lostboy

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

1) Please stop bringing Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals into this issue. As we have been told here by members of the LGBT community, they are not the same, just political allies of trans people, nothing more. It is just like the anti-war movement has political allies in the pro-Palestine or Fee Mumia! movement (http://www.freemumia.com/). No one claims that Mumia was being hurt by invading Iraq. So please stop saying gays or bisexuals are being hurt by not wanting to let a man/teenage boy use the ladies/girls room/ocker room. You just give ammo to the anti-gay bigots out there.

By constantly including the LGB community, you are clouding the issue. Using a toilet or locker room IS NOT being denied service.

2) "Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms?" - - Thank you for asking. Reading this thread it is clear that people aren't comprehending the opposition to the toilet/ocker room laws. While I'm sure there are some true bigots out there, the majority of the opposition I read from are those who are concerned that the heterosexual sexual predators/deviants/perverts/rapists/pedophiles dressing up in drag in order to gain access to a woman's toilet for reasons other than powdering their nose.

By saying "who are we to judge what gender someone identifies themselves as" we are holding the door wide open to these sexual predators. So on this issue, I am sure that 100% of sexual predators/deviants are in favor of the open door policy. That should make reasonable people - gay or straight - feel a little concern.

3) anti-trans bigotry on TV...I would think that anyone having spent a lot of time in Thailand would be more accepting of trans people than the general population in their home country, wherever that might be.

I enjoy Jingthing's posts on a number of issues. I do think that he would be surprised about the interpretation you have made of his information about the T in LGBT. It is not up to you to remove the T from LGBT. This has been a long standing and complex issue that your superficial assessment does nothing to move forward. In fact such superficiality moves the issue back significantly. Your references to Palestine and Mumia are similarly non sequiturs. I can see no relevance at all to the issues being discussed here.

Since this thread specifically mentions Mississippi, then I would have thought it sensible to make reference to HB1523 with this very descriptive title:

AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

Please excuse the CAPS. I copied it from the actual bill http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2016/pdf/history/HB/HB1523.xml and didn't really feel like retyping this ignorant BS again. Were you aware that this was the title of the Mississippi measure? Have you read the text of the Bill? If you had, then you need to stop doing two things; one is keeping your mind on toilets as this is most certainly not about male heterosexual sexual predators. I don't know how many people saying that how many times will get it through the heads of those people with their minds in the toilet. Earlier posters pushing that idea have somehow disappeared for a while. You can work out why. Secondly, your demand that LGB issues should not be brought into this discussion is completely and utterly destroyed by the fact that it is the LGBT minority against whom this measure has been passed.

Read the Bill.

The Columbia Law School did. Here is their assessment:

1. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause (of the US Constitution) by allowing Government Employees to discriminate against Mississippians who are LGBT or do not conform to religious sex and gender norms;
2. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause by allowing recipients of government grants and contracts to discriminate against Mississippians who are LGBT or do not conform to religious sex and gender norms;
3. HB 1523 violates the Establishment Clause by accommodation the religious preferences of private groups and individuals in a way that causes meaningful harm to other private citizens

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/memo_regarding_ms_hb1523.pdf

You will see that toilet is not mentioned once. Bathroom is mentioned under the 2nd issue relating to recipients of government grants and contracts.

We are not talking about men in bathrooms on these threads. People who have been talking about men in bathrooms are doing so deliberately to derail the topic and to incite hatred and discrimination against LGBT people. Incendiary words that they have used have been ruled unacceptable and some individuals ruled as trolls with the associated consequences. Saying this over and over again is getting to be extremely boring. Is not getting it some deliberate act of insolence or as the Moderator has already said 'you can't fix stupid'.

Until those posters stop using the Toilet Birther non-argument, then they really cannot be taken seriously and deserve to suffer the 'slings and arrows' not of outrageous fortune but of contempt.

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

There is nothing dignified about this whole stupid toilet/locker room issue.

Forcing women to accept men in the toilet if the man pretends to be trans or pretends to "identify as female" is asinine.

Everyone knows women go there together for their secret women pow-wows or whatever. The Ladies Room is their safe space. I thought the Left was in full support of safe spaces?

People can pretend that it is some kind of civil right, human right, and anyone who opposes is a bigot, but that is all BS. There was a lesbian on the BBC speaking out against this so don't pretend that the LGBT community is united on the issue. The vast majority of women still don't want men in their toilets.

They can solve this issue by changing the signs on the doors. Instead of the image of a man or woman, just have a penis or vagina.

You and others continue with your minds in the toilet. By doing so, you purposefully trivialise the issue and contribute to the demonisation of LGBT people. The religious hate laws deny LGBT people access to public services, jeopardises their employment prospects and in some case their actual employment as they can be dismissed for their biological make up. Beating up the toilet diversion plays into the agenda of hate and discrimination that is expressed by the laws and the people behind the laws. Why bring in left and right into this issue? What do I now about lesbians on the BBC. All these distractions and diversions. Plays right into the hands of the bigots.

I will say one thing on the toilet issue Continued reference to men in women's toilets is either a sign of ignorance or a deliberate inflammation of the issue. Who is talking about men in women's bathrooms? We are discussing Trans people who identify as women using women's bathrooms. To suggest otherwise is just a blatant sop to promoting discrimination. You don't like LGBT people, fine but don't perpetuate discrimination that denies them equality under the law.

Mr Adams has the perfect right to boycott any place he wants.

Just as people should be allowed to refuse to provide a wedding cake that compromises their beliefs.

LGBT people should be dismissed from employment because they are LGBT? Straight people should be dismissed from employment because they support marriage equality? This is not about cakes or bathrooms. A cake does compromise any belief. Simplistic diversion to stir up hatred and discrimination.

Just another example for the hypocrisy of these so-called entertainment "stars" and SJWs: What Beverly Hills Hotel Boycott? A-List Stars Set for Weekend Fundraiser at Venue

"No major Hollywood red carpet event has unspooled inside the Beverly Hills Hotel since 2014 when the owner, the Sultan of Brunei, passed Sharia law in his country, calling for the stoning of gays and adulterers."

...

"Another source quipped, "I think people have turned their attention toward anti-LGBT legislation being passed everywhere from North Carolina to Tennessee to care any more about a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel.""

Ain't it great to have the right to selectively boycott (or not anymore) for whatever reason you please? To have the freedom to select your flavour of the month?

What a bunch of hypocrites! Or does anybody understand, that after two years it is okay again to support people or business owners who advocate the stoning of gays? What could be the reason for this switch of principle? If there was ever one.

I am beginning to think that you are not arguing in good faith since you do not actually address the issues at hand. The issue is legislation that authorises the discrimination of minorities and the back lash. First you argue a moral equivalency of 'sincerely held' religious beliefs and the right to dignity of a minority that is defined by their biology. You now move to argue that protest against such anti LGBT legislation requires all protesters to protest all issues related to LGBT equality otherwise their protest can be dismissed and trivialised on the basis of hypocrisy.

Is Brian Adams protesting the Beverly Hills Hotel? I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. You might also find out about The Boss even though he is not part of this thread. Perhaps you might ask them if they knew about the issue with the Sultan of Brunei. Perhaps you might ask if they believe that putting energy into protesting religious bigotry in the US may have more impact than protesting the Ruler of a Sovereign State. You might also explain to them your expectation that they protest all issues with equal energy and vigour and demand an accounting of every issues that they have protested and at what level of intensity.

This circular argument that freedom of speech allows speech and actions that discriminate against a minority is easily countered by those who are subject to such discrimination also have the right to protest such discrimination can go on forever. It is clear to me that the rights of people to discriminate on the basis of their learned behaviours and received perceptions are less than the rights of those who are being discriminated against due to their biology.

People expressing support for LGBT equality need not be subject to ridiculous and insolent expectations that they fight all issues related to LGBT equality equally. This is just plainly irrational.

I enjoy and support a lot of what Bill Maher talks about. I particularly support what he says about Reagan and Religion (separately). His latest monologue on Real Time last Friday evening addressed the issue of religious discrimination. I think he has the correct solution.

I think that continued use of false equivalency would demonstrate bad faith in this discussion. Some have already judged it to be so. If any replies continue this line, then I guess we will know for sure.

False equivalency that promotes discrimination against actual people, not beliefs. Clearly Jon Sweetens has the same superficial understanding of people's right to dignity that many on TVF do.

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

You failed to mention the "undocumented immigrants" are also called "Illegal immigrants" and are, therefore law breakers.

I seem to recall Australia having problems with "undocumented immigrants" recently. What does your government do about them?

Maybe if you folks act real nice, Bryan Adams will honor you with his presence.

I do hope that you are not trying to bait me into off topic discussions chuck and be at the peril of dire consequences from the powers that be? On the assumption that this post will remain, I will respond to your issues.

People who are in the US illegally are people. They exist as humans. They even retain certain human rights and certainly are entitled to rights under the US Constitution. People cannot and should not be referred to as illegal. This is a direct denial of their right to be human. It is purposeful dehumanisation to fit a political agenda. People can and do commit acts that are illegal. The illegality refers to the actions and not the individual. It makes no difference that the people who write and approve legislation in the US use the word illegal alien. Their perpetuation and propagation of discrimination, intentional or not, cannot be excused. I have stated my beliefs on this many times in the past. I am also comforted that these beliefs are supported by such eminent organisations as the Associated Press and the New Yorker, although I do know what view a curmudgeonly Texan takes of the New Yorker. Full of New York values right!

The AP Stylebook today is making some changes in how we describe people living in a country illegally.https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more

Should I Use the Term “Illegal Immigrant”?http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-i-use-the-term-illegal-immigrant

Australia is a country of immigrants. Respect for diversity and the promotion of multiculturalism has been at the core of the developing Australian identity since the Whitlam Government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. More detail on the Whitlam Government and its impact on Australia's social progress can be found here http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/what-did-gough-whitlam-actually-do-rather-a-lot-20141021-11977w.html

Under recent, right wing oriented governments, immigration has been used to stir up hysteria and hatred for political purposes. You say 'my' government but you should say the Australian government since you imply that I support discriminatory immigration policies otherwise. Discrimination is encouraged against the most recent immigrants attempting to enter Australia unlawfully because many of them are Muslim. I grew up witnessing the challenges that post WWII immigrants from Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean had with integrating into Australian society and the changes that they brought to Australia. I witnessed the Vietnamese in the 70's and the Khmer in the 80's. By the 90's Australia had begun to develop a sense of its identity as part of the Asian region, something that was facilitated by legislation and public policy initiatives by the ideological successors to the Whitlam Government. You may wish to read one of Paul Keating's speeches on engagement with Asia from 1992 when he was Prime Minister http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/australia-and-asia-knowing-who-we-are---7-april-1992

I do not support calls for throwing children of Muslim refugees seeking to enter Australia by boat overboard. I do not support the establishment of concentration camps for such 'boat people' in countries in the Pacific. I do not support indefinite incarceration in immigration detention centres in remote locations in rural Australia. I do support increased activity by the Australian government in diplomatic efforts with neighbouring countries to combat human trafficking.

In Australia the issue is about 'asylum seekers' not 'illegal immigrants'. Here is the government position on asylum seekers http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts You may also wish to read this document from the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, however I won't hold my breath on that http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf

I think that is probably enough of the off topic discussion on immigration policy in Australia. I remain convinced about the dangers to people and human rights by the activities of armed bigots like Joe Arpaio and Sheriff Chuck (?) Wright of Spartanburg County, South Carolina.

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

I am certainly going to touch a nerve or two in this post. For that I apologize in advance, but I believe open discussion helps all who debate honestly and openly.

First, I will say that I have no bias against anyone who is gay or lesbian. I have close friends, both gay and transgender, and I think they are beautiful people and I enjoy our friendship. I have never felt anything negative towards anyone because they are gay. I was raised in a Catholic family, and I can understand their views based upon the passages of the Bible. I disagree with their interpretations, but I understand them.

Andreas2's point about protest, in my opinion, is valid. You state that Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. First, speech is protected. A person has every right to state the opinion that they believe being gay is wrong (speech). Just as you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs. But, they have no right to manifest violence or discrimination against someone who is gay (action). Without the right of speech, women, blacks, nor gays would have ever made any progress with their fights for equality. You simply cannot pick and choose which messages are valid and which are not. As long as the messages are peaceful and respectful, society at large will ultimately decide what is the correct answer, and with amazement (for me, anyway), eventually they always do. When I was a young boy, being openly gay was utterly unacceptable. That has changed. That is the power of speech. The ability to appeal to the intelligence and understanding of those around you. We should all cherish and defend this right, regardless of how uncomfortable it can become at times.

But in the case of the Oregon bakers, the LBGT community has taken action to harm that couple's life, via their business, in a way that I think cannot be justified. The couple simply stated that, because of their religious belief, they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay ceremony. They were not attempting to discriminate against gays, they were attempting to exercise their beliefs. We must accept that point, since they clearly had done business with gays prior to that event! They had no problem doing any other business with gay people. It was simply when the business applied specifically to something deeply associated with their faith, they asked the couple to do business with another baker. They did not attack them. They did not tell them they would burn in hell. They did not invite the community in to ridicule them. They simply expressed their desire to not do that specific piece of business. That is not, in my opinion, discrimination. Yet, I can easily see why others would consider it as such. I think it is the very fact that the bakers did prior business with gay patrons that favors my view of it.

Consider another scenario. I have the right to free speech. I wish to print a publication of my beliefs for others to read, in the hopes of convincing them to agree with my beliefs. I have every right to do so. I enter a print shop and ask the printer to print my publication. In my publication, I state that I believe homosexuality will ultimately destroy civilization (this is a scenario, of course, I don't really believe that). I am not advocating any action against gay people, or hatred of gay people, I am simply expressing my belief. The printer is gay. Now, do you feel the printer should be forced to print my publication? Or should he have the right to ask me to do business elsewhere?

You state: We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

I believe you are treading on some very thin ice here. To completely dismiss the clear connection between biological reproduction and certain beliefs that disagree with homosexuality, is to almost dismiss your very own argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Furthermore, and here is where things get very sticky, many would argue that sexual preference is a learned behavior, not a biological manifestation. I have to admit that very well thought out arguments in this regard, as well as my own personal experiences, have me lead me to lean more towards the learned behavior argument. Other than the most rudimentary aspect of biological reproduction, I believe that sex in human beings is entirely a mental phenomenon. To not accept this argument requires that you explain bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and a number of other sexual preferences, while completely carving homosexuality out of the equation. It is very tricky business, the human mind, and we are still advancing in our understanding.

Many will point to a gay gene to promote the biological argument. I believe this is even thinner ice. The biological explanation of gender (man versus woman) is clearly identifiable, as is the genetics that causes people to have black or white skin. But homosexuality has not been so clearly demonstrated. To say that genetics can make men more effeminate or women more masculine is to dismiss the very people who are such, but are heterosexual. I know men who are very effeminate, but are straight, and I know men who are very masculine, but are gay. If you begin to make the biological argument, based on current science, you start to back yourself into difficult corners. If you are gay, but lack the so-called gay gene, does society have the right to label you as wrong? Do we begin to accept that their might be a criminal gene that allows us to lock up people before they have committed a crime? Short of clear genetic defects that affect the development of the human brain, attempting to link genetics to the human mind is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And what will happen to the entire argument if science later proves that homosexuality is entirely a mental phenomenon?

This is where I think the gay community has made a mistake. They should not be attempting to tie their rights to a biological basis. I, personally, do not think it exists. And it is not necessary. The gay community is on very solid ground simply stating that they have human rights to live their lives as they wish. Religions have every right to believe what they want to believe, but have no right whatsoever to force that belief on their fellow citizens. If a Christian does not want to bake a wedding cake, but is otherwise willing to do business with gays, that seems fine by me. If a gay printer does not wish to print my crazy gays-will-destroy-civilization (again, I don't believe that!) pamphlet, but would otherwise do business with me, that also seems fine. Simple. Constitutional. Workable.

Again, the government can afford no such luxury. It must service all citizens equally according to the law. And this is where I think another mistake is being made in the current debate. You state But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. So very true, but, the bakers in question are running a private business! No one is preventing gays from accessing government services, walking into a federal park, riding the subway, entering a public library, or driving on public roads. In my opinion, to force a private business to conduct business against their (even if irrational or disagreeable) desires, is no different from forcing a person with an irrational fear of flying to board a plane. The government has no business attempting to force citizens to adhere to any belief or thought process. Their mandate is to ensure that everyone is afforded the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. People can be stupid, they can be irrational, they can be discriminating in their thoughts, as long as it does not subvert the freedom and liberty of the next guy. In the case of the Oregon bakers, there was no subversion of the freedom or liberty of the gay couple. They were perfectly free to conduct business elsewhere. Let society vote with their feet and their dollars. If the bakers were truly discriminatory, word would get around, and eventually their only customers would be those who agreed with them, and free enterprise would have dealt them their ultimate fate.

Now that I am certain I have offended many people, I wish to re-iterate: I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality. It does not cause any harm to society. It does not reduce the freedom or liberty of anyone. Gay persons have every right to life and liberty, pursuing their needs and desires like everyone else. I have believed this since early childhood and have never doubted it. And I look forward to the day that all of this friction can be put behind us, and we can all focus our attention on the more pressing matters facing humanity.

You respond to my argument against laws that allow discrimination of LGBT people with two core ideas; that LGBT choose to this 'lifestyle' and private businesses can discriminate against whomever they please.

Knowing people who are LGBT is not the same as knowing LGBT people. You confuse sexual expression, sexual orientation and gender identity. These are entirely separate issues. You also do not seem to be aware that by confusing these issues you are also perpetuating stereotypes about LGBT people and this is correctly regarded as being homophobic. References to gay men and effeminacy and lesbian women as butch is now a cliche; it is the received wisdom of those who seek to demonise LGBT people. Whether you say this is your intention or not is immaterial. The effect of perpetuating these assumptions is to perpetuate discrimination.

My argument against LGBT hate legislation is that the right to dignity of people with no biological choice in their orientation or gender identity trumps the rights of people who wish to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of a set of beliefs and practices that are learned; that are not universal; and, are subjective in interpretation. Your counter to this is to question the genetic basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. You may wish to read this from the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html. There are many similar articles and research pieces that you may consult, or not. In any case, how can you make statements about the origins of LGBT people if you are straight? You literally do not know what you are talking about and you do this in the face of people who actually are LGBT. I really think that your references to the thickness of ice is way off the mark. Should brown skinned people somehow change their skin colour to conform to apartheid regimes? Should brown eyed people change their eye colour to blue to achieve a more acceptable standard of beauty? The ridiculousness of such statements should give an indication of the notion that LGBT orientation and identity is a choice.

Why do people who support laws that allow discrimination against LGBT people on religious grounds keep talking about gay wedding cakes and other trivialities? This is a complete diversion. The legislation that discriminates against LGBT people is denying such people access to public funds and public services. It enables employers to dismiss people if they support marriage equality. It enables employers to dismiss people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet the argument is made that to protect the right of someone to refuse a business service to someone whose beliefs, something that is learned, are in opposition to their customers, then all religious based discrimination against LGBT people is justified. I won't even respond to the silliness about whether such religious beliefs are 'sincerely' held or not. There are no metrics to establish that.

The correct response to the exercise of bigotry and discrimination is naming and shaming. This is happening. The fact that there is overwhelming reaction against such bigotry and discrimination is an expression of the support that LGBT people have from non LGBT people now. It is overwhelmingly in the majority now, particularly among young people. Businesses are regulated by the State. Permits must be obtained. Compliance to standards set by the State is required. Denying accommodation in a State licensed guest house or hotel is clearly more egregious than refusing to back a cake but it is clear that the State has a responsibility to ensure equality in the treatment of all persons.

I am not persuaded by the arguments from people who 'believe' that LGBT orientation and identity is a lifestyle choice. This is clearly debunked by modern science and perpetuating this idea is to promote discrimination. I am further not persuaded by the idea that private businesses can decide who they can service or not. Such businesses are required to meet standards set by the State and I see no reason that equal treatment of all people irregardless of 'beliefs', sincerely held or not, is not in the interests of the State.

I am further not persuaded that issues faced by LGBT people should be trivialised because we are a small percentage of the population and there are bigger issues facing humanity.

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

Government employees are paid 100% from taxes and pay a small percent back. Government employees are government employees and it does take many to do the job of one person in private enterprise be they Republicans or Democrats. The best and brightest don't work for the state they work for private enterprise.

Conservatives know this as do liberals it is non partisan laziness and inefficiency.

What an articulate, beautifully phrased argument we are presented with - government employees are government employees. These few words express so much about the intellectual grasp of the average Trump supporter.

Only workers who work in private industry do real work? Only the purchase of services by private business qualifies and real? Those people who provide their skills, knowledge and experience and are compensated by public funds aren't actually doing real work? People like fire fighters, Judges, teachers, soldiers, policy analysis, diplomats, researchers at the numerous Federal laboratories, administrators - well, you know, almost everyone.

So what, some TSA guy put his hands in the wrong place? Waited too long in line at the DMV? Or is it these people you say are worthless? The drones. The hacks working on administrative red tape. Do they too not provide a service that should be compensated. Cannot they take dignity in their work. At least they get paid a wage that is not at starvation level. Your private industry heroes like Walmart and almost everyone in the fast food industry pay wages that are not enough for people to live on. People work full time jobs and still don't have enough to buy food. And it is not because they are spending their money on crack or booze or strip joints or whatever you think is happening.

So typical of the Trump demographic - overgeneralisation, simplistic and practically simple minded assumptions about how the world works, plain ignorance of many facts and the tendency to stereotype anything and anyone they don't like or understand.

@Post 1104

"The anti Donalds still don't get it. It doesn't matter what he says" Incredible.

But, perhaps you are right.

Given the fact that he is a rascist, mob-connected, misogynistic, fascist, uniformed, ignorant, foul buffoon and his sheep still don't care.

The Bloviator has not proposed one vision other than divisive, bigoted, marginalizing, dangerous rhetoric.

Oh, and proliferating Nuclear Weapons. Not to mention his idea of using them in Europe and the Middle East.

"anti establishment candidate"? Paleezzzze.....

Ahh, but this is all parlour talk.

The Bloviator will never achieve his narcissistic goal.

Trump tax proposal.

Called the “1-5-10-15” income tax plan Tax proposals consist of the following:

* Those making up to $30,000 will pay 1 percent.

* Income from $30,000 to $100,000 results in a flat 5 percent.

* $100,000 to $1 million income will be taxed at 10 percent.

* On $1 million or above will be taxed 15 percent.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-bold-income-tax-proposal-this-is-a-big-deal/

For information on other positions such as China trade, VA and health care see https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

So he's announced a plan. Bully for him. Neither he, nor that propaganda rag that you link to, or you in fact, can say whether this plan will result in sufficient revenues to fund the government. If you are going to reply with a bunch of generalisations about not paying NATO, UN, getting rid of the DEP (the Department of Environment - something starting with a P that Trump couldn't remember) and all that nonsense, it will be clear that you still have no idea.

I think it is pretty apt question - what is the impact of the plan as announced on the fiscal balance of the US?

We won't even get to the silliness of paying down $19tn in debt in 4 years. How? Get Canada to pay for it?

Ain't it funny, artists using their right to cancel already signed voluntary contracts (I guess) to punish people and to protest laws that they (the people) should have the right to refuse business relations with entities they don't agree with? The very same right Brian Adams seems to be using right now?

Just to be clear. Every artist - or business-person for that matter -, must have the right to refuse any business relation with any party (customers, providers) they don't want to do business with. I totally support Brian Adams' right to refuse any contract with parties he doesn't like or detests.

But: To all the SJWs here on TV: What am I missing? I'm all for the freedom provided to The Boss and Bryan Adams to cancel or to not provide concerts in regions in the US they detest for their freedom to have their preferences, be they religious based or otherwise. Why aren't you fighting - Or at least arguing - for the very same freedom for minorities or the common people?

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Renowned author Wm Manchester penned the definitive biography of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar. It was of course a hyperbolic title but it made its point. President Truman and his advisors to include the principal cabinet officers had to "slay" MacArthur to stop him starting World War III. MacArthur was positive he'd been betrayed and the country sold down the river to the Red Chinese.

I'd noted months ago Donald Trump is the uniquely American Mussolini, the strongman type who has all the answers to everything at all times. The boisterous and swaggering Trump has reduced his rhetoric of campaign violence since his manager was charged by police in Florida (the charges were recently dropped).

Trump's campaign nonetheless is a march on Washington reminiscent of Mussolini's 1922 March on Rome. It of course isn't the same thing, but it is the uniquely American version of the Mussolini march. It's just that Trump and his troopers don't need uniforms or armbands to be engaged in an insurrectionist movement against our Constitution.

The more Trump and his troopers discredit the system to the point of its being completely negated, the better the probability they can establish their own new system in its place. And it won't be pretty either. Trump's new Amerika would in fact be downright ugly and unrecognisable from its predecessor written by the Founders.

Which is why Trump will fail, if not at the Republican National Convention, then in the general election in November when the vast and moderate centrist electorate will pass their due judgement on Benito The Donald and his ways.

No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards others,

You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages.

So what is posted? Cheap name calling that passes for debate as long is it is anti Trump.

Publicis writes ------

Donald Trump is the uniquely American Mussolini

Trump's campaign nonetheless is a march on Washington reminiscent of Mussolini's 1922 March on Rome..

Trump and his troopers don't need uniforms or armbands to be engaged in an insurrectionist movement against our Constitution.

Trump's new Amerika would in fact be downright ugly and unrecognisable

Benito The Donald

End of quotes

I realize the fix is in but am I the only one who is bothered by the constant kindergarten name calling?

Your references to serious, articulate observations and analysis as kindergarten name calling is symptomatic of the growing tendency for the trump fanboys to play the victim. Clearly the writing is on the wall and that the trumpy-boys are realising that their Deified Clown cannot win either the nomination or the election.

Quoting forum rules for language used against Trump? You must be really into exercises in futility. What's next "You can't say that or I'll tell the moderators on you".

For those people who take politics seriously and are not the petulant old scrubbers who are bitter about their lack of success in life, the dangers of populist autocracy are very real. It has been demonstrated aptly in Trump's case with his exhortations to suppress dissent by violence, his chronic deliberate falsehoods and exaggerations, his extreme think skin and unwarranted self regard. From such things are a dictator made. Serious people understand this. Spoilers and whingers who are fantasising about returning to a golden age that never existed being brought about by a person who has no demonstrable qualifications nor policies nor experience to achieve this, clearly are willing to trade off respect for human dignity and freedoms in favour of bling, bombast and buffoonery. It is very clear who is in the kindergarten.

DELETED

Maybe they are still in the closet and easily threatened by those who choose an alternative lifestyle than theirs?

Is it any surprise that Trans people experience such hatred and discrimination when these sorts of statements continue to be made. They continue to be made despite the evidence of genetic determinants to LGBT identification. They continue to be made despite the majority of people now supporting LGBT equality. A recent survey in the EU of a quarter of a million people under the age of 34 found that 81% had no problem with seeing gays kissing http://www.queerty.com/young-people-cant-wait-to-try-gay-sex-20160414

In this day and age, with all the information available, the only reason to say that being LGBT is a choice is to perpetuate the ignorance, hatred and discrimination of non conformists.

Tell me Einstein, are you able to describe the factors that led you to choose your straight lifestyle? If it is a choice, then this implies some rationality behind the decision. A weighing of pros and cons. Research into the various alternatives. Testing each alternative etc etc. If you can explain this, then you will be the first one ever to do so.

There are so many lies and so much blatant propaganda against North Korea, who knows if the news of this letter are real... In the end the US need North Korea exactly the way it is so they can use it as a scarecrow to keep Koreans and Japanese in a permanent state of fear in order to keep their military presence and weapon sales up.

It's like terrorists, if they didn't exist they should invent them, so who knows if they existed in the first place... So much b/s out there these days, that's probably just another one and it doesn't matter if it is or not.

You may well be correct about North Korean Real Politik but people often forget that the Korean War (I think it was technically called an Emergency by the UN) is not over. It has been on ceasefire for 60 years. I do think that US and regional posture towards North Korea is probably based largely on that fact and relations would be different if there was a peace treaty signed. You know, normal stuff instead of looney bin stuff that NK is known for.

while i am not a fan of north korea it would be interesting to compare their students scores, math, science, reading, etc with the thai education scores.

It would be an interesting comparison but not probably a statistically accurate one. I doubt that NK has universal education and if it does I doubt that there aren't reasonably large sections of the population that are denied it for various reasons.

Many relatively poor countries have had high scores in the past because only a select few were afforded education beyond basic primary level. As education becomes more inclusive, the scores invariably drop.

It's easy to have higher scores if you can eliminate those who do not do well in school.

Too difficult to adjust for cultural bias I would think.

All the celebs, corporations and other non important former celebs and wannabees will be boycotting South Carolina, Mississippi and now Tennessee. But it won't be too long that it will be 10 states, then 20, then 30 and 35 states - likely within a years time.. Then what will the boycotting folks do ? Keep whining I suppose...

The canary in the coal mine. There to warn us about impending events, mostly doom and gloom. Warnings based on a political radar stuck on the ideology of the Sons of Liberty, a terrorist organisation and fuelled by a web of connections back home to feverish cliques of similarly minded people reading the Trump Tealeaves. You have warned us already that the old white men are revolting. We agree. Their attempts to codify discrimination of minorities into legislation has happened in a small minority of REPUBLICAN led states.

Here's some news that will make the old ticker flutter, so please prepare yourself - North Carolina Attorney General Won't Defend Gov's 'National Embarrassment' http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/3/29/north-carolina-attorney-general-wont-defend-governors-national-embarrassment

What was that about 10 states next, then 20? It is absolutely astounding that one of the most obnoxiously hawkish 'Originalists' on TVF so completely endorses unconstitutional legislation that deny equal protection to minorities. The whole basis of the Originalists' arguments is entirely false. It is a mere protection of white privilege (straight, white, male). We all recognised that this is what Scalia was all about because his hypocrisy was there for everyone to see it, except the fanboys of course.

There is no opposite to the Cassandra Complex. Your predictions about Trump will be wrong. Your predications about the spread of legislation that promotes discrimination of minorities will be as equally assigned to the dust bin of history and shame of a country founded on liberal rationality.

Make America White Again! Now add Make America Straight Again! Not going to happen.

How did life get so complicated?

Well, if you're talking about transgender people in the U.S., there has been a trend in recent years towards much greater VISIBILITY of that small minority group.

Films, t.v. shows, political activism, and don't forget CAITLYN JENNER, the transgender REPUBLICAN. Yes, that IS weird.

before.jpgphotoshop.jpg

I don't think the fact that Caitlin is a Republican was the most confusing thing for the Straight White Right Men, but the fact that she professed to retain a sexual orientation towards women. That really got them confused and about what sort of pronouns and adjectives to use!

Dear Gay-Trans Bullies: Sorry, the Rest of Us Still Have Rights…

...You are the definition of intolerance. You embody hate. You see someone with a traditional lifestyle, and rather than taking your business elsewhere, rather than going on with your gay or trans life, you attack them. You harass them. You force your will, your way of life upon them. “Tolerance” isn’t enough for you. You want full compliance, full acceptance or HATE BE UPON THOSE WHO DISAGREE.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/dear-gay-trans-bully-pulpit-sorry-the-rest-of-us-still-have-rights/#ixzz45g0cqJmz

Amen, brother, Amen.

Amazing how well that reads if you swap "Gay-Trans Bullies"" and "gay or trans" for CHRISTIAN, and change the word "traditional" for "different".

Because I don't remember gays or transgender people every bullying me, or trying to impose their beliefs on me.

But I sure as shit in my lifetime have had to listen to god botherers moaning about shops opening on a Sunday, football matches during church and pubs being open. Fortunately most grown up people just tell them to go and be Christian in their own corner and stop pestering everyone else with their book of mythical fairy tales.

The issue is not what happened to you as a kid in the 60s-70s. It is about today, 2016.

The tables have turned, the shoe is on the other foot, so turnabout is fair play?

If it was wrong backthen to bully gay and trans people, then it is wrong today to bully others. Others who weren't around when you were a kid and are blameless in what happened to you.

Now that the power has started to shift it is the gay/trans people who are bullying. Bullying - wrong then, wrong today.

It is not surprising the at the Straight White Right Victimhood movement is complaining about having to tolerate things that they used to make fun of or use to humiliate people. There is nothing in the referenced post about what happened in the 60's. A perfectly reasonable and sensible point was being made about LGBT people never bullying the poster in his experience.

You, however, now claim that LGBT people are bullying you. How. By exposing bigotry? By not accepting the names that are used to harass them/us? Staying up for their/our rights? This is bullying? I suppose it is to someone who is forced to acknowledge, confront and change a lifetime of bigoted, prejudiced and now unacceptable behaviour.

You are in the minority. You no longer get to set the agenda for how minorities are treated. Deal with it.

As for your ludicrous notion that LGBT people are 'in power now', that is just the sour grapes of the whinging Victim. If we were in power, then ally straight boys would be forced to do things that you secretly think about but never discuss. All state national flowers would be pansies. Attendance at Gay Pride would be compulsory. All your worst nightmares come at once.

The Victim thing will tire pretty quickly. Since most people are not LGBT but support LGBT rights, those who are in the minority because they refuse to acknowledge their prejudice - which is LEARNED behaviour, not a genetic predisposition - will be and are being increasingly marginalised. There will be no more Matthew Shepherds thank you http://www.matthewshepard.jeff-reys.com whose killing was inspired by the sort of bigotry that is expressed here by many.

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

You must be unaware that in most of your posts you indulge in polemic.

Do I need to provide supporting data to the self evident truth that increasing aged retiree numbers will create a heavier burden on health care costs? But before you rush to correct me that it's just numbers and size doesn't matter, interest rates may just have to increase to alleviate the looming pension crisis. But that's a big problem for federal and state budgets depending on low interest rates to sustain debt. So what gives? Wipe out government budgets or wipe out the guarantees for pensioners?

Looks like managing the economy by raising and lowering interest rates is becoming a disaster. Never mind Trump (to get back on topic) there's a punishing of irresponsible fiscal policy already. From memory Illinois faced a $560m pension deficit recently and the Central States Pension fund is proposing to pay out only 50% of it's obligation.

Same is happening in Europe, Germany in particular. Low or negative interest rates is not the answer.Central banks may have to raise interest rates to rescue pension funds.Perhaps the beginnings of the next financial meltdown.

The question that remains unanswered is how much debt is too much. This is not an ideological question but a technical question. Use of polemic is natural in a discussion on economic policy but you and a number of others have been posting a bunch of numbers, charts and expositions on the size of the US national debt, which President grew the largest debt and related issues ad nauseous. There is still an ongoing peeing contest about this responsibility issue.

My contention is that there is no indication from the markets that current or future debt levels in the US are unsustainable. It does not really matter what individual elements are affecting or will affect the size of the debt. You are certainly correct, in my view and despite the lack of supporting data, that health care costs and pension costs will contribute to increasing debt. That is not my point. As long as the debt burden is sustainable, then whats the problem. Debt is and will remain a primary instrument in funding the government.

I do believe that your discussion on interest rates is going off on a tangent to the issue that I have raised. I have no problem with that. You can post whatever you want but I do not believe that monetary policy, which deals with interest rates has anything to do with fiscal policy, which deals with receipts and expenditures of the government in terms of impacting the sustainability of debt. They are certainly interconnected in terms of providing a range of instruments in managing an economy.

The Levy Economics Institute says that "The CBO’s assumption that the United States must offer a real interest rate on the public debt higher than the real growth rate by itself creates an unsustainability that is not otherwise there. Changing that one assumption completely alters the long-term dynamic of the public debt." http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/is-the-federal-debt-unsustainable

I listened to a presentation by Steven Keen, Chief Economist at the Institute for Dynamic Economic Analysis http://www.ideaeconomics.org/stevekeen/ last year at the FCCT. He and his supporters are significant debt hawks. Keen and IDEA believe that "The debt and asset price bubbles were ignored by conventional "Neoclassical" economists on the basis of a set of a priori beliefs about the nature of a market economy that are spurious, but deeply entrenched. Understanding how this crisis came about will require a new, dynamic, monetary approach to economic theory that contradicts the neat, plausible and false Neoclassical model that currently dominates academic economics and popular political debate."http://www.ideaeconomics.org/basics/

It seems, however that Keen is involved in a splinter economic movement that disputes the current received wisdom of economics as taught in US Universities. He may or may not be correct. I am still searching for evidence that clearly refutes the classical economic principles of debt and stimulus.

In response to your comments on low interest rates, in relation to debt management "Debt management can be used at low interest rates to lower bond yields, to provide bank assets and thereby help maintain broad money growth, or to save on interest payments. "http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt0906e.pdf

So I am left still with my original thesis that current and future debt levels are sustainable and the ideological debate on size is quite irrelevant on technical terms; merely on emotional terms.

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

In North Carolina it seems that common sense prevails.

"Roy Cooper NC DOJ Will Not Defend HB 2" http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2016/03/29/roy-cooper-nc-doj-will-not-defend-house-bill-2

"In defending his office's nondiscrimination policy and a similar policy at the state treasurer's office, Cooper says he would argue that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional. "

​In all the diversion into off topic hysterics about male sexual offenders in female toilets and the beat up of the fear that is solely being generated by hate groups, primarily religious based, that are demanding the right to discriminate against LGBT people, the core issue is being shrouded. The core issue is equal protection for all people. In the US this is guaranteed in the constitution for all US citizens. As the US goes, so does the rest of the western world.

These hate bills, the existence of which seem to be completely oblivious to the Toilet Birthers, are full of discriminatory practices. Those who want to promote fear and hate deliberately promote the unrelated issues of male sexual predators. They ignore the core element of the regulations. Employers can dismiss a straight person who expresses support for marriage equality. LGBT people can be denied access to housing and public services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. State and private employees are equally subject to the discriminatory provisions of such bills.

The promoters or hate and division are being thwarted at every turn as we see from the actual good people of North Carolina.

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them.

The agenda driven activists wills say, "oh, it's too expensive" or "oh, it's just not practical" but this is all just a ruse. Tell them that you're going to fund it privately and you can bet they'll turn it down because of some half baked understanding of the term civil rights.

You can point to anyone, anywhere who has said this in response to proposals to allow trans people access to toilets?

No. Of course not. These fantasy conversations are just in your own mind.

He'll now be able to do it legally, that is a pretty big difference.

And maybe there are those who will be emboldened by the new law to follow suit.

The downsides outweigh the upsides.

What downside. You posit a bunch of maybes with nothing else. Have you even taken the time to find out the contents of the religious discrimination laws? You have any evidence to demonstrate that Trans people are sexual perverts and pose a risk to women and children in female bathrooms. Of course you don't You just have a bunch of weird fantasies about disgusting things and project them onto LGBT people in an attempt to incite and promote discrimination.

What is it about sexual perverts and female toilets that excites you so?

This is becoming boring

It has being pointed out several times in this Thread, that the fear is not of the transgender

people using the bathroom, but of the modification of bathroom use rules, which would certainly and with out debate benefit transgender people, But....

But it is fear that such modification is open to abuse by non transgender sexual predators

But why let facts get in the way of a good argument

I reject your narrative. The fear that you cite may well be your fear but it is not the fear. The male sex offender thing is just one of the ways this issue is being stirred up. Trans bathroom access is only one part of the legislation that allow religious based discrimination of LGBT people. The male sexual offender thing is a distraction; a side show; a beat up. Allowing Trans people to use female toilets opens no opportunity for male sex offenders to pose an increased risk to women and children.

Boring. Yes. Entirely. Why are people so easily fuelled and fooled by hate? They are so scared of non conformists that they retreat to insultingly bigoted positions to justify what cannot be justified.

In Mississippi an employer can sack people who support marriage equality, something upheld by SCOTUS as a constitutional right for same sex couples. While the reactionaries have their minds and mouths in the gutter, there are far higher issues at stake.

You may be convinced of your narrative. You have no authority to decide that it is the only narrative nor any control over the focus of discussions.

Since our newest cousin hasn't been around but one week he can't be expected to know very much.

However, for the record, the 2008 sub-prime mortgage recession was due, in large part, to the actions of the federal government mandating lenders make loans to less then qualified home purchasers using the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as their primary weapon of choice. This act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Carter. Bill Clinton then put it to good political use by forcing quotas on lenders to make sub-prime home loans. Bush warned against it and the Democrats in Congress rallied in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest is history.

By the way, the 2008 recession was declared officially over in June 2009, barely five months into Obama's administration. He had little to do with ending the recession but has now been in charge of the longest recovery in the history of the federal government. Not exactly anything remarkable to add to his CV.

Your other posts concerning adding to the national debt have been discounted several times on the forum. The positions you take are ridiculous, even though they are the main talking points for those liberal Democrats with nothing else.

Look it all up on the forum. Spend a little time catching up and less time offering an opinion. You'll be surprised how much real information this forum actually contains.

Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. Can you tell us Charles, does the Act require sub prime mortgage obligations to be bundled with AAA rated mortgage obligations and such CDO's sold on to investors by banks essentially committing a fraud? Blaming Jimmy Carter for the Global Financial Crisis is a bit rich.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong or economically risky about sub prime mortgage lending. I am not really a fan of Prahalad but his book 'The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid' is a primer on poverty alleviation through wealth generation http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating/dp/0131467506 and of course De Soto is internationally renowned for his work on the eradication of poverty through the creation of capital http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Hernando-Soto-ebook/dp/B004FV4XTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460521884&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital

However any legal, regulatory and economic framework directed towards alleviating poverty will not work when there is outright fraud taking place. Read the Big Short http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine-ebook/dp/B004JXXKWY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460522036&sr=1-1&keywords=the+big+short or go watch the excellent Steve Carell movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1

"Since I was still going through puberty in 1977, I never got around to reading the Community Reinvestment Act. "

Sometimes I suspect you are still going through puberty.

I don't intend doing the work for you. Read the Act, then follow it for the next 39 years and make that determination yourself.

This should get you started... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1111.pdf

This might even help...https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-survived/2015/11/15/86cba904-8a20-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Lastly my final suggestion to cut your work short... http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Thank you Charles for your kind remarks about my youthfulness.

Since I am not doing Songkran until next week and the drudgery of doing admin and housekeeping on the Afghanistan project is a bit boring, I took up your challenge.

Title 1 S108(3)( of the Public Reinvestment Act "No guarantee or commitment to guarantee shall be made with respect to any note or other obligation if the issuer's total outstanding notes or obligations guaranteed under this section would thereby exceed an amount equal to three times the amount of the grant approved for the issuer pursuant to section 106."

The Housing and Community Development Act 10977 as presented in your link did not cause the Global Financial Crisis. S108(3)( provides clear financial criteria on the lending and guarantees under the Act. In fact even John Carney in your 3rd linked reference, which is clearly the source of your particular obsession on this issue, admits that it did not cause the crisis. He says it was a factor on the basis of its evolution over the years, something to which you also refers. However, referencing your 2nd link on the issue of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) which we call here in Thailand State Owned Enterprises (SOE), it was clearly regulatory and governance issues not a legislative issue that contributed to the crisis.

Weak financial regulation of the market in CDO's, conflicts of interest with ratings agencies and policy intervention in GSE's, which is evident from both political parties. I have spend my working life in Thailand dealing with SOE's and issues of governance and regulation. The primary cause of the financial crisis was fraud compounded by the other factors I mentioned above.

You want an ideological fight about the cause of the GFC? It won't be found in the HCDA (CRA) 1977. It won't even be found in detailing who intervened more in Fannie and Freddie, although I am sure you will one day tell us because policy intervention in government enterprises is a known quantity and such risks are assessed. No, you will find the causes of the GFC primarily in the weakness of the regulatory framework and institutions. Institutions weakened by ideological zealotry in the idea of deregulation and unfettered free enterprise. This made it easier for the criminals to defraud the system.

What has this to do with Trump? Are his fans expecting him to clear the national debt (for the debt hawks) and prevent future financial downturns through some magical, fantastical means to which he has never referred, nor provided any detail, nor provided any evidence of any capacity to formulate and implement policies that would achieve that outcome. Sure, he can get a building erected in Manhattan through deals with the Mob and political cronies that are paid well for their service. No evidence that he has any comprehension of public finance, so he will just hire some Investment Banker as Sec Treasury and the round robin will continue.

The gullibility of the Trump fanboys is quite something.