Its the pedantry.
I know nothing of FF, Brass, Gabfly, Thunderdog et al personally but I'll eat my hat if he didn't teach middle-school english before he retired into fag haggery.
Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Its the pedantry.
I know nothing of FF, Brass, Gabfly, Thunderdog et al personally but I'll eat my hat if he didn't teach middle-school english before he retired into fag haggery.
It's funny how we arrive at similar conclusions but for different reasons...Of course, I'm disgusted with the disparity in executive compensation, just as I'm flummoxed with the contracts professional athletes receive (given that the average family cannot even attend a professional sporting event any longer)...But this all ties into the same point I've been making repeatedly throughout this thread...
It all falls at the footsteps of the Fed...Reckless monetary policy rewards the top while the bottom bares the consequences of all the mal-investment (i.e. the "rentier economy")...How has ZIRP been beneficial to the common man? It hasn't. It's merely given executive's access to zero cost money, whereby they repurchase shares of their stock, boost the stock price and cash out. Rinse and repeat...Meanwhile, it keeps the asset bubbles churning along with a minimal effect on the real economy (Joe Main Street)...
This whole debate is more nuanced obviously...But I wholeheartedly believe that the root cause has been the deliberate attempt to foster asset bubbles, which in turn stoke inflation in other areas of the economy while wages have remained stagnant (global wage pressures and offshoring).
I suggest a straw boater. For the fiber.
I'll repeat the question for you:
"Because you think it is wrong for a transgender person to identify with the opposite biological sex, would you then want, a transgender person in a dress and high heels and long hair and with a female voice, and appearing to at least a casual observer to be a female, to use the mens' restroom?"
The possible answers are: 1. I would want the person who looks like a woman to use the men's restroom.
2. I would want the person who looks like a woman to use the women's restroom.
The only reasonable answer, of course, is #2.
You can't answer because you a have dug a hole for yourself from which the only escape is to admit your position on this issue is ridiculous because it either leads to a person being denied access to a restroom, or requires that a person appearing to be a man use the women's restroom, or that a person who looks like a women use the men's bathroom.
And just what percent of the population is transgender? Considering how few people this applies too, why is this a political issue at all. Don't we have more important problems than your concern that a person with a dick might be in one of those stalls in the women's restroom?
Last edited:
Exactly right...So remind me why we are inconveniencing 99.9% of the population to appease this small group of individuals...As to why people would concern themselves with the "person with a dick"...well that's because of the number of sexual deviants who would abuse this law, but it's not concern to you is it?
Again, we need single use washrooms for "other"; I'm so sick and tired of listening to who "identifies" with what bullshit...If you decide that you are a woman in mid-life, well now you are an "other", deal with it.
This is something that reasonable people can disagree about. There are arguments on both sides, My own view is that when labor's wages are very much below the true cost of labor, as they are today, raising those wages to a point near the true cost can provide a significant boost to the economy that lifts all ships, not merely labor.
It will merely expedite the exodus to low wage locales, as it has been doing for the better part of 25 years...Until we get that "one world government".
I was not fan of Bubbles Greenspan and I am growing weary of present monetary policy for the reasons you mentioned. I think the monetary easing was necessary during the economic meltdown, and I won't pretend to know when it should have been curtailed, but I think it is getting rather long in the tooth.
And, yes, along with the anorexic cost cutting, the repurchasing of company stock to make their options that much more valuable has allowed the corporate elite to make out like the bandits that a good many of them are.
Last edited:
Inclusiveness. Because a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. (Pun not intended.)
There is an interesting article today by a member of the gay community who has taken on the real issues behind this law...He has opined that the bathroom isn't the real issue here...It's the locker rooms that are causing much of the consternation and yet nobody has even addressed that...So while we sit around and debate whether or not it's acceptable for so and so transgender who identifies as a female to use the woman's restroom, how are we going to feel when that very same person is showering at the gym next to one's daughter? Or better yet, when the sexual predators figure out a way to get into the women's locker room...
It seems that we are back to idealism versus reality...Are we better off as a society hurting the feelings of 0.07% of the population or exposing half the population to the sexual predators who will use this law as a guise to unfettered access to women's locker rooms?