlease - This law was nothing more than a bunch of people whose time has past grasping at the last straw...and now loving that the Feds got involved...and if you and your conservative beat writers don't see it as much you are simply blind...
-
Nothing adds credibility and depth to a point of view better than the confederate flag
-
-
GDP growth will reflect the income gains from the middle class - almost exactly. The 2000-2006 boom was based largely on the middle class over leveraging to compensate for lack of wage growth. At this point any upticks in GDP from "trickle down" are done. The well off have everything they need - other than driving up the price of collector cars. Money has collected at banks, corporations and real estate in a holding pattern - very few good places to invest in barring demand growth.
-
You should switch to a different yet as completely unbelievable website that carries good news....
-
FWIW - Somewhat distant family member scout for NFL team - saw him last week - HATES Lynch
-
Except for the empty-headed logic of "We can't have a slave-owner on the currency!" I'd agree with you.
This is just pandering bull ****.
Damn...does it hurt to wake up every morning and look for the worst in everything, every person, every action, every outcome?
-
This is woefully incorrect.
Of course there was a hearing into the Beirut bombing.
This difference was both dems and GOP worked together to come to a conclusion.
and President Reagan took responsibility.
unlike todays so-called leaders.
P
.
Reagan got the hell outta there is what he did....
-
Not a Rex hater but I've lost a lot of respect for him if he actually supports Trump.
^^this^^
-
We frown on that sort of thing here.
Assume nothing. Whether I'm wealthy or not doesn't have anything to do with what is fair.
That is the conversation right there....are you more concerned with policies that produce the optimized result or policies borne of idealism?
-
Leave him alone. He thinks this is an era of fiscal conservative policies, including "deregulation."
And on the topic of the thread: Gatorman isn't going to be banned based on mob rule. If people are tired of his antics, it's pretty easy to just ignore him. He craves the attention because mental Napoleonic complex and mommy issues. Stop giving it to him and his impact goes away immediately.
Historically - we are...
-
I'll start off by once again pointing out that calls for the banning of a particular poster have nothing at all to do with his political positions. You'll note that no other poster is receiving such calls. The reason that a ban has been brought up is because he sets out to intentionally downgrade all threads, and derail them. As often as I and others have disagreed with, say, birddog or yourself, no one has ever called for their posting privileges to be removed. Why is that, do you think?
Now, onto the purpose of this thread:
The country has been drifting to the left since it's inception, and the further to the left it has drifted, the worse our economy has become, and the weaker our moral standards have become. Government programs, failed or otherwise, become the legacy of their legislators, and are nearly never scrapped. Government spending increases every year, as does our debt.
"Cut taxes for high earners"
Taxes on all earners should be cut. An individual's success does not somehow entitle the government to a higher percentage of their wage. The insistence that it does is immoral.
"Lowered union power"
I can only assume you're speaking to removal of compulsory membership in a work place, and mandatory dues for non-members in a workplace. This is a good thing as it empowers individual workers.
"NAFTA"
The overwhelming majority of American citizens benefit from NAFTA. It's also important to point out that NAFTA was the work of two subsequent administrations, one Republican and one Democratic.
"Fought SSM"
The acknowledgement that Social Security and Medicare are broken and unsustainable is central to either fixing them, or scrapping them in favor of a plan that is workable and sustainable. Anything else is simply jamming your head into the sand and ignoring reality.
"Unfunded wars in the ME"
Is this a critique of our economic system or of the war itself? Our government is always taking unfunded action. We don't even have a budget process anymore. The reality is that sometimes a nation has to go to war. We (the larger we, not you and I) may disagree over the necessity of the war, but the reality is that as a spending issue, it will be accounted for the same way everything is accounted for within our government.
"Voter ID laws"
The franchise is an exclusive privilege. I believe it to be very reasonable that individuals should have to prove that they are actually supposed to be permitted to participate in American democracy, before we allow them to participate. If the vote is sacred, it should be treated as such.
"Gun rights"
Gun ownership is guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and is a cornerstone of free society, which has only existed in the whole history of the world which was prior dominated by Totalitarianism, for 240 years. Conservatives are on the right side of this issue.
"Citizens United"
Again, free speech is guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and political speech is the most important type of speech there is. I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
Money absolutely is speech as long as different mediums for speech have different costs associated with them. One person's inability to afford a particular medium of speech does not somehow magically invalidate another individual's explicit right to use that medium himself.
This is absolutely problematic, but it is far more problematic to have a system in which the government is empowered to restrict political speech, which is the most important type of free speech there is.
The only way to prevent this sort of spending in politics is to limit the scope of government, such that there is no influence to purchase.
You'll note that limiting the scope of government is another thing that conservatives are right about.
"Fought environmental conservatism"
Do you mean "fought against the decimation of the domestic and global economy by religious zealots"?
"Lower regulation for the financial industry"
Fought against ham handed and poor regulation. Removing bad regulations is not synonymous with "lowering regulations".
Ok - Where are the metrics that the middle class is better off after all this? I base the success of a country on how its middle class is doing - and for that - they have stalled/slid backwards since Reagan.
The fight against same sex marriage/deregulation/lowering taxes for the well off/fighting unfunded wars/citizens united/checking ID at the voting booth....has resulted in .....what? What metric is better?
-
Gosh just off the top of my head
As long as your bashing liberalism - what has "conservatism" brought us since the Reagan revolution?
- Cut taxes for high earners (Bush and Reagan cuts reduced taxes on all income brackets) Has this made the middle class more well off?
- Lowered union power (yes and many feel not enough) - And this has accomplished what now that it is done?
-
NAFTA (signed by Clinton, bipartisan approval) - Yes - but it is a "conservative" proposal Clinton - like his wife - does what is politically expedient - and again - is it an unqualified success?
- Fought SSM (I agree that repubs should approve this) - Well conservatism lost that war - and at the end of the day - did it hurt our country - and if so how? Change your life?
- Unfunded wars in the ME (funded the same we we funded the stimulus bill and many other trillions in spending, but iraq II was wrong) So you agree that it was wrong?
-
Voter ID laws (yes we need voter ID laws to make sure the right of voters is being correctly carried out) OK - now that voter ID laws are in effect - this has done what exactly? Since there was really no voter fraud to begin with - all it really was - and is is an effort to disenfranchise voting - which - in my mind - not very conservative
- Gun rights (yup, a constitutional right) A win for conservatism - i am not a gun owner - used to be - so didn't make my life better
-
Citizens United (both parties abuse campaign funds) Not saying that "both sides" use funds - Is our election process better and more democratic because of this ruling?...i give you the 2016 POTUS election
- Fought environmental conservatism (?) Conservatives fight it - do their wins in this arena make our country better - how?
- Lower regulation for the financial industry (Did you miss the warnings given to dems by repubs in the house regarding fannie/freddie/mortgage securities risk?) Debating the platform - deregulation is a conservative concept...did financial deregulation make our country better and improve our lives?
-
- Cut taxes for high earners (Bush and Reagan cuts reduced taxes on all income brackets) Has this made the middle class more well off?
-
If you'd like to start a new thread, I'll gladly engage you.
As long as this board bases liberalism - what has "conservatism" brought us since the Reagan revolution?
- Cut taxes for high earners
- Lowered union power
- NAFTA
- Fought SSM
- Unfunded wars in the ME
- Voter ID laws
- Gun rights
- Citizens United
- Fought environmental conservatism
- Lower regulation for the financial industry
We essentially live in an era of conservative fiscal policies right now - low taxes, deregulation. free trade. Federal budget not balanced and the middle class going nowhere.
Perhaps the posters who want to vote out dissent can point us to some conservative wins and policies that have resulted in benefits for the middle class or financial gains for the country,
- Cut taxes for high earners
-
Actually the first time you posted here you said you were a republican.
The thread is about banning a troll and it looks like you're trying very hard to take his place.
Changed my mind - so someone who disagrees with the pack is a troll?
-
Lol
But you're a republican right?
Call me whatever you want - never said I was a Republican - definitely not today's' brand - looking for answers....is the question I posed too tough to answer?
-
The mere OP says all you need to know about the posters here....
As long as your bashing liberalism - what has "conservatism" brought us since the Reagan revolution?
- Cut taxes for high earners
- Lowered union power
- NAFTA
- Fought SSM
- Unfunded wars in the ME
- Voter ID laws
- Gun rights
- Citizens United
- Fought environmental conservatism
- Lower regulation for the financial industry
We essentially live in an era of conservative fiscal policies right now - low taxes, deregulation. free trade. Federal budget not balanced and the middle class going nowhere.
Perhaps the posters who want to vote out dissent can point us to some conservative wins and policies that have resulted in benefits for the middle class or financial gains for the country,
-
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
Te seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine satdown and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible . (Sorry Gatorman)
--
I assume that you and most of the posters on this board are not ultra wealthy....amazing that you carry the water for the ultra wealthy at your own expense...
-
One problem with your thinking is you justify single payer based on the fact that health insurance costs are a burden to private and public employers. The truth, however, is that if it was a burden, it was a burden by choice to provide a benefit when hiring and retaining talent. It was no more a burden than offering a cafeteria, or gym membership, or Costo membership. It was considered the cost of doing business to retain good help, and was factored in to your company's cost for whatever product or services they sell.
So please spare us with the "We're from the government and want to lessen your burden" crap because only far left nutbags buy that story.
The other problem with your thinking is you say Canada, Germany, etc. all have better health care than the US, but what is it that defines "better health care?" Have you talked to everyone Canada? Are you aware of how many Canadians come to the US for health care because their medical profession is so backed up and disorganized?
Did you know that the average Canadian has to wait up to almost three months before they can get an MRI? The average wait for hip replacement? Six months. Is that your idea of "better health care?" If you thought you were facing a horrible illness, and were in constant pain and needed help, tell me how happy you'd be if you first had to wait three months for an MRI.
You're selling bunk. The only people who think everyone has it better than the US are people who are never, ever, ever satisfied until they can have the government run everything for everyone...because that's the only way you extreme leftists no how to think.
Spare me the Canadian anecdotes - look at metrics - the US does not stack up well at all in terms of price and preface compared to every other industrialized nation - and learn some economics:
We pay 2X what other countries pay - that is a drag on our economy and a burden to our global competitiveness. That capital could be used elsewhere more efficiently - maybe you wife is a pharm rep - maybe - I don't know.
If you are a business and you are paying 2x for a component that your competitors use also - you would be looking for better sourcing of that component.
The provision of HC by employers is not a choice - it is law - dictated by the government.
As I have explained elsewhere - including the cost of HC internally in the COGS as opposed to getting at the point of sale as a GST makes our home built products and services bear a cost that imported goods don't.
Single payer plans have the advantage of actuarial theory - spreading the cost/risk that smaller and single buyers can't - and as well offering buying power..
I have both served public office and owned companies - if either could get rid of HC - they would in a second.
Selling bunk - how?. The proof is out there - check EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALZED NATION and show me who the US beats in price and performance ......
-
And has as large a population and can keep their defense spending to a minimum because of us
Canada, Germany, Japan, UK, France, ....we spend 18 percent of our GDP on HC - about $8000-$9000 per person per year...all these countries spend about 40-60 percent of that per person and cover everyone - from cradle to grave...
Has nothing to do with defense spending - as concieveably - they actually have more to spend on HC...
Look - take the blinders off - there are plenty of examples of better ways to do things...our system of paying for HC (burdening our private and public employers) and delivering (reimburse able insurance model) could not be worse... The method of doing better is examining "best practices" and adopting them...
The only thing you need to know about how great American Healthcare is compared to other nations, is the fact that we produce, and share (for free), more medical patents than the rest of the world combined, times three.
The reason why that socialized medicine is cheap? Because they can ignore research and development.
Not really - might be one component - but not a major one.....the sharing part is a little general - US companies use their patents abroad - but the sale prices are negotiated - which was a delete from the ACA....
Global warming err Climate change HOAX
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Article written by a bunch of lawyers for the American Enterprise Institute?