lostboy

This is kind of stupid.

The majority of male to female transgender people are attracted to men.

So women in the women's bathroom holds no sexual interest to them.

How does one discern the one's who are still attracted to women or may be bi-sexual?

This is a no brainer...you have a screw-driver between your legs...do not go into the women's toilet...PERIOD!

Most people using the toilet do so as part of natural bodily functions. Most people do not confuse the release of bodily waste with sexuality or sexual conduct. Some do. Those who had some traumatic potty training. Those who associate their identity with a tiny appendage between their legs. Immature, psycho-sexuality influenced by prudish puritanism. What is it about American reactionaries and bodily functions?

Trans people have to relieve themselves. Trans females use women's restrooms which are fitted with individual stalls mostly with locks. Who started the diversion about school locker rooms? Just a way to use the fear mongering Huckerbee tried but ended up making himself look like the pervert he is.

Insecure men, like yourself, concerned about a Trans man using the mens's room are free to use stalls. Almost all men's room have them. I have read accounts of some people with female genitalia successfully using a urinal but most, I imagine would want to sit in a stall for the purpose. So what if they get a glimpse of little GGT in all its glory.

Maybe it is time to deal with those adolescent psycho-sexual traumas that appear to dominate your thinking and grow up. Go tell a psychiatrist about your mother and let Trans people have the dignity that they deserve.

Yes indeed. The 9 most terrifying words in the English language:

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

An appraisal of Reagan's impact: "In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over" https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

This from your kind of people right?

Or has Ronnie's beatification washed away all memory of his actual contribution to the destruction of the American economy and working man.

Which other laws do you think anyone should be able to break without punishment?

Dunno. Maybe any one of the nearly 5000 laws, just on the Federal books might be suitable for non compliance.

"The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to 4,000 by 2000 to over 4,450 by 2008."http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law

Of course over-criminalisation is promoted by the right wing 'strong on crime' politicians in the same breath that they prattle on about their 2nd Amendment freedoms. Funny how many of these laws impact on people of colour and other minorities more than others. Criminalisation of immigration is as blinkered a policy as criminalisation of recreational drug use or sexual activity. But the old white men are too angry to accept such thinking and so the dangerous populists thrive and morph into demagogues and tyrants. Viva il Duce.

Your source is from the Heritage Foundation, itself a "right wing 'strong on crime,'" organization. What they are complaining about is the application of criminal laws to EEOC, EPA, IRS, and other regulatory laws. You know, the sort of stuff the left wingers WANT to see put on the books. Some people just don't have the slightest idea about what is going on in the US.

Straight over your head. Not to worry. You can't have much time to actually read this stuff between tending the buffaloes. You may try again to get the point. Some people just don't have the slightest idea bout what is going on in the US outside their bubble.

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

well. explained but with too many words, I think the ones on the far right have a problem with words, especially big ones and rely more on pictures

Could you please do it again but with pictures?.

Heh...let's explain it this way, eh?

Venezuela today looks like Zimbabwe 15 years ago.

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21695934-venezuela-today-looks-zimbabwe-15-years-ago-spot-difference?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/spotthedifference

Can you spot the difference?

34

Citing Bolivarianism to attack Democratic Socialism. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Time to get those fingers working on Google Bingot to find some more meaningful meme. Unless you don't actually comprehend the concepts. I mean, what are you objecting to? Economic socialism? Political socialism? Social socialism? Gonna give us some memes on Cultural Marxism? Or are you just a 'one size fits all' kinda guy?

"Immigration laws crippling farms in Indiana and Georgia"

"For Indiana and Georgia farmers, it's not a matter of who's right and wrong in the debate behind tough new immigration laws that took effect July 1, 2011

but of those laws essentially biting the hands that help feed them."

"In a report released earlier this month, the Center said farmers of the state's seven largest crops:

onions, watermelons, bell peppers, cucumbers, squash, blueberries and blackberries,

reported shortages of almost 6,000 workers this spring as immigrants fled the state with the bill's April passage."

"The estimated loss to farmers has been $140 million so far, with the ripple affect on local and state economies estimated at $390 million."

(In the first year)

The Georgia Department of Agriculture estimates the worker shortage has now grown to 11,000.

"While agricultural specific figures aren't available in Indiana,

a report by the Perryman Group predicts a cost to that state of $2.8 billion,

and more than 16,000 jobs lost if all of the estimated 47,000 unauthorized immigrants in the state were removed.

"In Georgia, Perryman figures stand at a staggering $21 billion and 132,000 jobs lost."

http://northamericanfarmer.com/articles/farmlabor.aspx

The Bloviator once again, clueless.

And he wants to deport 11 million... What a clown.

Which other laws do you think anyone should be able to break without punishment?

Dunno. Maybe any one of the nearly 5000 laws, just on the Federal books might be suitable for non compliance.

"The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to 4,000 by 2000 to over 4,450 by 2008."http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law

Of course over-criminalisation is promoted by the right wing 'strong on crime' politicians in the same breath that they prattle on about their 2nd Amendment freedoms. Funny how many of these laws impact on people of colour and other minorities more than others. Criminalisation of immigration is as blinkered a policy as criminalisation of recreational drug use or sexual activity. But the old white men are too angry to accept such thinking and so the dangerous populists thrive and morph into demagogues and tyrants. Viva il Duce.

What will all the haters do if Trump is elected President?

The LGBT community is still using the word 'hater' so it is not available for you Old White Right fanboys. You have to come up with some other term. Anyway, such terms are too cool for you old guys to use.

Quite a lot of Hillary and Bernie "supporters" (real word starts with an f and ends with ascists) on this forum as well.

I would go and give that dingleberry a wedgie but it sounds like the cool kids already gave one to the wannabe pretty boy.

Anti-leftist polemic makes no more sense just because it is spoken than if it is written. The intellectually challenged, like pretty boy in the VDO demonstrate their status by exhibiting no shame at the crap that comes out of their mouths. Thank goodness you lot are a minority and will never have a chance to control the levers of power. As time goes by there will be fewer and fewer of you. We can only wish for that to accelerate. Enjoy your white privilege while it lasts.

What predictable Jokes you Trump fanboys are.

Unlike you that "pretty boy" is actually quite often invited to "talk shows".

But it's really not news that leftist think like this: "right leaning people using freedom of speech is violence but when we use violence it's freedom of speech". Kind of like the thought process children have in kindergarden.

Pretty Boy is not invited to participate in Talk Shows. He is invited to spout his nonsense on ideologically driven propaganda productions that market themselves as objective i.e. 'Fair and Balanced TM'. Besides, you think that you are insulting me by implying that no one is inviting me on talk shows. Pretty limp response really. I don't know how I will recover from being whipped by that piece of wet lettuce.

You ascribe to me the reference on the use of violence against free speech, which is intellectually dishonest because there is nothing in my post remotely related to that and then you reference kindergartens. I think a kindergarden is some place where they plant children in the soil and grow until they are ready to be consumed. Did you attend such a place? I attended a kindergarten during my pre-school years that firmly established my path on liberalism because we were taught to share our toys. Oh well, you must have gone to the other sort where they were taught that the one who screams the loudest gets what they want.

I notice your posts are full of the predictable anti-Leftist polemic. I had thought you might have some bite in you. Clearly not with the same predictable responses to a challenge. You lot should really try and understand the word fascist. It represents something truly dark in human affairs for a reason. The parallels to Trumpism are worryingly close.

Oh well. The anti-Left continues to disappoint.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but since when have people listened to a liberal's opinion on military service? That's like asking the KKK for their opinion on race relations.

Having proudly served 15 years in the USAF, defending our Nation against true existential threats back in the 80's I take exception to your comments.

I was a missile launch officer, totally prepared to engage nuclear Armageddon in defense of our country, constitution and way of life.

I am also a liberal, so in your view I'm akin to the KKK???

You people disgust me, and are a disgrace to the flag and all that we stand for if that is how you view your fellow Americans

You are not allowed to say this. It is not politically correct. The political correctness of the anti-Left replaces the respect for diversity which is the received wisdom of PC with a respect for dogma. Dogma requires that anti-Leftists own the national security and law enforcement space. Nobody who respects diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance is allowed to occupy that space. They are interlopers. This is the PC of the anti-Left. Since you have served, then you are given a pass by the anti-Leftists and treated like some intellectually challenged relative and but they will still go after you, like they did to John McCain and countless other people who have served but do not conform to the anti-leftie PC dogma.

I would be willing to bet that the poster to whom you responded did not serve. That is not necessarily something to be ashamed of but as a card carrying member of the anti-Leftists, he feels entitled to slag off those who did if they do not conform with his PC. Naive propagandist parroting the anti-leftist polemic like a good little robot - that is what we get from these kinds of people. I fully endorse your expression of outrage at those insensitive, stupid and demeaning remarks.

I now no longer refer to the Right but use the term anti-Leftists. All real Conservatives or those of the Right who actually have an understanding of the concept of conservative republicanism have condemned Trump and his fanboys. Of course they are dismissed as RINO's or the 'Establishment' but it is telling that no Republicans endorse Trump. So we need another term that encapsulates the true nastiness, vindictiveness and rage against the dying of the light of these people like the one to whom you responded so well.

On another issue, I must say, without at all being judgemental, that the mindset of a person who has done the job you describe is completely alien to me. I cannot being to relate to or empathise with it. I guess I am fortunate enough to have not had to face that reality. I grew up in that era. I can still remember the first time I saw the television movie, The Day After in 1983 and I fully agree with those who claim that this production helped end the Cold War (but don't tell that to the anti-Leftists).

Quite a lot of Hillary and Bernie "supporters" (real word starts with an f and ends with ascists) on this forum as well.

I would go and give that dingleberry a wedgie but it sounds like the cool kids already gave one to the wannabe pretty boy.

Anti-leftist polemic makes no more sense just because it is spoken than if it is written. The intellectually challenged, like pretty boy in the VDO demonstrate their status by exhibiting no shame at the crap that comes out of their mouths. Thank goodness you lot are a minority and will never have a chance to control the levers of power. As time goes by there will be fewer and fewer of you. We can only wish for that to accelerate. Enjoy your white privilege while it lasts.

What predictable Jokes you Trump fanboys are.

My conclusions are based on my own experiences, but I have had one recently which reinforces the point I am making. Hallucinations, etc. The 'visions' or experiences at the heart of these experiences are not projected into the 'reality' rather they are superimposed. They are at once known not to be the waking world and also not to be the dreaming world. Thus, they call them visions or some deity presence. So, with this as a long ago background suspicion, two months ago I lay to sleep. As I lay there I was aware I was in the typical hypnagogic state. It is that wonderful bridge time before sleep and after awake where the body and mind feel really nice. The body is asleep but the mind is awake. This is not the lucid dreaming zone.

I was aware of something dark, evil, and even demonic in the room, in the corner; specifically just outside my eye sight (but my eyes were closed). Imagination? But I was not asleep. I realized I did not believe in demons or devils or religions and had no belief that unseen things could harm me. I must be dreaming. It must be lucid dreaming. I wished it away with a mental wave of my hand but nothing happened. I was not dreaming, i realized then. Moments later I struggled to awaken my body still reeling from the sense of evil, of... something. I do not believe in "others." What happened?

For starters, look to the "ominous numinous." Rather than race to superstition I turned to research. Apparently, in this one example, as the body goes to sleep it is turned off not to injure in acting out dreams. When the body is asleep before the mind is fully induced it can trigger a primal hypervigilant alarm that actually supposed a threat of something is present when it is not. Its just an alarm going off. Many people have actually filled in the spaces of this experience from their inventory of memory or cultural teachings and arise later having been visited by god, the devil, a demon, a young girl, etc. These experiences are not otherworldly. They are not hallucinations. I can establish that alternative experiences of reality can take place that are not waking hallucinations. There are also multiple other angles to offer that the human condition has a brain that is in essence tuned to only one frequency. A kingdom of god and religion is not on one of these frequencies, nor is hallucination (a pathological superimposition of visual or audio projections). I believe if one reads the attached link they will at least have an expanded understanding of coexisting states of consciousness. http://www.ovni.ch/temoign/images/paralysie-sommeil.pdf

Its so curious that multiple people would be interested in whether the foundations of such an OP were hallucinatory or not. Even if they were, this does not mean the perseveres are abnormal. If all the peoples in the world with religious experiences were deemed to have "hallucinations" we would have to then ask why? Is this an alternate means of communication? I believe they are not hallucinations, in most cases. Instead of an interest in wake state experiences I am more confined to those experiences people have when relaxed at home, in bed, etc. Others, like the following OP, believe "felt presence" of others may will be a neuronal projection, hallucination. http://www.dreamscience.ca/en/documents/publications/_2007_Nielsen_Reprint_CC_16_975-983_felt-presence-commentary.pdf

In any event, it is arrogant to tell another he/she does not see (but that [you] know), and has a pathology, only because the speaker does not see the way [you] do. If Christians wish to believe, let them. Remember the results when Plato's character ran back in the cave and told everyone they were viewing only shadows of reality; he was run off. No one listened.

Read up on Ergot Poisoning and the potential impact of this in the medieval period. It may well be that the whole reformation was inspired by hallucinogenic poisoning depending on what Martin Luther ate for breakfast the morning he went to the local Cathedral to nail his 90 odd (I forget) thesis to the door.

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/LECT12.HTM

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1037.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot

How can they retrace his steps when their is no proof he ever existed. Easter Sunday has to be the Greatest story ever told

There is plenty of proof that he existed, in multiple written records made at that time. Non-believers simply don't accept that he was anything more than an ordinary man. I've never heard any truly educated person attempt to debate whether he existed. There were thousands and thousands of people who witnessed him and that is in the records too.

Cheers.

Existing as a person and existing as a Deity are entirely different matters. There are contemporaneous writings the support the idea of his existence as a person but the promotional material that promotes the idea of him as a God is not contemporaneous and is highly politically influenced by the attempts to manage the internal schisms of the Roman Church in the early stages of the development of that institution. Most truly educated people that have a grounding in this subject matter beyond the Sunday School fairy tales would and do agree on this. Religiously indoctrinated people are another matter.

" What is more Wall street than filing Chapter 11 and feeding all the snouts at the trough including the lawyers, financiers, management consultants and not forgetting the guy that controls the capital who is massively enriched by the process."

I can think of one that should be included with all those feeding at the trough.

Anybody being paid $225,000 by Wall Street for a half hour speech.

This tired old attack. You upset because nobody wants to pay you to give speeches about your area of expertise? I guess people aren't interested in how to get cozy with Asian Generals. I have a friend who happens to be a right wing Texan from Houston who started his career in Thailand as an arms dealer in the 80's. I've heard his stories and I don't think they are very marketable. So sorry about that Charles. Maybe a speech on the Back Woods of Loei might be of interest.

On the issue of your attack, it makes no sense to me because Trump probably makes the same amount of money every time he goes for a piss. But I don't see the fanboys and anti-Clintonistas having a go at him for this. And I'm told he has a gold plated toilet seat. But Clinton, who spoke as a private citizen is accused of being bought by Wall Street.

How much does Baby Bush get for his rare appearances in public. Too afraid of being arrested and being renditioned to the ICC in the Hague, so that's why he rarely appears I guess. Are Clinton's fees out of line with others of her status, experience and knowledge? I don't think so. How much does Trump charge for his appearances? What is his fee for the few minutes he appeared on The Apprentice. He would have raked in millions. A person will charge as much as the market can bear for their services. It is called good business sense. I though this was the feature you lot so loved about Trump.

Everything is relative. In preparing the project that I am working on in Afghanistan, I interviewed one lawyer who started negotiations at $900 an hour. This is standard charge out rates for those calling themselves 'senior' lawyers now. I got him down to less than half that but it still took more than 40% of the budget so I dropped him and took a different direction. Should I accuse him of being immoral? Of being bought by special interests?

I was invited by the US State Department to give a speech to a group of State Department officials from the region a couple of weeks ago in my area of expertise. They offered $100. I did it for free (they made me sign a waiver) and I got a nice letter from a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary on Wednesday. Would you like to buy it for $100? Its from a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary after all.

So on the issue of the amount of money involved, you are on a hiding to nothing, particularly when the comparison is with such a venal money grubber like Trump.

On the issue of Clinton's political capture by Wall Street and her 'snout being in the trough', I do not believe she would have been involved in any proceedings related to Trump or anyone else's Chapter 11. So your draw a fallacious comparison. I would accept an argument of influence peddling were she not a private citizen when giving the speech.

Can you find some other line of attack? The whole Wall Street speech thing is pretty lame, particularly when politicians of both sides do plenty of sleazy things when leaving office. Remember Jack Abramoff.

"I was invited by the US State Department to give a speech to a group of State Department officials from the region a couple of weeks ago in my area of expertise."

Yeah, sure. And what area of expertise would that be?

There are any number of ways to attack the scandal ridden Clinton machine.

Why don't we let the federal government conclude those five active investigations into her actions before giving her a clean bill of health?

I do feel your pain Charles. I really do. I know that it is hard for your to accept that we younger Liberals managed to get through life without poking out our eyes with our forks but you will just have to come to terms with the fact that many of us do have skills, knowledge and experience that is relevant to the new generation. I understand that it sucks getting old. My State Department letter is still for sale. I hold it in as much regard as the American Medal of Freedom awarded to Lewis Paul Bremer III for his work in Iraq for Baby Bush.

You say there are any number of ways to attack Clinton. We know. We have seen them all on TVF. In terms of the OP and who would be better at defeating ISIS, well I don't think email servers, Ben Ghazi hysteria, Monica fetishes or various places with the word 'gate' put after their names have any meaning. As a consummate insider she has global connections, global recognition and global respect. American unilateralism is getting tired. Coalitions of the willing are not that willing any more. They are artificial beasts created by US Imperial Power, not by consensus or mutual respect. Bypassing existing international channels because America wants to get its own way has soured international relations. Clinton will continue the Obama legacy on foreign policy which is far more multilateralist than the previous neocon warmongers. To be a multilateralist, you have to work in partnership in an environment of mutual trust. Who in their right mind will trust Trump? The deal maker? No, the bully. American's friends and allies will make a meal of him. What can he offer to persuade others to accept one of his 'deals'? Trump has no plan to defeat ISIS. He denies their existence as a political entity. That is not just stupid, it is insanely dangerous. And he will have no hope of getting coalitions to work together under American leadership, which means such coalitions will not be able to achieve anything because nobody fundamentally respects a person like Trump.

Love or hate Clinton, and you lot are in a frenzy of hate with one of your loudest and obnoxious mouths trademarking the juvenile sobriquet of Royal Highness because he clearly has a problem with white, educate women. In any case, whatever you think of her, I do believe that getting others to cooperate with you will be a fundamental key to defeating ISIS. Clinton has demonstrated her abilities in this area many times over, in the White House, in the Senate and in the State Department. You may respond with your list of what you define as her 'failures' which is basically Benghazi repeated ad nauseous but I know the flash, bling and bluster of Trump reveals an empty shirt and this Joke cannot and will not have the measure of ISIS or the respect of those whose cooperation he needs to defeat them.

Right Wing security freaks have created an FBI more politicised than when the cross dressing pervert Hoover ran it. A politicised security agency is an extremely dangerous thing.

Maybe, maybe not. Got a link?

I guess that link is hiding out with the links that support your BS tale of Trump bankruptcies saving businesses, you know, like Trump Airline, Trump University, Trump Steaks and that golf course in Scotland that featured on "You've Been Trumped".

The lover of big corporates rebranding to be the anti-Wall street iconoclast. What is more Wall street than filing Chapter 11 and feeding all the snouts at the trough including the lawyers, financiers, management consultants and not forgetting the guy that controls the capital who is massively enriched by the process. Nothing of course for the work force - you know, those jobs that are being hyped as the buzz word of this election cycle. Nothing for the retired who get their pension funds raided in the restructuring. All these blue collar white angry men cheering for the guy who represents the very thing that is destroying them. All of this cheered on by gold bugs and debt hawks and anti-fiat currency nuts who still believe in Reagan-era trickle down voodoo.

Oh well.

" What is more Wall street than filing Chapter 11 and feeding all the snouts at the trough including the lawyers, financiers, management consultants and not forgetting the guy that controls the capital who is massively enriched by the process."

I can think of one that should be included with all those feeding at the trough.

Anybody being paid $225,000 by Wall Street for a half hour speech.

This tired old attack. You upset because nobody wants to pay you to give speeches about your area of expertise? I guess people aren't interested in how to get cozy with Asian Generals. I have a friend who happens to be a right wing Texan from Houston who started his career in Thailand as an arms dealer in the 80's. I've heard his stories and I don't think they are very marketable. So sorry about that Charles. Maybe a speech on the Back Woods of Loei might be of interest.

On the issue of your attack, it makes no sense to me because Trump probably makes the same amount of money every time he goes for a piss. But I don't see the fanboys and anti-Clintonistas having a go at him for this. And I'm told he has a gold plated toilet seat. But Clinton, who spoke as a private citizen is accused of being bought by Wall Street.

How much does Baby Bush get for his rare appearances in public. Too afraid of being arrested and being renditioned to the ICC in the Hague, so that's why he rarely appears I guess. Are Clinton's fees out of line with others of her status, experience and knowledge? I don't think so. How much does Trump charge for his appearances? What is his fee for the few minutes he appeared on The Apprentice. He would have raked in millions. A person will charge as much as the market can bear for their services. It is called good business sense. I though this was the feature you lot so loved about Trump.

Everything is relative. In preparing the project that I am working on in Afghanistan, I interviewed one lawyer who started negotiations at $900 an hour. This is standard charge out rates for those calling themselves 'senior' lawyers now. I got him down to less than half that but it still took more than 40% of the budget so I dropped him and took a different direction. Should I accuse him of being immoral? Of being bought by special interests?

I was invited by the US State Department to give a speech to a group of State Department officials from the region a couple of weeks ago in my area of expertise. They offered $100. I did it for free (they made me sign a waiver) and I got a nice letter from a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary on Wednesday. Would you like to buy it for $100? Its from a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary after all.

So on the issue of the amount of money involved, you are on a hiding to nothing, particularly when the comparison is with such a venal money grubber like Trump.

On the issue of Clinton's political capture by Wall Street and her 'snout being in the trough', I do not believe she would have been involved in any proceedings related to Trump or anyone else's Chapter 11. So your draw a fallacious comparison. I would accept an argument of influence peddling were she not a private citizen when giving the speech.

Can you find some other line of attack? The whole Wall Street speech thing is pretty lame, particularly when politicians of both sides do plenty of sleazy things when leaving office. Remember Jack Abramoff.

Once when asked about his business philosophy on borrowing huge amounts of money Trump replied :

"In America if you owe the bank a million dollars and you can't pay you are in trouble, but if you owe the bank a hundred million dollars and you can't pay, the bank is in trouble".

He willingly puts the risks of his businesses on banks, shareholders and debtors, which is no different than any good capitalist these days. If the banks are foolish enough to lend him money to build yet another failing casino, then why not ? Also the investment bankers will gleefully put together a security offering, covering up the details and making it smell nice so everybody can get fleeced. Caveat emptor when dealing with snakes.

It would be nice if you did some research before you blow off steam.

"If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." J. Paul Getty LINK

For all of the geniuses on here that keep bloviating about Trump's presumed bankruptcies, be aware that he never ran a business into bankruptcy nor did he ever file personal bankruptcy. He bought businesses that were doomed and put them through Chapter 11 bankruptcy which is a way to save a business. It saves the employee's jobs, the landlord's rent, and so on. He turned the companies around and made them profitable which is something the prior owners couldn't do.

If all the noise being made is the best you can do about Trump, you need another hobby.

Cheers.

Trump said it...where it got it is irrelevant.

Maybe, maybe not. Got a link?

I guess that link is hiding out with the links that support your BS tale of Trump bankruptcies saving businesses, you know, like Trump Airline, Trump University, Trump Steaks and that golf course in Scotland that featured on "You've Been Trumped".

The lover of big corporates rebranding to be the anti-Wall street iconoclast. What is more Wall street than filing Chapter 11 and feeding all the snouts at the trough including the lawyers, financiers, management consultants and not forgetting the guy that controls the capital who is massively enriched by the process. Nothing of course for the work force - you know, those jobs that are being hyped as the buzz word of this election cycle. Nothing for the retired who get their pension funds raided in the restructuring. All these blue collar white angry men cheering for the guy who represents the very thing that is destroying them. All of this cheered on by gold bugs and debt hawks and anti-fiat currency nuts who still believe in Reagan-era trickle down voodoo.

Oh well.

I am sure pork is not banned ,but it is not served because muslims will not eat it , so they put halal on the menu ,that way muslims will eat halal and those in charge reckon so will we as we dont care , and so the takeover begins , because we do not fight it , and the west dies with a whimper ,not a bang .

So muslims can't eat now? They must not conform to religious strictures? I personally think that dietary restrictions imposed by religious institutions are batty and a sure sign of how irrelevant such institutions are to the needs of people living now. But we are taught to be tolerant so we should respect their wishes.

Of course you would not be trying to inflame people or promote hatred would you. Claiming that the is the 'thin end of the wedge', the 'start of the takeover'.

Let them eat what they damned well want and you eat what you want. If some magic wand has been passed over it to make it 'halal' and it doesn't change the shape, substance or taste, then so what.

I ate a ham and cheese panini in Kabul last week. My driver pointed out a place where I could get $5 beers and $50 shots of whisky. In the scheme of things, is this really something that should occupy our minds? Perhaps yes because it brings out such hypocrisy, insularity and double standards in people who feel they must 'protect the children' and their right to be gouged by commercial food processing companies and their peddling of dangerous so called 'food' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/mar/06/schoolmeals The series by Jamie Oliver on school lunch food was quite fascinating. Not a mention of muslims either.

You will not want to hear this but Cadburys just banned Easter eggs in case it offends a certain religion and it's followers. No pork in schools, no Easter eggs for kids. What is the civilized world coming to? BTW telling me the kids can eat snags for dinner at home and pretend that a mars bar is an Easter egg but would of course be passive/aggressively condoning the process of destroying our wonderful culture.

Cadbury has entirely no authority to ban anything. They may choose to suspend a product line if they want but it has no wider meaning. Since the sausage thing has been debunked repeatedly, you have zero basis for your facile claim of cultural destruction. Investing meaning and worth in such cultural 'icons' as chocolate and ground meat wrapped in intestines is shallow and immature.

How on earth do you conclude the "sausage thing has been debunked repeatedly"?

We have come to a partial agreement, in that we all agree there are no pork products being served in German state schools and cafeterias. The disagreement is one camp claims this has to do with an infamously intolerant religion, and the other camp claims it is for economic or potential wastage reasons. Getting ever more het up and screechy about the missing pork in Germany situation doesn't mean you debunked anything.

Cadburys probably did the right thing. If I was the boss there and was getting threats to behead me from above the law neanderthals I would probably rename a product too. Sad to say that but the playing field is not level these days.

You're kidding right? you actually believe that any consensus or deliberation or agreement between TVF posters on a thread has any meaning in the real world? Does TVF define the limits of your world? I know that for many old white grumps who are bored with life in Thailand because they don't actually like brown skinned people and they certainly don't know how to speak the language and socialise and interact with them, that TVF is the only connection they have to life. Such people like it because they feel safe in their ideological fantasies about guns, uppity coloured people, Islam, strong women and other groups that they despise. These fellow travellers are the echo chamber that makes the stupid, ignorant, low information type feel that they are being heard.

Despite the 'agreement' - evidence please, what signed documents from parties with standing in this debate can be provided? - this does not alter the fact that there is no ban on pork products in German publicly funded eateries.

You may choose to be the self appointed owner of the historiography of the world shattering debate on 'Germany bans sausages: work banned in cafes and schools to 'not offend refugees'' but since this has been demonstrated time and time again to be false and a purposefully incendiary falsehood to perpetuate anti-refugee sentiment, then occupying your time with such activity will be quite meaningless in the real world. It may, however, resonate with the handful of loopy loudmouths who stomp with their Jackboots all over this and similar threads.

No links provided on the Cadbury claim. So we are to take your word that Cadbury executives fear beheading and consequently stopped producing ovals of chocolate. I don't know what is sadder, that you believe this nonsense or that you believe that what you say in TVF has any meaning in real life. Well the rest of us will go about our daily lives of constructive engagement with our neighbours, doing paid or other work that is intellectually stimulating and having a real life. I leave you to your TVF virtual reality existence. Where the subject of pork sausages in Germany has such resonance.

Unless you (SgtRock) are following the usual tactic of people who share you prejudice; cherry pick the bits that suit, ignore the rest and hope no one notices!

The bluster in your post above proves that you are doing exactly that!

You are deliberately ignoring the statement "if any primary school wants to serve pork we will work with them to arrange it."

How is saying that schools can serve pork if they want to and, furthermore, the council will help them arrange it a ban by any definition of the word?

The facts prove that there is no ban on pork anywhere in Europe.

The facts prove that schools, colleges, hospitals whatever everywhere in Europe are able to serve pork if they so desire.

That you don't care for those facts because they prove your prejudice and hate filled assumptions to be totally false is your problem.

You will not want to hear this but Cadburys just banned Easter eggs in case it offends a certain religion and it's followers. No pork in schools, no Easter eggs for kids. What is the civilized world coming to? BTW telling me the kids can eat snags for dinner at home and pretend that a mars bar is an Easter egg but would of course be passive/aggressively condoning the process of destroying our wonderful culture.

Cadbury has entirely no authority to ban anything. They may choose to suspend a product line if they want but it has no wider meaning. Since the sausage thing has been debunked repeatedly, you have zero basis for your facile claim of cultural destruction. Investing meaning and worth in such cultural 'icons' as chocolate and ground meat wrapped in intestines is shallow and immature.

As others have observed, the Republican Party is not necessarily an organisation that promotes racism, but those who are racist find a natural fit within the Party. I think this is more than apparent so I will leave you to answer your own question.

Identifying people by racial characteristics is racism but not necessarily bad. Stereotyping people on the bases of those characteristics is racist but this kind of racism is learned behaviour, not genetic. Maintaining institutions and systems that actively disadvantage people on the basis of those characteristics is racism and is vile, inequitable and a damage to any society. Obama did not turn white on January 20, 2009 even though the White Racists in America thought that by accepting him, then he had to accept white culture. Those Whites cannot understand why he became a platform for Blacks and other minorities and oppressed to voice their demand for equity and inclusion. Such voices are branded thugs, are executed by law enforcement with impunity and are now excoriated for their exercise of free speech now stopping a blow hard Candidate blowing off a brain fart every few minutes and so having his 'free speech' denied.

When will American White Righters do some honest self reflection? Calling someone a racist does not need to be taken as a slur, but as constructive criticism.

Using the Saul Alinsky tactics he learned as a community organizer. He turned blacks against whites, the have-nots against the haves, the poor against the rich, Hispanics against the immigration laws, non-gun owners against gun owners, and so on. Obama is all about divide and conquer!

That's silly

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Very informative post, Jamie.

I'll bet you have hundreds more just like it stored and ready to whip out at a moment's notice.

Succinc. Precise. To the point. The comment strikes the perfect mix of brevity and perspicacity.

If a school teacher or administrator ever made the same comments that Trump said, they would have been sacked. So why do supporters of Trump think its alright for a presidential candidate to do so?

Teachers are teaching only kids. Trump is going to be voted on by adults. He talks like most grownups do.

Trump talks at a 4th grade level. It has been demonstrated by empirical tests. So speak for yourself.

Throughout my life I have seen all manner of hatred pass as acceptable under the cover of liberal this or that; as have millions of Americans, and Trump. Always emotional, always a different standard applied, always percolating just below violent, always diverting and distracting discourse to the emotive, the single greatest instigator of political conflict in the US is the liberal left. Always wrapped smugly in feel good agenda they consistently demonstrate a penchant for intolerance and provocation since the 60s. Indeed, the Weatherman terrorists of the 60s are the Chicago Dons of the 2000s (see Bill Ayers). In fact, the single greatest provocateur of all conflict in the modern age is the left. While its true ugliness can be found all over, its to the left that the discourse in the US has turned ugly. Throwing all manner of shiit on Trump's wall to see what sticks is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The entire leftist agenda is predicated upon race- only race, always race, always confrontation, always aggression.

Just reading the posts here one sees those who oppose Trump attacking... those who support Trump. One finds on TV those who oppose HRC, Sanders, Obama, the left... attacking... HRC, Sanders, Obama, and the left. The radical left always races to the bottom, always embraces rage as intellect, and always provokes violence in America. Reading the posts here is like watching the evolution of Trump, his supporters, and the haters in real time. Haters. The entrenched liberal/socialist haters will be escalating violence constantly now. The American right may 'rightly' be called dumbass and archaic but violence is the capital of the left.

It is no longer surprising to observe the intellectual dishonesty that pervades this and many of your recent posts on the Trump issues. I had thought that there could be substantive debate but these are posts of a pamphleteer, a propagandist, not posts of a rational mind. The whole Left as emotive argument is just amorphous babble that gets no more credible the more you repeat it. The dishonesty of the claim that the Left are purveyors of hate against against those who support Trump, while the Right only attack the individual political figures with whom they disagree is palpable. It is also easily refuted with just a cursory examination of posts from Trump supporters.

Violence and the language of violence is a hallmark of the Trump movement. We have all seen the vicious brawls and attacks on protestors at Trump rallies. 80 year old fools who are using Trump as a cheap form of viagra sucker punching black people who are rightly objecting to Trumps White Nativism. These are scenes directly from the early 20th Century; Spain, Italy, Germany and the Right's use of violence to obtain political ends.

These posts could rise to the level of competent, rational argument if the same standards that you apply to critique of the Left were also applied to the Right. This is the very meaning of intellectual dishonesty.

A clear case of Citizens United meeting citizens united.

A clear case of the free speech loving liberals denying free speech to those who do not agree with them.

Denying 'free speech' to an empty shirt who uses it to talk about his dick size in campaign for President. This rises to the level of 'free speech' for you and your crony fanboys? The Trump boys just keep on thinking that anything that comes out of their mouths, all the whining about their lost opportunities, their oppression by people who won't let them call LGBT people 'fags', or undocumented immigrants 'illegals' and other so-called self evident truths should be part of civilised, courteous discourse. Sucker punching black guys, brawling, inciting violence. This is your demonstration of 'free speech'.

Trump, claiming his first amendment rights are being infringed because he had to cancel an event where he would have spent more time talking about his penis. Stiff-necked is way too mild to describe you Trump fan boys.

Can't wait to see what this week brings.

"We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don't want to let that person in here."

So because you don't want Trump in you assault people at his rally, attack police, block ambulances, rip up Trump signs and disallow him expressing his freedom of speech.

The Chicago university students are more like the Charlie Hebdo terrorists than supporters of democracy. Those terrorists used violence to shut down a newspaper expressing freedom of speech. These violent activists in Chicago did the same.

Sounds like Chicago is a pretty scary place to live if that is how you treat people with opposing views.

There is absolutely no equivalency between the circumstances of the Trump rally in Chicago and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity. None at all. To even suggest such is offensive. It is the kind of offensive language that we have come to expect from the Trump supporters who claim that they are just telling the 'truth'. Twelve people were slaughtered on 7 January 2015, mostly cartoonists but also police officers, other journalists and building staff. They were slaughtered because they exercised true free speech; necessary speech. Trump does not even come close to filling any one of their shoes. Your disrespect to those killed on that day because of their beliefs and commitment to a liberal society is anathema. It is shameful. It demonstrates that Trump people feel they have license to just say anything. They are empowered by the Clown in Chief. He set the tone from the beginning. More and more people are realising that he must be held accountable for this farce.

"Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not," said Kamran Siddiqui,

Sounds like a real American name now doesn't it.

Not white enough for you? What would a real American name be then? Something in Navaho? Perhaps Sioux?

Why is such stupidity to be expected from a Trump supporter? They think that these kinds of remarks are free speech. The free speech that they claim was violated by commies and anarchists and devious rich people. It is not free speech. It is pig ignorance.

You have some reason for your superiority over someone with such a name?

"Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not," said Kamran Siddiqui, 20, a student at the school who was among those celebrating. "We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don't want to let that person in here."

Actually Kamran Siddiqui, it is you who represent everything America is not. Third World thuggery like this is what the Clintons, Sanders, and GOP elite are really all about. And this is especially what the open borders fanatics want to turn America into, a Third World conglomeration of competing hordes, corrupt, filled with bribery, and Third World style campaign violence.

The howls of outrage and the blatant racism when brown people get uppity. I guess for someone who sees brown people here as something to exploit for your own benefit, then the nastiness apparent in the post should not be surprising.

The White Blue Collars don't take well to their Divine One choking in the face of a wave of protest. Such comments from one of the loudest mouths on the Trump threads are contemptible.

Expect the reaction to the Trump divisiveness to grow exponentially. These are the young. There are more of them and they have far more energy than the tired old White Right and this silly, impotent rage against the World that has passed them by.