The people on this board that scare me the most..

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

[MrsKellyPierce]

I hear ya girl. Its just that a lot of men keep their closed minded views, even though they have sex with transsexuals. We aren't a priority in their lives as far as beliefs go, just sex. Its sad to see so many men support republicans when they are against the minority.

[michale22]

Long live Obama

[Dim01]

I don't understand more than you...
A person like mccain for president is unbelievable in europe. Something's wrong in USA..

[hondarobot]

It's all about power, or more accurately, the abuse of power with those people. It's similar to the homosexual men in the Nazi party. They were in Berlin in the 1930's/1940's for crying out loud, but they put openly gay men in death camps while the officers dolled it up at the cabarets. That sort of stuff has unfortunately gone on forever.

With the GOP convention going on next week in Minneapolis, I'm sure the clubs I work for will be busy as hell, then the Republicans will decry the GLBT community and pornography, after a quick stealth stop at the airport bathroom.

I just have no patience for right wing loons any longer, and I can't explain what's wrong with them.

[smokeslv]

Hey Allanah, do your check their political preference before you hit them up for the $500 for a date?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

so Allanah, are you telling me you support EVERYTHING the Democratic party stands for? how about ultra liberals like Obama who aren't very far from socialist? would you be willing to make the same amount of money as someone who does far less work than you?

Look, I think you are mixing apples with oranges here.

Socialism:

"Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) control (not necessarily ownership) and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis."

Are you claiming that Obama is a Marxist?
I thinl that is quite a ridiculous claim.

I believe that the health care system should be socialized, in other words universal health care, with private insurances , clinics, and doctors still being able to practice as they do in most European countries.

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.

I remember Communism- I remember ration books, two pairs of shoes a year, standing in lines for hours- please don't try to over simplify the situation by something that is not true.

[Solitary Brother]

Allanah
I have been saying this for years.
Whats so funny is I suspect the Holy homo-hating republicans make the best paying,freakiest,most depraved and loyal customers.
Its just the way it is.
I read somewhere that the people actually writing the anti-gay legislation in some of these states are actually young gay republicans.
Its like a dream for them i think to be a republican,spew anti-gay and anti-trans statement and then go out later than night and get plowed by a tranny or suck a dick through a hole.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Hey Allanah, do your check their political preference before you hit them up for the $500 for a date?

That read like a low brow insult. Maybe it was not-BUT...

If I wanted to I could darling, I have the luxury of doing so.
I see who I want, I am not dependent on escorting to make a living.
AND if I have a difference of opinion with someone, a client, anyone, I will tell them. You don't know me, but I am a very polite and cordial person-you dont' have to be rude to express a difference.

I am not afraid to speak my mind.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.



I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

That is a very backwards view of things and ofpeople who struggle to make ends meet.

Calling people who are poor, lazy, is an irresponsible and insensitive statement.

I hope you never be in a situation where people would look at you the same way.

Goverments should take care of it's own when help is needed. How can the richest country in the world justify the poor social services, poverty and lack of healthcare for millions.

It simply can't. Our priorities are wrong.

[smokeslv]

Allanah,
I would guess that a lot of the surgery you have had was paid for by Republican dollars?...but hey if BHO gets to be prez, maybe you will get all that "medical care" free?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other morons).

Care to clarify that, without calling people morons? I am a social progressive who chooses to remain politically independent. I vote for the candidate, not the party.

The Democratic party, may be more socially progressive, but it is, in general, the party of bigger government and higher taxes. NOTE: I did not call Dems socialists.

Can you respect the choice of people who, for whatever reason, choose not to become registered Democrats or Republicans?\

I respect your choice to be part of any party you choose, even a communist. I believe in FREEDOM of choice.

However, Do I respect people who lead, indulge, and enjoy alternative lifestyles but support socially backwards anti gay, anti feminist, anti green, and socially conservative candidates-very little.

[Buzz]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.

I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...
Well, I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide fire protection to YOUR house, and while we're at it, that nice paved road that leads to it. Why should I care if your house burns down?

See, you're benefitting from the general welfare too. General Welfare??!! Isn't that communism? What radicals are still pushing that? Oh wait, it's the first sentence of the US Constitution...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Allanah,
I would guess that a lot of the surgery you have had was paid for by Republican dollars?...but hey if BHO gets to be prez, maybe you will get all that "medical care" free?

Your passive aggresive attacks are avoiding the real issue.

Your words:

"I would love to be Sexy Jade's bitch for an entire night!"

Says a lot of a man who wants to be a bitch for a night, yet supports the Republican social agenda.

Goes back to my original post. Point proven.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.

I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...
Well, I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide fire protection to YOUR house, and while we're at it, that nice paved road that leads to it. Why should I care if your house burns down?

See, you're benefitting from the general welfare too. General Welfare??!! Isn't that communism? What radicals are still pushing that? Oh wait, it's the first sentence of the US Constitution...

Thank you, you said better than I ever could.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Thank you, you said better than I ever could.

[smokeslv]

Allanah,
I would guess that a lot of the surgery you have had was paid for by Republican dollars?...but hey if BHO gets to be prez, maybe you will get all that "medical care" free?

Your passive aggresive attacks are avoiding the real issue.

Your words:

"I would love to be Sexy Jade's bitch for an entire night!"

Says a lot of a man who wants to be a bitch for a night, yet supports the Republican social agenda.

Goes back to my original post. Point proven.

..and you totally avoided my question. Not sure what someones political preference has to do with sexuality? Are you suggesting that all TS are Dems?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.



I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

That is a very backwards view of things and ofpeople who struggle to make ends meet.

Calling people who are poor, lazy, is an irresponsible and insensitive statement.



are you having problems reading tonight, dear? where did I call EVERY poor person lazy? I was using the prudent example of the MANY lazy welfare abusers out there...those who continue to have kids in order to reap the benefits...are you delusional enough to believe those people don't exist?

maybe you should take your millions of porn dollars and help those out...I'll pass...

There is no need to be condescending.

Of ocurse there are abusers of everything and those should be not be helped.

I have a very relevant story about health care in regard to my mother.

My mother had cancer about two years ago. She is in remission but the surgery and and radiation have led to a myriad of problems that are common after treatment.

She recently had an intestinal infection as a result of her treatment. My mother has private health insurance, with a $785 a month payment.

The anti biotic the doctor prescribed to her costs $1,500.

Yes, $1,500 for 90 pills.

The insurance would not cover the medicine because she had already used her $1000 a year prescription coverage.

They would not cover it, yet if she did not take it her infection would only worsen and she for sure would eventually need to be hospitalized.

Essentially she was shit out of luck if she did not have the $ to pay.
So I stepped in and paid for it.

Am I the only one that seems totally fucked to?

How can that be justified anywhere? How can medication be denied to people?

How exactly is that justifiable in the USA?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Allanah,
I would guess that a lot of the surgery you have had was paid for by Republican dollars?...but hey if BHO gets to be prez, maybe you will get all that "medical care" free?

Your passive aggresive attacks are avoiding the real issue.

Your words:

"I would love to be Sexy Jade's bitch for an entire night!"

Says a lot of a man who wants to be a bitch for a night, yet supports the Republican social agenda.

Goes back to my original post. Point proven.

..and you totally avoided my question. Not sure what someones political preference has to do with sexuality? Are you suggesting that all TS are Dems?

Last I know your name is not Barbara Walters and this is not an interview. You know a lot more about me, that I about you- so I will not answer your ridiculous questions in your attempt to somehow demonize my opinion that people who lead and interact in alternative lifestyles, support socially conservative values that AGAIN are anti gay, anti feminist, and anti transgender are in a way hypocrites.

Yes- sexual prefference can dictate political views when it comes to
'morality' based issues that this country is obessed with.

[hondarobot]

What I find absolutely unbelievable, is some peoples opposition to universal health care in this country. If a nation has affordable medical infrastructure, then it has healthy citizens. Healthy citizens can perform their jobs and contribute to the growth of the country. Yes, it would cost money and some people would exploit it in some way. No system is perfect.

If you lack universal health care, many unfortunate people will become ill, and not be able to do their jobs, and that weakens the economy. It's pretty simple. Most people do actually want to be able to contribute to the society they live in, but I think many fiscal conservatives just imagine everyone is out to rob them. It's like a five year old in a sand box.

"You can't use my Tonka Truck bulldozer! It's mine!"

"But if we use it together, we can make better roads."

"It's mine! Go get your own!"

And the sand box ends up having shitty roads.

:shrug

[smokeslv]

Allanah,
I would guess that a lot of the surgery you have had was paid for by Republican dollars?...but hey if BHO gets to be prez, maybe you will get all that "medical care" free?

Your passive aggresive attacks are avoiding the real issue.

Your words:

"I would love to be Sexy Jade's bitch for an entire night!"

Says a lot of a man who wants to be a bitch for a night, yet supports the Republican social agenda.

Goes back to my original post. Point proven.

..and you totally avoided my question. Not sure what someones political preference has to do with sexuality? Are you suggesting that all TS are Dems?

[fastingforlife]

The core principal of the democrats is to take money from the best and brightest and give it to those who did not earn it.

The conservatives are not anti-gay, or anti-transgendered, or anti people of color. That is a dumb myth spread by very ignorant and uninformed people.
In fact, I find that the more conservative a person is, the more likely they are to have libertarian views. I have rarely found a liberal who respects personal freedoms. freedom from big government and high taxes.

It seems envitable that we will become a socialist nation where individual rights will be dismantled. Obama will continue the process of destroying what is left of the USA.

[SarahG]

Yes- sexual prefference can dictate political views when it comes to
'morality' based issues that this country is obessed with.

Exactly, especially when political factions CAMPAIGN on eroding reforms relating to that, and changing the legal definitions of marriage to meet their fictional revisionist viewpoints.

The democrats have a hell of a lot wrong with them, but at least they usually don't run solely on a hate campaign (people would have to be delusional to think that the 11 states to have gay marriage bans on the ballot in 04 were unrelated to Bush's re-election efforts).

We know from the bush admin this has translated into direct changes for people in the trans community.
-SRS isn't tax deductible anymore,

-it was ONLY under the Bush admin did the social security admin go around outting girls in stealth to their employers with "gender no match letters."

-We know as fact from the justice department's own reports that the Bush Admin tried to use gay rights as a litmus test issue to ILLEGALLY dictate the firing, hiring and promotional practices in the DOJ.

These are not all by chance, and no other administration in American history has a track record for that on trans rights. Not one.

If you (edit: you as in people reading this thread, this rant is NOT aimed at Allanah) were trans and you had to worry about being outted to your employer for no reason whatsoever, would you be viewing the Republican party in a good light? I seriously doubt it.

[tsmandy]

Poor people on welfare are an easy punching bag. For the last 30 years the right wing has used racist imagery and played on white peoples prejudices about lazy welfare queens, while simultaneously robbing the American public of trillions of dollars. Corporate welfare, the kind of welfare that Republicans have no problem with because it benefits those who already have wealth and power; drastically outweighs public assistance programs. The US is the most miserly nation in the developed world when it comes to caring for its indigent. Instead of talking about the tremendous wealth gap that exists, and how to lessen it, the media and politicians blame the impoverished.

Allanah brought up a simple question, how people can claim to love a group of people and then support policies that harm us?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

The core principal of the democrats is to take money from the best and brightest and give it to those who did not earn it.

The conservatives are not anti-gay, or anti-transgendered, or anti people of color. That is a dumb myth spread by very ignorant and uninformed people.
In fact, I find that the more conservative a person is, the more likely they are to have libertarian views. I have rarely found a liberal who respects personal freedoms. freedom from big government and high taxes.

It seems envitable that we will become a socialist nation where individual rights will be dismantled. Obama will continue the process of destroying what is left of the USA.

So McCain is NOT anti GAY?

REALLY?

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/06/human-rights-ca.html

He OPPOSED:
The Employment non-discrimination ACT that would cover GAYS
Opposed Gays being included in the hate crime bill THREE times
Supports Anti-Gay Marrige Legislation
Supports Don't Ask Don't Tell
Is Agasint Gay Adoption




What have you been taking darling, because I may need some in case I need a moment of dellusion.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Poor people on welfare are an easy punching bag. For the last 30 years the right wing has used racist imagery and played on white peoples prejudices about lazy welfare queens, while simultaneously robbing the American public of trillions of dollars. Corporate welfare, the kind of welfare that Republicans have no problem with because it benefits those who already have wealth and power; drastically outweighs public assistance programs. The US is the most miserly nation in the developed world when it comes to caring for its indigent. Instead of talking about the tremendous wealth gap that exists, and how to lessen it, the media and politicians blame the impoverished.

Allanah brought up a simple question, how people can claim to love a group of people and then support policies that harm us?

Thank you.

[SarahG]

The Employment non-discrimination ACT that would cover GAYS

I do have to take issue to that one, when HRC took trans rights off that bill, all the groups that did care about trans rights went around telling everyone in congress not to support the bill.

Having no enda was better than having one w/out trans inclusion.

The reason for this is everytime we get the "well, we can always include the trans people later" it never ever ever happens because we're such a small demographic that if they don't take us along on day 1, we get left behind.

Otherwise I agree with mccain's views on the subject being well documented.

[fastingforlife]

McCain is not a conservative. That is very important to understand. Ron Paul on the other hand is a conservative, and is more representative of the thinking among conservatives, which is libertarian.

A big obstacle that faces the transgendered community, does not come from conservatives. it is actually from Liberal gay groups who feel that assisting in transgendered issues will only slow their goal of being mainstreamed which frankly I think they have achieved.

[hondarobot]

McCain is not a conservative. That is very important to understand. Ron Paul on the other hand is a conservative, and is more representative of the thinking among conservatives, which is libertarian.

A big obstacle that faces the transgendered community, does not come from conservatives. it is actually from Liberal gay groups who feel that assisting in transgendered issues will only slow their goal of being mainstreamed which frankly I think they have achieved.

How does Conservative equal Libertarian suddenly? Libertarian is a former Conservative with the "Total Nut Job" element removed to a large extent. They are not the same thing.

[SarahG]

A big obstacle that faces the transgendered community, does not come from conservatives. it is actually from Liberal gay groups who feel that assisting in transgendered issues will only slow their goal of being mainstreamed which frankly I think they have achieved.

I have said from day 1 that it was too premature to launch a gay marriage effort in America, because of the backlash it would create.

So far that has shown to be an accurate analysis. It was only after the issue in a few states went ahead did the gay marriage bans start (guaranteeing Bush's reelection by handing him Ohio) and with Bush in he has been able to make 2 supreme court appointments.

Now we risk having the fundies take gay marriage to the Bush Supreme Court, and having all modern reforms sent back 50 years with a single bigoted court ruling.

These gay marriage bans have had important ramifications for trans people specifically, in defining marriage as "between one XY man and one XX girl" it also defines sex status by chromosomes in the same breath.

Sure cases in our own community (Littleton in Texas) have done great amounts of harm, but the gay marriage spotlight is NOT doing wonders for our situations.... in a time when the powerful groups like HRC are showing -some- of the gay groups would throw us off the boat if it meant getting what they want in reforms.

[hondarobot]

This thread was rolling like a British Parliament debate for awhile there.

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAa9VmwOaI

[tsmandy]

as a matter of fact, anyone on here who escorts shouldn't DARE speak on taxes when you dont even claim that money...

This is faulty logic, as some of us do pay taxes, and we all pay sales tax, gas tax, alchohol and tobacco taxes etc.... in fact poor people statistically speaking pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than more well off families do, because of the regressive US tax structure.

[GinX]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?


I'll tell you what I think part of the problem is:

A lot of men who enjoy the company of t-girls and enjoy sex with them do NOT want to be labeled as either bi or gay. They believe that if they have sex with a pre-op, as long as they don't touch her penis or 'make use' of it in any way, then they can continue to call themselves totally straight and call any guy who does anything different gay. In doing so, they believe they can make themselves as 'normal' as the mainstream and can conveniently point fingers at those men who are 'abnormal'.

Let me be perfectly honest: I love genetic women and I love t-girls. When I'm with a GG, I love 'regular' sex...sorry, I know that sounds silly...and when I'm with a t-girl, I love sex with her...and that includes bottoming. I think receiving anal sex is a wonderful feeling, even more so when delivered by a beautiful t-girl or a GG with a strap-on. Now, some of the so-called straight guys here insist that all this makes me gay, while some have pointed out that I'm not gay, I simply enjoy the mechanical act of anal sex. Personally, I don't see myself as gay because I do not find men attractive. The male form simply does not excite me. Despite this, many men would label me completely gay, even men who regularly have sex with pre-op t-girls, all for the reason so that can continue to call themselves straight and normal and have another group to point at and call abnormal. As a previous poster pointed out, it's about controlling the power of a society's and culture's perspective.

[Stoked]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

You want to name names Allanah?... just how do you know which republicans on this board identify with the republicans who support the anti gay, anti transgender, and social conservatism?

You should be ashamed of yourself for throwing out a blanket statement like that, reminds me of McCarthyism and sounds like prejudice to me.

And my, my, the name calling. Shameful, just shameful.

Where are the big hearts of you dems when it comes to accepting people who dont agree with YOU?

PS, is your dick big?

[Stoked]

The core principal of the democrats is to take money from the best and brightest and give it to those who did not earn it.

The conservatives are not anti-gay, or anti-transgendered, or anti people of color. That is a dumb myth spread by very ignorant and uninformed people.
In fact, I find that the more conservative a person is, the more likely they are to have libertarian views. I have rarely found a liberal who respects personal freedoms. freedom from big government and high taxes.

It seems envitable that we will become a socialist nation where individual rights will be dismantled. Obama will continue the process of destroying what is left of the USA.

AMEN Brother.

[tubgirl]

as a matter of fact, anyone on here who escorts shouldn't DARE speak on taxes when you dont even claim that money...

This is faulty logic, as some of us do pay taxes, and we all pay sales tax, gas tax, alchohol and tobacco taxes etc.... in fact poor people statistically speaking pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than more well off families do, because of the regressive US tax structure.

your post has some faulty logic to it as well. people in a higher income tax bracket (ie, a family of four that makes $90k a year) pay a lot more than "poor people" because they spend more money, usually on necessities...

[meghanchavalier]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to.

I believe Allanah made very valid points in her conversation and her posts. One thing I've noticed about many of these boards is that whenever a transsexual steps outside of her box and shows she has any form of intelligence, many people try to put them away like pretty dolls that shouldn't speak what's on their minds and should just stand there for the world to gawk at.

We are intelligent, educated, individuals who are afforded many of the same rights as other americans, but not all. We have to fight to get what we want from a country that shouldn't make us have to do that.

"We The People" unfortunately doesn't stand for everyone in our country so if the LGBT Community sometimes seems like its angry, it's because we are. Imagine, some people can get married in this country 5 or 6 times and we can't even do it once. I don't see the logic in that.

So I have stepped outside of my box and I welcome your criticism. I don't always agree with other people's opinions, but I listen before I leap.

M

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to.

I believe Allanah made very valid points in her conversation and her posts. One thing I've noticed about many of these boards is that whenever a transsexual steps outside of her box and shows she has any form of intelligence, many people try to put them away like pretty dolls that shouldn't speak what's on their minds and should just stand there for the world to gawk at.

We are intelligent, educated, individuals who are afforded many of the same rights as other americans, but not all. We have to fight to get what we want from a country that shouldn't make us have to do that.

"We The People" unfortunately doesn't stand for everyone in our country so if the LGBT Community sometimes seems like its angry, it's because we are. Imagine, some people can get married in this country 5 or 6 times and we can't even do it once. I don't see the logic in that.

So I have stepped outside of my box and I welcome your criticism. I don't always agree with other people's opinions, but I listen before I leap.

M

Meghan we have never met but I always admire your posts, talents, and the way you write. You always exude intelligence and I am always greatful when a fellow trans person steps outside the 'beauty' box to discuss revelant issues.

I completely agree with you of what is expected of us.

I have been critical of President Bush on my website since his election 8 years ago. I have always been very vocal about my political opinions and I used to get hate mail all the time for it.
"Go Back to sucking dick-because it's what you do best"- is one I recall fondly.

It is very important that we question the establishment that for the most part ignores us, and pushes policies that harm us. It's very important that we as trans women take a political stand because just being who we are is a challenge to the establishment.

It's is indeed sad when so many people just see you uss a sex object and just want us to remain that way-silent and convinient.

I am ladies people like you don't. :)

[meghanchavalier]

Allanah I find your posts to be thought provoking and edgy and that's what we need right now. We need to let everyone know that we are not just sex objects, that we are people who have ideas and want to rise above the ties that bind us.
They don't make enough scissors for all of the red tape we need to cut through to get where we need to be.
Anytime you want to write a column for the Stopping The Hate website let me know, I'd love to have you on board. Like all of our columnists I know you would be a great asset to the website.
I am in the market of free thinkers who aren't afraid to go against the standards of who and what we should be as people.
You can be gorgeous, and famous, and desired by many but at the end of the day it's what's inside your head that really matters, and if what you desire is change for the better then your number one in my book.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

I am who I am

I am a democrat that will probably end up voting for ****** because ***** may be Hubris.

I am and always will be a Ron Paul Supporter......with him your individual rights would be upheld...as long as they didn't take rights away from another individual


Electing a president doesn't end on Nov 4th

also

The complacent and self interested citizen is the death of a free state!

TES
William

[michale22]

Discussing politics is probably the easiest way to start an argument. I can't think of another topic that people can't agree on.

I think that America has problems like all other countries. The saving grace is that people of opposite opinions can express themselves freely. And hopefully we will continue to gain freedoms.

Unfortunately, it seems in the last 8 years Americans have lost freedoms.

I am all for a change of pace. A little revolution is healthy now and again.

[michale22]

By the way. I agree with both Allanah and Megan. However, it is definately a fine line between a gift and an income. I don't like taxes at all. So if you are smart enough to get around them more power to u.

Survival of the fittest. -Charles Darwin.

[TrueBeauty TS]

...you are equating necessities such as ROADS, which obviously need to have a means to be built, to countless amounts of people who abuse a system that rewards laziness...

just like Allanah can't fathom anyone of an alternative lifestyle supporting Republilcans, I can't fathom anyone who works hard supporting welfare...


I, for one, think universal healthcare is a necessity.

And make no mistake about it, you will be supporting welfare no matter who you vote for. Be it social or corporate welfare.

.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to. M

Ah the loopholes, you gotta love them.

"I want government funded health care or whatever, but the money I get paid to have sex is a gift, so I won't declare it or pay taxes on it.." how convenient.


Capitalists, concervatives and republicans all take advantage of each and every tax loophole there is. If it's legal, it's fair game for anyone to use.


.

[Alyssa87]

thanks for posting this mama!

[pnwguy24]

First I want to say thank you too Alannah, Meghan, Mandy and everyone else who held their ground.

The last 8 years has definitely been a detriment to the progressive social issues we should all care about.

I see lots of posts complaining about the "poor" people, yet not one of those posters mentions the policies put in place by this government to make sure those people stay poor.

Conservatives want corporate welfare, to give billionaires more money.
Progressives want tax cuts for the middle class, and welfare for the absolute poorest of the poorest who desperately need it.

Obama is a socialist? Give me a fucking break. Real socialists would absolutely scoff at that nonsensical statement . Regardless calling someone a socialist is not an insult, they simply believe that a different political system based on Marxist ideas would promote better equality.

I personally do not agree that socialism is an effective political ideology, but that is my opinion.

Its funny that the rich get richer of the backs of the workers, and then complain about how workers, are incompetent and lazy.

Dont forget, the elites wouldn't exist without everyone below them, working to keep their machine running.

Anyways more power to all oppressed communities, minority, gay, trans, workers etc etc. May we one day hope for TRUE EQUALITY.

Power to the people.
:P

[DJ_Asia]

First I want to say thank you too Alannah, Meghan, Mandy and everyone else who held their ground.

The last 8 years has definitely been a detriment to the progressive social issues we should all care about.

I see lots of posts complaining about the "poor" people, yet not one of those posters mentions the policies put in place by this government to make sure those people stay poor.

Conservatives want corporate welfare, to give billionaires more money.
Progressives want tax cuts for the middle class, and welfare for the absolute poorest of the poorest who desperately need it.

Obama is a socialist? Give me a fucking break. Real socialists would absolutely scoff at that nonsensical statement . Regardless calling someone a socialist is not an insult, they simply believe that a different political system based on Marxist ideas would promote better equality.

I personally do not agree that socialism is an effective political ideology, but that is my opinion.

Its funny that the rich get richer of the backs of the workers, and then complain about how workers, are incompetent and lazy.

Dont forget, the elites wouldn't exist without everyone below them, working to keep their machine running.

Anyways more power to all oppressed communities, minority, gay, trans, workers etc etc. May we one day hope for TRUE EQUALITY.

Power to the people.
:P

You raised valid points in your post but you're ignoring the majority of the country.The elite rich and welfare aided poor represent a small minority of the US population,while the working middle class is the group that finds itself teetering on the brink of elimination.

[TrueBeauty TS]

You raised valid points in your post but you're ignoring the majority of the country.The elite rich and welfare aided poor represent a small minority of the US population,while the working middle class is the group that finds itself teetering on the brink of elimination.

And then which side will most people fall on?

.

[DJ_Asia]

You raised valid points in your post but you're ignoring the majority of the country.The elite rich and welfare aided poor represent a small minority of the US population,while the working middle class is the group that finds itself teetering on the brink of elimination.

And then which side will most people fall on?

.

True,but Ive learned its most effective to secure the barn doors PRIOR to the horses getting out.

[runamok]

It's about being able to make fun of gays in church /with their buddies while watching football or hockey and then sucking the biggest, darkest tranny dick that their shit holes can withstand.

So to recap...
1. Jesus hates gays so...
2. All real men hate all gays so...
3. Well being with a tranny is not REALLY gay so...
4. God, we love teh COCK!

[Solitary Brother]

This thread ONCE again confirms I am years ahead of my time.

[Hara_Juku Tgirl]

One thing I've noticed about many of these boards is that whenever a transsexual steps outside of her box and shows she has any form of intelligence, many people try to put them away like pretty dolls that shouldn't speak what's on their minds and should just stand there for the world to gawk at.



Well said meghan. :claps

~Kisses.

HTG

[tsmandy]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to.

I had never heard this before.

I ran into some serious financial troubles when I transistioned and I am just starting to pull my self above water (7 years later). I've been under the impression that the more money I claim on my taxes, the easier it will be for me to access credit, put the home I pay the mortgage on in my name, rent apartments when I want to, etc... I'm sick of being dependent on my partners good credit and sound legal standing. So if I can claim my money as private entertainment and modeling, I will.

As for paying taxes to support welfare....We're talking pennies compared to the money that's being funneled from the middle upwards.

We as trans people live on a very precarious wire that we must balance on at all times. It's helpful to ask of our admirers whether they stand underneath us with a net, or whether they are throwing bricks at us to see if we will fall.

Anyways....I would really like to hear a guy be real about it instead of throwing a hissy fit that the subject is mentioned. Come on guys, have some balls, tell us that you care more about bankruptcy laws and the estate tax than our ability to live a safe and productive life. At least then you're being real about it, not just whining about the pretty porn stars who are picking on you. :wink:

[tsntx]

well maybe if the democrats prided themself on cutting tax breaks for the rich their other issues would be more appealing....

[TrueBeauty TS]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to. M

Ah the loopholes, you gotta love them.

"I want government funded health care or whatever, but the money I get paid to have sex is a gift, so I won't declare it or pay taxes on it.." how convenient.


Capitalists, concervatives and republicans all take advantage of each and every tax loophole there is. If it's legal, it's fair game for anyone to use.


.

Like I said, it's funny how some people will call for universal health care, but they'll be damned if they pay for it. And by the way, do you think that Democrats and liberals do not use loopholes? if you do, you are truly naive.


You missed the entire point. What part of "fair game for anyone" did you not understand?

If you don't like the loopholes, then change the laws. But for dems, liberals and anyone else not to take advantage of the same loopholes as the repubs, conservatives and capitalists do would be stupid.

And yes, I pay taxes.

.

[tsmandy]

Mandy,

The question is simple. Should everyone who works, including escorts, pay income taxes?

Yea, so trans people live a precarious life. Does that make them any different than working-class families trying to pay their mortgages/rents, gas, groceries, and other essentials? I am all for transgender rights,but please spare me the "we poor trans people, and escorts, should be exempt from our tax responsibilities" talk. You can't have it both ways.



I have it both ways all the time :wink:

Did I not just say I claim as much income as I can? I would rather not pay for the war, guantanamo bay, Blackwater inc, etc.....but I am happy to pay for public services, parks, hospitals etc...

I really wish y'all would get over your issues with providers already. Being a sex worker does not make me any less deserving of an opinion.

[TrueBeauty TS]

You missed the entire point. What part of "fair game for anyone" did you not understand?

If you don't like the loopholes, then change the laws. But for dems, liberals and anyone else not to take advantage of the same loopholes as the repubs, conservatives and capitalists do would be stupid.

And yes, I pay taxes.

Ok, according to you I missed the entire point because I do not agree with you. Yea, that's an easy way out.

You seem to associate the term "capitalists" with conservatives and Republicans. Do you think that Democrats and liberals are not capitalists? You and I are part of the capitalist system and we both benefit from it, in case you had not noticed.


OMG, please tell me you are just drunk and not really this stupid.

No, you missed the point because I said everyone should take advantage of the tax loopholes that are available, and you thought I said that dems, etc. don't.

I said they do and they should. That's where you missed the point.


:roll:

.

[DJ_Asia]

You missed the entire point. What part of "fair game for anyone" did you not understand?

If you don't like the loopholes, then change the laws. But for dems, liberals and anyone else not to take advantage of the same loopholes as the repubs, conservatives and capitalists do would be stupid.

And yes, I pay taxes.

Ok, according to you I missed the entire point because I do not agree with you. Yea, that's an easy way out.

You seem to associate the term "capitalists" with conservatives and Republicans. Do you think that Democrats and liberals are not capitalists? You and I are part of the capitalist system and we both benefit from it, in case you had not noticed.


OMG, please tell me you are just drunk and not really this stupid.

No, you missed the point because I said everyone should take advantage of the tax loopholes that are available, and you thought I said that dems, etc. don't.

I said they do and they should. That's where you missed the point.


:roll:

.

Of course everyone should(and usually does) take advantage of legal loopholes,however the key word is 'legal'....last I checked tax evasion wasnt legal.

[Justawannabe]

Great topic... sadly some nasty responses.

Full disclosure, I'm from a family that has benefited more than most from Republican ideas. That said...

The original post was talking about support of Republican agenda. Whether that is a true economic Conservative agenda or not is outside of the scope, but it is certainly a socially conservative agenda.

As a member of any social minority, the socially conservative agenda is a dangerous thing to be complacent about. They wish to take away protections in social, housing and job security. In some cases it malicious (the I hate gays/blacks/whatevers crowd) and sometimes ignorance (I had a very smart and educated man say to that no one was out trying to pass laws that would stop me from doing anything with my trans girlfriend. I had to show him the laws.)

A lot of people think that gays have been mainstreamed and no longer need any protection in housing or job security, and even some of my more liberal friends say that transition is a choice and therefore not worthy of federal protection. As one said, 'the problem is the man in a dress thing... I've seen both men and women in power suits, if he just wore something like that he wouldn't offend so many people.' Ignorance, and an idealist view of people.

People are nasty and need someone to look down on, political parties more so... Republicans have chosen us... so how can any of us support them? It's a good question, and one that is not being addressed by those talking about how the girls need to pay their taxes.

What about the Republican agenda out weighs access to the rights and benefits of marriage? Employment protection? Adoption rights? Inheretance rights? Accurate identity papers? Freedom from discrimination in houseing and customer service?

This is the heart of the OP... this is what she wants us to answer.

-someone can shoot me now before I post again... I need to post shorter so I make sense...

Sean

[TrueBeauty TS]

OMG, please tell me you are just drunk and not really this stupid.

No, you missed the point because I said everyone should take advantage of the tax loopholes that are available, and you thought I said that dems, etc. don't.

I said they do and they should. That's where you missed the point. :roll:

Ah, there we go with the insults, "stupid," "drunk." You obviously can not have a civil discourse without resorting to insults. how sad. Why am I not surprised.


I just have a low threshold for fools. I admit that.


Anyway, I'm glad I finally got you to understand where you went wrong... But you sure wasted a lot of my time in doing so.

:(


.

[marissaazts]

well as a trans person i cringe at the thought of someone as liberal as obama getting in office
there are more issues then just my T and what goes with it
i am very fiscally conservitive and id consider my self moderate on social issues, not to mention a life member of the NRA my head would explode if i voted obama
and as far as im concerned mccain is just a conseritive democrat anyhow

[Legend]

What is more frighten to me is that some girls support that agenda and seem to swing the way of the GOP.Nothing can be scary then a girl saying she is a lifetime member of the NRA.I understand the guys but hell if i know why any transsexual would support that shit.Thats just like an african american supporting the kkk.

[vietboy]

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?
The reality is that Democrats/socialists/leftists can be JUST AS INTOLERANT towards certain minority groups as those on the right.

The only party that tends to be truly tolerant are Libertarians who espouse a live-and-let-live philosophy.

Ron Paul for President.

[Legend]

Who is ron paul?

[Tomfurbs]

'Merica is the only developed nation without a decent health care system or welfare system. People who gripe about higher taxes would quickly change their tune if they broke their leg and faced crippling medical bills for being treated.

To the idiot who said that all welfare does is support lazy single mums, you're talking out your arse. If done properly, a decent benefits system is a great social and economic boon. Benefits are there for everybody. When I left Uni I claimed Jobseeker's allowance and Housing benefit for six months while I looked for work. That allowed me to keep on my feet and find a well paying job. I reckon I will have 'paid back' the money I claimed after about two years of paying taxes.

Also, how do all you 'fiscal conservatives' feel about all your tax dollars going towards that fiasco in Iraq? lmao

'Merica has also only just legalised gay marriage IN ONE STATE! It is 2008...what is that all about?

Your country needs Obama. The fucking world needs Obama.

But hey, the GOP's tax 'spin' (anyone who thinks they save money during a republican term obviously doesn't know history) and National Security will always win over social reform, amirightguys?

[Alyssa87]

Social conservatives would love to see us all off’d.
Hell, they’d probably like to watch it in an arena.
Legalizing discrimination against us and keeping us a marginal, openly hated group is one of their top priorities.
McCain may not feel exactly the same as they do (some still argue that he does), but he panders to them.
And his vice certainly is one of them thru and thru.

Allanah, please don’t tell me you’re surprised by the guys here that support this.
I’m sure many of you guys are great people, but in all fairness- you are in the closet;
And could probably care less where we stand as a people and whether we have true equality or not.
… as long as u can catch us on Eros, uninterrupted.

But ya can’t blame a girl for voting for her own rights. Or can you?

[meghanchavalier]

The reason that escort service had to pay taxes is because they're a registered business. Most escorts run ads and aren't taking out business licenses to promote their services therefore the money is considered a gift of money.
If I went to court tomorrow a court could never prove the amount of money I had received in "gifts" over the years.
You pay taxes for money you've earned...period. A guy paying for sex is not your employer and does not have you sign W-2's or W-4's and I can't remember the last time a trick 10-99'd me at the end of the year for money I earned for "working for him."
As far as republicans and democrats go, you can be whatever you want to be, but when you're beliefs infringe on the rights of select american minority groups you don't deserve to be in public office. If you're not there for ALL PEOPLE then what right do you have to govern over any land?

[Justawannabe]

<-- not in the closet... sigh... for all the credit it gets me... (likes girls/t-girls/some guys in that order... and everyone I hang with knows it)

That aside,

The issue with the way we run america is that most of our voting is all or nothing. There is no coalition building that gets minority opinions any power.

So when you vote for gun rights and lower taxes on the top 5%ish of the population, you also vote for gay marriage bans, restrictive id's and roll backs on enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, environmental laws etc.

I wish we had more ability to vote on single issues, but we have to vote for packages. In my case, I believe you have to evaluate the packages in stuff that is likely to actually get done, not on what the party might talk about.

In the case of gun control, I don't think there is any realistic chance significant restrictions could be passed in the next four years, so I don't vote on that issue.

Similar with taxes, I can vote in my personal best interest (no estate tax please, I want to inherit the full amount) but I have to look at what happened in the last few times we did this cut the top and hope it raises all boats. My family got wealthy, my extended family stayed the same... or roughly 1 in a 100 people benefited. Seems crap odds if I want my country as a whole to be strong. (And feels way too much like the 20's approach to me... that just didn't end well.)

Anyway, drifted off topic there...

Just wanted to say you can really only vote for one package, vote for the one that is likely to affect your personal freedoms less in a PRACTICAL way rather than IDEALOGICAL way. If someone is likely to prevent me marrying my chosen other, that will have real affects on me, finacially, emotionally and perhaps other ways.

The fact that someone might want me to register my gun again likely will just annoy me, as I don't think my personal shotgun is going to help me overthrow the government any time soon. Heck it won't even win me a shoot out with my local cops... but maybe I'm just a bad shot.

Sean

[Tomfurbs]

I know, Justwannbe, this closet thing gets old after a while. My pic and handle are exactly the same as my facebook profile, so anyone I know browsing this forum would easily put 2 and 2 together.

But that doesn't even matter because everyone who knows me, with the exeption of co-workers (who can't exactly fire me because of who I fuck lol), knows what I'm like anyway.

I just have a phobia about putting my ugly mug on the interwebs.

I reckon there is a sizeable proportion of the men on this board who would happily and proudly walk down a street with a TS on their arm.

They tend not to post in the bigdick threads though.

Threadjack over...back to laughing at the McCain nutjobs.

[DJ_Asia]

During this most interesting election year,topics are raised and candidates make promises in hopes that the voters will buy them and you will cast your votes their way.

Universal health care
Fair tax codes
civil rights
Gun Control
Family Values
Etc...etc...etc..

Fact is...and remember it when you listen to the debates...the USA is SO FAR IN DEBT THAT WE OWE MORE MONEY THEN THERE IS EVEN IN EXISTENCE!

So when we hear about health care reform blah blah blah...theres NO way we can afford it.Dont believe me...look it up.

[Alyssa87]

Tomfurbs, i wasnt referring to ppl not showing their faces on HA. i could care less about that. i ment in the closet -in their lives.

the guys who WONT walk down the street with a tgirl on their arm. and those who DO give a fuck about their friends, family, WIVES & KIDS knowing about their true orientations.

and i wasnt even attacking those aforementioned people either. Being closeted is their business, I‘m not fucking them. i was simply telling Allanah not to be surprised if they supported an 'anti-trans' candidate.


And
Justawannabe, again… :rock2

[tslvrnyc]

I'd love to see the form 1040 of some of the girls in this thread who so vociferously support the Democrats.

[TrueBeauty TS]

I just have a low threshold for fools. I admit that.

Anyway, I'm glad I finally got you to understand where you went wrong... But you sure wasted a lot of my time in doing so. :( .

Can you have any sort of discussion without resorting to insults? Again, it speaks volumes about your character. I bet if you knew my ethnicity, you'd start dropping racial insults. Nuff said.

ps: As you can see, I'm able to abstain from personal insults. Get a clue. I'm done with you.

Ahhhh..... Playing the race card!!! :lol: Nice move! I bet if you knew my race, you might think different.

I was very civil and patient with you for the first few responses, but you were in such a hurry to try and prove me wrong or call me out, that you didn't bother to actually read what I said. And when I corrected you, you went off on some other tangent. That annoys me greatly. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not quite yourself tonight. :wink:

After that, I had it with you. Like I said, I cannot stand fools or stupidity. It drives me up a wall. Other people here may have much more tolerance for that than I do. I applaud them. You may be a great guy but tonight you were acting like a jackass.

If you want people to respect you, then have the courtesy to read what they say. If you don't understand it, then just say so rather than posturing and trying to save face. Then maybe you won't have me insulting you again.

:D


.

[Dinand]

I'm so surprised America is so uptight towards gay and lesbians. We don't know that in Holland. I mean a couple of weeks ago we had the annual Gay Parade in Amsterdam and not only did members of our government were on the boats celebrating Gay Parade but also the mayor of Amsterdam decided to be on a boat just to show his support for all gays and lesbians in Holland. He does kind of stick out on this picture ;-)

[Dinand]

The King of Holland was also there, well the king of gay Holland that is ;-)

Hey is that Lamar there on the left?

[beatmaker]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.



I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

I'm sure your Republican azz would prefer the taxes from your paycheck go to fund corporate welfare like the no-bid contracts the Bush Adminstration handed over to Halliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel. Why save the U.S taxpayers billions, when you can give no-bid contracts to the companies that your cronies like Dick Cheney use to serve on the board of. Maybe, just maybe, they could have paid for the body armor or other equipment U.S soldiers needed, if they weren't looking out for them and theirs. It takes a lot of nerve and cajones, to send young men and women to a bogus war to risk their lives and not minimize the damage by making sure they're adequately prepared. Christian or not, Bush has some serious answering to do on Judgement Day.

Trannies will be well served to steer clear of this joker. He's closeminded and judgemental. He'll f@ck trannies and black women (light skinned Halle Berry types), but always has some sideways Fox News, Sean Hannity shyt to say about people from both groups. Proof is that dumbazz quote you have under all your posts. Don't you have a daughter that's half black? God help her. Between you and any black women who would actually date a guy who thinks like you, I see a confused, self hating woman of color on the horizon sad to say. Living in NYC, I see these types all the friggin time and I always think about the parents.

[yosi]

Republican agenda vs. the Democratic agenda , this is what is all about.

the Democratic voters will find what is wrong with the Republican candidate and vice versa .

the Democratic candidate will promise his suporters what they want to hear , the Republican candidate does the same.

Republicans labels vs. Democratic labels.

I am proud to be a non-american :wink:

[Niccolo]

Hi,

It's interesting to read Americans' perspective on health care. Here in the United Kingdom of course, we have the NHS. I can't quite understand why anyone would believe that the idea of a state helping to provide health care for its citizens is not a good one. Thinking back to my political philosophy days at uni - what purpose does the state serve, after all? Surely at a fundamental level, one can reasonably expect a state to provide for the health and security of its citizens? (While not necessarily expecting such projects to be perfectly run.) If the state cannot do this for its citizens, then what good is it, exactly?

(Edit) It's quite shocking too to think that one could have to pay thousands of dollars for prescription drugs. Here we pay a flat rate of five pounds for each "script". That is to say, each drug that one is prescribed. If two different drugs were prescribed by one's GP, then the local chemist would charge a tenner (2 x £5). I believe I'm right in saying that down in England the old charges still apply (approx £6.80)

[BrendaQG]

To Allanah's orginal post.

The real answer is as follows.

1.) There are plenty of GLBT people who are conservative about everything but their sexual lifestyle or whatever alternative thing they are into. They are the gay Christian/Jewish/Muslim's who march in the parade even as other Christian/Jewish/Muslims protest it. They are the black people who do not believe in affirmative action and achieved the dream without it. They are the one's who while they are a minority do not blame the majority for all their troubles. Lastly they are the one's who know that no one party will always look out for their interest.

2.) Your own POV is part of why you cannot understand this. That's right I blame YOU for your problem with this. You must understand democrats are not automatically on your side. Here in Chicagoland, for instance, MOST of the religious fundamentalist of all faith's and denominations are also black people who are democrats![/i] Republicans are not always on the non progressive side of things. (Like our last republican Governor who commuted every sentence on death row to life in prison and Freed many of the inmates outright.) Basically what you said is true only if a sterotype of all repblicans as being gay hating, racist, tea totaling, WASP's was reality. Reality is just not that simple.

I am voting for Barrack Obama. In my life I have voted Green (Nadir) for president because I believed most in their ideas. I am voting now for Obama because I beleive in his idea's. If Obama proved between now and November to be a complete idiot (like if he wanted to go to war with Pakistan a country that has Nuclear weapons and would use them to defend itself... as anyone would) I would then have to vote for the lesser of two idiots. God I wish we had a really viable third party. In sha Allah we will have one in my life time.

[stimpy17]

Long live Obama

Oh yeah, he'll CHANGE every thing. What that might be no one knows.

[vietboy]

Religious people are the most scary, regardless of political stripe.

Those who find sanctity in extreme forms of devotion are definitely trying to compensate for impure thoughts and actions.

Fools who find solace through unilateral conversations with our holy sadist in heaven, and who claim to know what the heavenly dictator desires, are not only deluded fools but dangerous and capable of horrific crimes.

Even religious moderates are scary because they provide cover to the extremists by defending the legitimacy of religion, and they make a passive contribution to religious bigotry.

Then there are the overt crimes, of which murder and terrorism (Religion of Peace) and child rape (Catholic priests) are the most timely examples.

Even Bill Clinton, the southern Baptist, was a sex addict who bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan without warning, killling at least 1 person directly and untold people indirectly, just so that he could distract political attention at home.

Con-men like Bill Clinton, who use religion to win political sincerity, are scary.

[vietboy]

Who is ron paul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

[jimbobw2]

as a matter of fact, anyone on here who escorts shouldn't DARE speak on taxes when you dont even claim that money...

No shit

[dave252]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain? Cant you see your own hypocrisy???????? This is the problem with both sides. The right will say your lifestyle and agenda scare them, you say thier opinions and and retoric scares you. You say please except me for what I am, they say, only our lifestyle is valid. Both of you scare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why we need the goverment to stay out of all our lives, thats why people like Obama never win, they want bigger goverment to solve all our problems, they want intrusive goverment. If you cant understand that some people who agree with your social agenda, may otherwise disagree with your opinions on fiscal resposibiltiy and the goverments role in our lives, then you are as closed minded as the people you call the same.

[Alyssa87]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain? Cant you see your own hypocrisy???????? This is the problem with both sides. The right will say your lifestyle and agenda scare them, you say thier opinions and and retoric scares you. You say please except me for what I am, they say, only our lifestyle is valid. Both of you scare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why we need the goverment to stay out of all our lives, thats why people like Obama never win, they want bigger goverment to solve all our problems, they want intrusive goverment. If you cant understand that some people who agree with your social agenda, may otherwise disagree with your opinions on fiscal resposibiltiy and the goverments role in our lives, then you are as closed minded as the people you call the same.

I’m sorry but if we subscribed to that logic, there would still be colored/white only restaurants and water fountains.
The civil rights movement would have been a bunch of sign-wielding idealists wasting their time if it wasn’t for the legislation that came out of it.

Public opinion rarely just changes on its own.
That’s why as advanced as our civilization is, we still cant seem to work out many of our problems without battles and wars.
Never have, never will.

We the people… (need a push!)

[vietboy]

You must understand democrats are not automatically on your side. Here in Chicagoland, for instance, MOST of the religious fundamentalist of all faith's and denominations are also black people who are democrats![/i] Republicans are not always on the non progressive side of things. (Like our last republican Governor who commuted every sentence on death row to life in prison and Freed many of the inmates outright.) Basically what you said is true only if a sterotype of all repblicans as being gay hating, racist, tea totaling, WASP's was reality. Reality is just not that simple.
Good points.

[dave252]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain? Cant you see your own hypocrisy???????? This is the problem with both sides. The right will say your lifestyle and agenda scare them, you say thier opinions and and retoric scares you. You say please except me for what I am, they say, only our lifestyle is valid. Both of you scare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why we need the goverment to stay out of all our lives, thats why people like Obama never win, they want bigger goverment to solve all our problems, they want intrusive goverment. If you cant understand that some people who agree with your social agenda, may otherwise disagree with your opinions on fiscal resposibiltiy and the goverments role in our lives, then you are as closed minded as the people you call the same.

I’m sorry but if we subscribed to that logic, there would still be colored/white only restaurants and water fountains.
The civil rights movement would have been a bunch of sign-wielding idealists wasting their time if it wasn’t for the legislation that came out of it.

Public opinion rarely just changes on its own.
That’s why as advanced as our civilization is, we still cant seem to work out many of our problems without battles and wars.
Never have, never will.

We the people… (need a push!) I never said goverment cant play a positive role, and yes there are somethings the goverment must lead on. But when someone calls people "scary" because they have differing opinions on health care, taxes, and goverments role in our lives, they are acting just like the people they despise or are afraid of.

[Alyssa87]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain? Cant you see your own hypocrisy???????? This is the problem with both sides. The right will say your lifestyle and agenda scare them, you say thier opinions and and retoric scares you. You say please except me for what I am, they say, only our lifestyle is valid. Both of you scare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why we need the goverment to stay out of all our lives, thats why people like Obama never win, they want bigger goverment to solve all our problems, they want intrusive goverment. If you cant understand that some people who agree with your social agenda, may otherwise disagree with your opinions on fiscal resposibiltiy and the goverments role in our lives, then you are as closed minded as the people you call the same.

I’m sorry but if we subscribed to that logic, there would still be colored/white only restaurants and water fountains.
The civil rights movement would have been a bunch of sign-wielding idealists wasting their time if it wasn’t for the legislation that came out of it.

Public opinion rarely just changes on its own.
That’s why as advanced as our civilization is, we still cant seem to work out many of our problems without battles and wars.
Never have, never will.

We the people… (need a push!) I never said goverment cant play a positive role, and yes there are somethings the goverment must lead on. But when someone calls people "scary" because they have differing opinions on health care, taxes, and goverments role in our lives, they are acting just like the people they despise or are afraid of.

I see your point.

But I don’t think (I don’t know) what she meant was that she was literally ‘scared’ of them, but was just shocked at the disconnect the men she mentioned must be experiencing.

Me? I’m not so shocked.

I’d also like to say that trans-girls have much more reason to be afraid of social conservatives than they do of us. I believe they see us as more of a nuisance than anything else, a spot of ink on their crisp, white, freshly dry-cleaned shirt. Whereas, we have every reason to feel afraid. The idea of further disenfranchisement and unequal protection under the law is enough to make anyone shake in their boots. No?

[dave252]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain? Cant you see your own hypocrisy???????? This is the problem with both sides. The right will say your lifestyle and agenda scare them, you say thier opinions and and retoric scares you. You say please except me for what I am, they say, only our lifestyle is valid. Both of you scare me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why we need the goverment to stay out of all our lives, thats why people like Obama never win, they want bigger goverment to solve all our problems, they want intrusive goverment. If you cant understand that some people who agree with your social agenda, may otherwise disagree with your opinions on fiscal resposibiltiy and the goverments role in our lives, then you are as closed minded as the people you call the same.

I’m sorry but if we subscribed to that logic, there would still be colored/white only restaurants and water fountains.
The civil rights movement would have been a bunch of sign-wielding idealists wasting their time if it wasn’t for the legislation that came out of it.

Public opinion rarely just changes on its own.
That’s why as advanced as our civilization is, we still cant seem to work out many of our problems without battles and wars.
Never have, never will.

We the people… (need a push!) I never said goverment cant play a positive role, and yes there are somethings the goverment must lead on. But when someone calls people "scary" because they have differing opinions on health care, taxes, and goverments role in our lives, they are acting just like the people they despise or are afraid of.

I see your point.

But I don’t think (I don’t know) what she meant was that she was literally ‘scared’ of them, but was just shocked at the disconnect the men she mentioned must be experiencing.

Me? I’m not so shocked.

I’d also like to say that trans-girls have much more reason to be afraid of social conservatives than they do of us. I believe they see us as more of a nuisance than anything else, a spot of ink on their crisp, white, freshly dry-cleaned shirt. Whereas, we have every reason to feel afraid. The idea of further disenfranchisement and unequal protection under the law is enough to make anyone shake in their boots. No? Everyone should be afraid of assholes!!!!!! I guess my point was, if you dissagree with her opinions on everything, then you dont belong here. doesnt that sound like a republican?

[Alyssa87]

I dont necessarily see republicans that way- overall , but it doesnt sound like Allanah either.

but im biased, that's motha!

she didnt say you dont belong, she was just questioning the logic.

[dave252]

I dont necessarily see republicans that way- overall , but it doesnt sound like Allanah either.

but im biased, that's motha!

she didnt say you dont belong, she was just questioning the logic. This is why I try not to get involved in these things, the "socially progressives" claim that all opinions are valid, that this is what America is all about. Then in the same breath they say, "I cant believe you actually think that way", now labeled "scary".

[strokeitnow]

Allanah, try to keep this in mind. While I align with the GOP on most fiscal and foreign policy issues I am not even close on the social issues. While I most likely will vote GOP I do not consider myself a hypocrite. I do not condone in any way shape or form discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, sexual preference etc. People choices are simply that and need to be respected as such. Granted the moral right takes a holier than thou approach but most are exposed as the hypocrites they are when they make the news doing something they so vehemently oppose. Please remember that supporting the GOP does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything they say or do. The same goes for the Democrats, while I like most of their social stances I can not stand their economic and foreign policy choices. It is a matter of preference for me and I would hope that my choices would be respected just as I would respect yours. I don't view myself as a hypocrite but rather a human being who respects and appreciates that individuals have the right to be who they are without being judged by others.

[smokeslv]

To Allanah's orginal post.

The real answer is as follows.

1.) There are plenty of GLBT people who are conservative about everything but their sexual lifestyle or whatever alternative thing they are into. They are the gay Christian/Jewish/Muslim's who march in the parade even as other Christian/Jewish/Muslims protest it. They are the black people who do not believe in affirmative action and achieved the dream without it. They are the one's who while they are a minority do not blame the majority for all their troubles. Lastly they are the one's who know that no one party will always look out for their interest.

2.) Your own POV is part of why you cannot understand this. That's right I blame YOU for your problem with this. You must understand democrats are not automatically on your side. Here in Chicagoland, for instance, MOST of the religious fundamentalist of all faith's and denominations are also black people who are democrats![/i] Republicans are not always on the non progressive side of things. (Like our last republican Governor who commuted every sentence on death row to life in prison and Freed many of the inmates outright.) Basically what you said is true only if a sterotype of all repblicans as being gay hating, racist, tea totaling, WASP's was reality. Reality is just not that simple.

I am voting for Barrack Obama. In my life I have voted Green (Nadir) for president because I believed most in their ideas. I am voting now for Obama because I beleive in his idea's. If Obama proved between now and November to be a complete idiot (like if he wanted to go to war with Pakistan a country that has Nuclear weapons and would use them to defend itself... as anyone would) I would then have to vote for the lesser of two idiots. God I wish we had a really viable third party. In sha Allah we will have one in my life time.

Brenda,
1 and 2 are perfectly stated...much better than I could articulate. Although our politics may differ, its all good.

[Alyssa87]

I dont necessarily see republicans that way- overall , but it doesnt sound like Allanah either.

but im biased, that's motha!

she didnt say you dont belong, she was just questioning the logic. This is why I try not to get involved in these things, the "socially progressives" claim that all opinions are valid, that this is what America is all about. Then in the same breath they say, "I cant believe you actually think that way", now labeled "scary".
well
"I cant believe you actually think that way"
and
"You are inherently evil for thinking that way"
are a bit different.

Not to mention "socially progressives" arent looking to rid the Earth of any evil in the name of Ah-jee-zusah.
As are most (not all) socially conservatives. They seem to be more interested in blind equality.

But what do i know, really? :shrug
I'm just big tits and big cock.

[Hung Alpha]

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/73671/467529.png

[vietboy]

I guess my point was, if you dissagree with her opinions on everything, then you dont belong here. doesnt that sound like a republican?
It actually sounds like it could have been said by either a republican or a hillary clinton supporter.

Hillary and Bill played the race and fear cards over and over...

Hillary's pander to whites with "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0)", when Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw) in South Carolina, when Hillary said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ)" and when Hillary alluded to RFK's assasination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI), criticized many places but the best criticism was here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y).

What a joke to read a Hillary supporter write that people with differing political ideals are intolerant !!!!!

[strokeitnow]

Note to Hondarobot on Universal Healthcare:

Warning the Surgeon General Has determined that Universal Health Care is Hazardous to your health.

Great thought that all should have the same access but here is why it won't work.

First look how the Govt mismanages all other social programs. Excess spending, payoffs, good ole boys taking care of one another. Having the govt manage healthcare would be like transfusing blood from one arm to the other and spilling half of it on the way over. Costs would be driven up dramatically due to waste at govt level. If the hurricane Katrina disaster does not show how ineffective our govt is at management then I do not know what does. Or, how about sending 10 billion dollars in cash to Iraq to bribe insurgents and losing the money.

Secondly we have great quality doctors and technology in the country because people can make a great living in health care. What incentive is there for people to attend 8 years of college and a 4 year residency if they are only going to be paid what the govt is offering. Free markets drive the competitive edge that our health care industry enjoys. Look at Canada for instance, people there cure themselves by dying while waiting for treatment in a system that is so inadequate the can not even take care of simple needs such as kidney dialysis. Why else do you think so many Canadians come to the U.S. for much needed surgeries.

Thirdly, universal health care provides no incentive for people to maintain a moderate standard of health. If you get all your needs taken care of then you think nothing of smoking, drinking and being over weight and out of shape.

I know our health care system is not ideal but universal health care would be much worse.

[dave252]

I dont necessarily see republicans that way- overall , but it doesnt sound like Allanah either.

but im biased, that's motha!

she didnt say you dont belong, she was just questioning the logic. This is why I try not to get involved in these things, the "socially progressives" claim that all opinions are valid, that this is what America is all about. Then in the same breath they say, "I cant believe you actually think that way", now labeled "scary".
well
"I cant believe you actually think that way"
and
"You are inherently evil for thinking that way"
are a bit different.

Not to mention "socially progressives" arent looking to rid the Earth of any evil in the name of Ah-jee-zusah. As are most (not all) socially conservatives. They seem to be more interested in blind equality.

But what do i know, really? :shrug
I'm just big tits and big cock.You are right, I guess the bottom line is, until we stop playing partisan politics and taking sides (which I believe both parties want is to keep us divided) this argument will continue. Everyone in this country has the right to believe what they want, without ridicule from others, without fear of retribution.

[hondarobot]

Note to Hondarobot on Universal Healthcare:

Warning the Surgeon General Has determined that Universal Health Care is Hazardous to your health.

Great thought that all should have the same access but here is why it won't work.

First look how the Govt mismanages all other social programs. Excess spending, payoffs, good ole boys taking care of one another. Having the govt manage healthcare would be like transfusing blood from one arm to the other and spilling half of it on the way over. Costs would be driven up dramatically due to waste at govt level. If the hurricane Katrina disaster does not show how ineffective our govt is at management then I do not know what does. Or, how about sending 10 billion dollars in cash to Iraq to bribe insurgents and losing the money.

Secondly we have great quality doctors and technology in the country because people can make a great living in health care. What incentive is there for people to attend 8 years of college and a 4 year residency if they are only going to be paid what the govt is offering. Free markets drive the competitive edge that our health care industry enjoys. Look at Canada for instance, people there cure themselves by dying while waiting for treatment in a system that is so inadequate the can not even take care of simple needs such as kidney dialysis. Why else do you think so many Canadians come to the U.S. for much needed surgeries.

Thirdly, universal health care provides no incentive for people to maintain a moderate standard of health. If you get all your needs taken care of then you think nothing of smoking, drinking and being over weight and out of shape.

I know our health care system is not ideal but universal health care would be much worse.

That was a good response, and most of your points are valid at the moment. In a perfect health care system, not everything would be free, but the basics and emergency issues would be provided (and no, not at ER prices like they are now). You also couldn't chow down on Ho-Ho's then get a free lipo, for example.

Also, the excuse that government run programs are broken is no excuse. Things are that way because the government that implements those programs currently is broken. Universal Health care is clearly possible, and could result from a properly organized government. That's the main issue.

[JelenaCD]

Wrong forum , please use the politics and religion forum, I have stopped posting or discussing politics on this site because I think it is pointless , nobody is going to change their minds between now and november . The blending of politics into the general forum is bad for business .

[flabbybody]

It started out as a comment about how some men who have sex with tgirls in thier personal lives have political views that are fervently anti gay and anti transgendered. and that it's hypocritical to be that way

so with that in mind it belongs in general discussion, imho

[DJ_Asia]

Which one of the candidates am I describing?

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
During that time, he served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures.
He consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels.
He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.


:?:

Sounds pretty good to me! :idea:

[TrueBeauty TS]

Civil? Yea right. You started off with personal insults from the start. You're just a nasty excuse for a human being. Have a nice day.


Ahhhh..... Playing the race card!!! :lol: Nice move! I bet if you knew my race, you might think different.

I was very civil and patient with you for the first few responses, but you were in such a hurry to try and prove me wrong or call me out, that you didn't bother to actually read what I said. And when I corrected you, you went off on some other tangent. That annoys me greatly. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not quite yourself tonight. :wink:

After that, I had it with you. Like I said, I cannot stand fools or stupidity. It drives me up a wall. Other people here may have much more tolerance for that than I do. I applaud them. You may be a great guy but tonight you were acting like a jackass.

If you want people to respect you, then have the courtesy to read what they say. If you don't understand it, then just say so rather than posturing and trying to save face. Then maybe you won't have me insulting you again.

:D


.

Wrong again. You really are stupid. Go back and read the posts, for the first time. I'm tired of calling you out on every one of your points and you can't take it.

And now you call me a nasty excuse for a human being. Look how quickly you dump your so-called ethics. Where's your civility now? :smh

And what happened? You don't want to play the Race Card any more?

:roll:

.

[trish]

In passing strokeitnow dropped the line

…I align with the GOP on most fiscal and foreign policy issues…

Does this mean you agreed with all the shifting reasons for invading Iraq and then getting deeper and deeper into the mire? Does it also mean you approve of keeping major expenditures (like a three trillion dollar war) off the budget? Do you approve of borrowing trillions of dollars for the war from communist China?

Do you approve of taking all the money that baby boomers have paid into social security over the decades of their hard working lives and giving it all to the wealthiest one percent of Americans as tax breaks? After all the surplus is gone and we are now in debt to China, do you want to make the tax breaks for the top one percent permanent? Do you really think these are conservative fiscal policies? Are they really conservative foreign policies?

If these really are the reasons you’re casting your vote for the GOP, you may wish to reconsider.

[ts_curious]

so Allanah, are you telling me you support EVERYTHING the Democratic party stands for? how about ultra liberals like Obama who aren't very far from socialist?

Only in the US would people claim someone like Obama is ultra liberal / socialist. At most he is middle of the road liberal (I'm using Liberal in the British sense though).

[Ben]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

I wholeheartedly agree with Allanah. :)
Especially when she wrote, and I quote, "... rally against gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths."

[peggygee]

No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, or who you plan to vote for,
I strongly encourage you to examine this chart which explains where your
tax dollars go.


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/taxes7x5.jpg

Click here for the enlarged version (http://www.grooveking.com/images/taxes.jpg)

[dabaldone]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

I couldn't agree more. The hipocrisy is rampant and the right wing folks are just closeted. How many Republican politicians were embroiled in same sex scandals. They are justself hating and self loathing.

[systematic_chaos42]

Allanah, you nailed it to a T. It's selfish. And it's just scary wrong.

It scares me also to think how Bush has run this country into the ground these last eight years there's still a lot of people who want to base their vote against a group of people that have committed no wrongs, who have not crashed airplanes into buildings, who just want to live their lives as they see fit. (The GLBT community)

But no, what we have right now is a sizeable population of the country who would care less if we had more of the trash that we've been experiencing the last eight years. Gas prices be damned. National security be damned. Social welfare be damned. Progress be damned. Economy be damned. As long as the GLBT crowd is put down. And the people who want this to occur, but still oogle at girls like you in secret, are the worst.

They aren't men. They're worse than scum.

[TrueBeauty TS]

I stand by my earlier statement, you are a nasty piece of work. That's not an insult, just an observation based on your responses. You can't even carry on a civil discussion. What a waste.

Take a civility cue from Peggy, Trish, and Felicia.



Civil? Yea right. You started off with personal insults from the start. You're just a nasty excuse for a human being. Have a nice day.


Ahhhh..... Playing the race card!!! :lol: Nice move! I bet if you knew my race, you might think different.

I was very civil and patient with you for the first few responses, but you were in such a hurry to try and prove me wrong or call me out, that you didn't bother to actually read what I said. And when I corrected you, you went off on some other tangent. That annoys me greatly. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not quite yourself tonight. :wink:

After that, I had it with you. Like I said, I cannot stand fools or stupidity. It drives me up a wall. Other people here may have much more tolerance for that than I do. I applaud them. You may be a great guy but tonight you were acting like a jackass.

If you want people to respect you, then have the courtesy to read what they say. If you don't understand it, then just say so rather than posturing and trying to save face. Then maybe you won't have me insulting you again.

:D


.

Wrong again. You really are stupid. Go back and read the posts, for the first time. I'm tired of calling you out on every one of your points and you can't take it.

And now you call me a nasty excuse for a human being. Look how quickly you dump your so-called ethics. Where's your civility now? :smh

And what happened? You don't want to play the Race Card any more?

:roll:

.


And I stand by my statement. You really are stupid. That's not name calling, that's a point of fact.

You avoided the issues because you knew you were wrong and have to resort to name calling and race baiting. Typical. :smh

You dug yourself into a hole. Now just walk away.

Just walk away....


.

[vietboy]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

I couldn't agree more. The hipocrisy is rampant and the right wing folks are just closeted. How many Republican politicians were embroiled in same sex scandals. They are justself hating and self loathing.
It is funny how people on HA Forum will scream and hiss that they are not gay.
Transwomen are not gay, and neither are the admirers who like to suck their cocks! Doesn't everyone know this!
People who say otherwise have been banned.

But as soon as there is an opportunity to label a HA Forum member with unpopular political opinions as gay, well then of course he is gay! Doesn't everyone know this!

I'll tell you who the real hypocrites are.

[envivision]

Will Obama grow some pair and Legalize prostitution, if elected ?

No? Then he is a pussy and does NOT deserve our votes.

Liberal my ass

[tsmandy]

so Allanah, are you telling me you support EVERYTHING the Democratic party stands for? how about ultra liberals like Obama who aren't very far from socialist?

Only in the US would people claim someone like Obama is ultra liberal / socialist. At most he is middle of the road liberal (I'm using Liberal in the British sense though).

The parameters of discussion in the US are limited to a very narrow framework in the mainstream media: far-right wing to center right opinions and policies get discussed, with the far right being the loudest and most prominent of the lot. This has been amply documented and in my opinion stems from the corporate consolidation and ownership of the media. If only 4 corporations are able to control what people read about, see on TV, hear on the radio, then of course Americans will have some pretty skewed ideas about left and right. Intelligent voices on the left hardly ever get any play on mainstream media programs, and when they do it is usually a set up used to discredit dissenting viewpoints. Because of this, its hardly useful to be angry at someone who is just repeating the most logical point of view they have heard, even if it is sadly mistaken.

I try to refrain from these kinds of discussions here because like JelenaCD pointed out its bad for business. On the other hand, I'm not trying to find a man to date and I don't see this place as my community. I'm here for business purposes only, and as such I don't care about peoples political affiliations.

I've got a lot of respect for the women who continue to stand strong and speak their mind, even when it means facing shrill attacks and insults. Nothing but respect.

[Dinand]

Will Obama grow some pair and Legalize prostitution, if elected ?
Why go to war with feminists? ;-)

Actually in Holland it's legal since a couple of years and trust me that was not a good thing becasue the girl must pay taxes now also just like other worker and which means the prices they ask went up!

[hondarobot]

Cool chart, Peggy. I'm surprised the military spends 1.39 billion on drones, not that I'm complaining, but that kind of money buys a lot of drones. What the hell are they doing with all of them (other then not finding Osama Bin Laden)? The way things are in Minneapolis right now, half of them are probably here. There certainly are more then enough helicopters and police prowling around at the moment.

:what

[tsmandy]

There certainly are more then enough helicopters and police prowling around at the moment.

:what

As a matter of national security the police have to protect John McCain from getting pied.

[MrShow52]

Many conservatives are against gay marriage, yet with bush in office gay marriage became legalized in SF. By all measures gay/transgenered rights have progressed in the last 8 years. Under Bush. Allanah, you are sadly ignorant about politics. Simply because the most right wing conservatives do not support gay rights, the majority of them do not believe this way. Even McCains VP pick, who doesn't support gay marriage, veto'd a bill that would deny gay lovers the medical benefits of their significant others. I know plenty of gay men who are conservative. I consider myself to be at least bi due to my love of trannies. Being anti-gay is political suicide in this day and age. They may not support gay marriage but is that really a huge deal? I mean do you want to play into the white culture which you hate so much that idealizes marriage? What more do you want, preferential treatment from the government akin to affirmative action?

I voted for Gore in 2000, I didn't vote in 2004, and I probably will vote for McCain this year. Why? I am a working class white male. Obama has no love for me. Policies he's supported have kept me out of good colleges, put me deep in student debt, and gave jobs I deserved more to minorities simply because of the color of my skin.

Is obama a socialist/marxist. Yes, if you look at his tax plan it's VERY socialist. People who make over 100k a year are already taxed nearly half their income under Bush. If Obama has his way their will be roughly another 25% tax added to that. Soon enough no one will be able to afford to pay you $500 for an hour allanah, unless obama gives them some sort of government subsidies.

Does it make you a nazi for not blindly supporting obama? Of course not, but that's how they would have you feel. But I digress, this thread is a joke anyway, who cares what a prostitute/porn star thinks about politics? If people cared about your opinion on politics you'd be on CNN, not "Transsexual Prostitues #X" Didn't Kelly Shore say "this is hung angels so anything not about that should be elsewhere." Truer words have never been spoken, lets keep talking about shemales please.

[hondarobot]

There certainly are more then enough helicopters and police prowling around at the moment.

:what

As a matter of national security the police have to protect John McCain from getting pied.

No doubt. If I had one of those military drones, I might try to pie bomb him myself.

:lol:

[Legend]

I voted for Gore in 2000, I didn't vote in 2004, and I probably will vote for McCain this year. Why? I am a working class white male. Obama has no love for me. Policies he's supported have kept me out of good colleges, put me deep in student debt, and gave jobs I deserved more to minorities simply because of the color of my skin


Lol.

[SarahG]

I, for one, think universal healthcare is a necessity.

.

Do you really expect in today's America, if we had NHS tomorrow, to properly care for patients who are trans, gay, have stds, or care about their reproductive rights?

I have stated this in the past and it best needs repeating:



...under our current system doctors, pharmacists and other health industry workers can in many situations refuse to take part in any treatment, including prescription distribution, if they feel it is violating their personal belief system. This isn't about to go away anytime soon, if we had NHS tomorrow we'd still have large groups of radicals independently going "I'm not gonna be filling this slip for _fillintheblank_ (estrogen, contraceptive, whatever), it would violate my personal beliefs, go find another pharmacy." The systematic assumption is that if you go to the other pharmacies in your area, you'll eventually find one that doesn't care if you're gay, trans, or want to remove the chances of getting preg from the guy who raped you 12 hrs ago. This assumption also ignores that in some of these situations you have a race against the clock to get proper treatment before the situation gets worse. This is true for the rape victim wanting emergency contraceptive, this is true for the young transistioner who wants to get on HRT before T prevents their body from passing w/out FFS (obviously the later has a longer time table to work with, but it is nonetheless an ignored element of the equation).

Even if people are somehow forced to play by the rules, and the rules eliminate this refusal-to-treat clause in the situations that presently have them- you have another problem.

There is what I call selective-incompetence (like selective hearing) where medical professionals for whatever personal or institutional reason, treat certain patients improperly without violating any specific rules. To use an American example if you are a trans inmate, in most states you have to get hrt treatment if you've been getting it the normal institutional way on the outside (threw doctors, with a GID diagnosis, blood tests etc). But the prison can require inmates to go through the prison doctor to determine what specific drugs & dosages you get, and then that doctor could say "in their professional opinion you should be on 2mg a day estroidal and 50mg a day spiro" (when the patient requires 8mg of the first, and 200mg of the 2nd in order to keep from masculating). Thus you're getting hrt still, but it is such a trivial amount you might as well not be... its not gonna maintain whereever you are in hrt's work on your body, and if your testes are intact it for this patient in the example, start to reverse (aka de-transition) the inmate. This is done for discriminatory reasons, but it is also done to save money for the jail. There are a whole host of medical conditions that get short changed in prison because- in doing so, it saves the prison money and it is done with conditions where such malpractice will not result in direct death (as refusing insoline for a diabetic could).

Canada has NHS, and there, for the trans patient, you HAVE to pretty much go threw the NHS hoops & games because they are the only game in town, unless you are close enough to commute into the United States to use private medical care out of pocket (if you can afford it). Their customs are fairly good at blocking out internet hormones, so DIY is fairly limited. To get HRT in Canada you have to play a series of games with gender clinics, essentially the same way it is done in the UK with various minor differences. Sure, if you play by their games they will pay for srs (tho there are some rules on where you can go and who you can use for a surgeon). Why is this clinic system such a problem? These gate keeping games draw out the time it takes to transition, and sets the patient up to have problems... basically the system is designed to screw you, delay your progress, and hope that it will convince you to go away and put off your transition attempt. This may be insignificant if you're some middle aged transitioner with assets to pay for surgeries, but for someone who is young every year that is put off by gate keeping games of this nature, is a year where T does irreversible things to the body. Someone who transitions early enough will NEVER need FFS to pass. Say it is a two year wait, even two years will make a noticeable difference if it means transitioning at 18 instead of 16, or 22 instead of 20. Although it pays for SRS, few of these programs pay for the lengthy cosmetic procedures required to try to reverse a T-altered skull, and even if there was full range to have whatever surgery you want these procedures can only do so much.

The US, with its faults- and there are way too many, at least has enough leeway that a trans patient can, if their first doctor refuses to give them sufficient HRT dosages, go DIY or, seek out another doctor (or another, another, and another until a tolerant & competent one is found). This is not the case with the clinic system, and there have been cases in the last ten years where hospitals in Canada, under NHS, have kicked out trans patients strictly because they were trans. Unethical? Sure. Illegal? Probably (I would bet on it). Did anything happen over it? Not that I ever heard of, no one was fired, trans patients in question never got a settlement over it.

This brings me to my main point: mindsets. When a country is, within the medical community itself, tolerant and understanding of patients with unique needs then universal health care can go to great lengths to help the patient. There are countries in Europe with health care at great lengths better than anything the United States has ever had... and in these countries, because it is not stigmatized, because discrimination is not so widespread, trans patients can transistion -before- puberty where the situation merits it.

For NHS to work in America there needs to be drastic changes- changes eliminating these discriminatory practices in not just theory, but practice. Especially if NHS re-institutes systems we DID have before.

In our history in the states, in the 1950s-early 1980s, America's medical community only had gender clinics to deal with trans patients (the ones using the health care systems, not talking about people doing hrt with black market drugs or stolen birth control pills, back when BC pills had enough E to feminize). It was the only true game in town, so you had to play their games- and here, these "clinics" would look at trans patients and distribute treatments (therapy, hrt, surgeries) based on the information gathered on the patient.

They'd test you to see what your concept is of gender roles, relationships, etc. Essentially you had to embody, ideologically speaking, the stereotypical straight 50s housewife in order to have a hope of treatment (that is to say, you had to be straight, you had to be into girly interests like sewing, cooking, cleaning etc).

Then they'd put you before a board of "specialists" who would look you over and determine if you should transistion based on shoe size, height, weight, age, passability, mannerisms, and a whole host of other things. You could be denied hrt or surgeries simply by having feet "too big."

Then they'd require you to do RLE, before you get anything in treatment... but this RLE was not RLE in the modern sense. They required a twisted sense of "what being female is." If your therapist caught you wearing jeans, even if they were normal girl specific jeans, in public your RLE just got reset and you'd be lectured... if it continued to happen you'd be ejected from this system.

I have met and discussed with doctors who used to be apart of this system, they believe in such absurdities as the barbie defense (you're not trans if you never played with barbies when you were little), and even think giving hrt to a patient under 30-35 should be illegal. There are no shortage of gender clinic horror stories from this era of American health care history. Hell there are still random therapists who buy into this notion of trans care in this country, but at least now you can go somewhere, anywhere else when that happens. Going back to gender clinics would be a disastrous mistake in today's America, unnecessarily so.

I realize the general every day citizen is not trans. The general every day citizen isn't going to care or ever need to know about trans health care. It simply does not effect them or anyone they know. In America our health care crisis, and it is a crisis, is the cause of a disturbing statistic: medical problems are the leading cause for bankruptcy in the United States (not adjustable rate mortgages like the 4th estate would lead you to believe... even if mortgage is french for "death grip").

Someone can save everything (reasonably) they make, be as careful in spending as even the most die hard christian conservative may advocate for, and because they worked blue collar all their life w/out health insurance with an income just above the poverty line, lose every penny of it and whatever assets they've compiled just by needing some emergency surgery, cancer treatment, or other critical, unexpected, unavoidable medical situation.

But there are exceptions, specific types of patients with unique needs, and if NHS were to be instituted here -tomorrow- without first accomplishing major reforms of American health care ethics & society in practice (not just theory) then these patients with unique situations will be the trade off cost. Look at all the things we cannot get here to date for trans patients in our country that would be, arguably, less volatile. Nationally speaking: Job discrimination? Legal. Housing? Also. As is adoption law, probate law, marriage law. There are even problems as simple as sex recognition for postops. Sure some states are better than others, but that's cold comfort by someone who, for reasons out of their control, gets born as a trans citizen in Ohio where your BC can never be amended or replaced (even if the dr is drunk and clearly put down erroneous information- a GG whose doctor puts them down as male in ohio has to live with that BC for life as things currently stand, even if they are not trans, IS, or otherwise unique in their mental, physical, or dna existance).

[trish]

What more do you want, preferential treatment from the government akin to affirmative action?

I want a government that puts all people's rights on an equal footing. For example: how about the right to serve our country in the military and at the same time the right to be clear and open about our sexual identity? Preferential treatment my ass. This country still has a long way to go.

[strokeitnow]

Trish, as I said I agree with the GOP on most fiscal and foreign policy issues, not all.

Pretty easy to look in hind sight and see all the issues with the war in Iraq. Lesson learned now let's move on.

As for the Social Security funding, you have no evidence it has been handed out to the elite in tax breaks. Have they been given generous tax breaks, sure, but your claim is baseless.

Currently with the GOP at least we know what we are getting. With Noboma we won't have a clue until it is too late.
He will say anything to get elected, we won't have any idea about who he really is until it is way too late.

[SarahG]

What more do you want, preferential treatment from the government akin to affirmative action?

I want a government that puts all people's rights on an equal footing. For example: how about the right to serve our country in the military and at the same time the right to be clear and open about our sexual identity? Preferential treatment my ass. This country still has a long way to go.

EXACTLY, and an example to drive that important point home further....

"Don't ask" does not prevent someone from serving provided they stay in the closet... and since gay marriage is not federally recognized, who is going to get the flag if someone who is gay in the military in a LTR dies in action? Hint; it won't be the significant other.

Someone who is straight can be married, and the military can know about it to know who to pay respects to.

Not all injustices are based on economics.

[MrShow52]

I agree with you about the military trish, but please give other examples of this. Also please tell me how many transsexuals want to serve in the military. As I understand it, while the official policy is don't ask don't tell, gays are not usually kicked for being outed.


how about the right to serve our country in the military and at the same time the right to be clear and open about our sexual identity? Preferential treatment my ass. This country still has a long way to go.

I mean, you could live in Iran where people are hung for being gay. America doesn't have a long way to go, it's already there.

[trish]

Social Security funding, you have no evidence it has been handed out to the elite in tax breaks.

We have George Bush's word on it. That was his campaign promise eight years ago.

[SarahG]

I mean, you could live in Iran where people are hung for being gay. America doesn't have a long way to go, it's already there.

That's why the SSA went around outting girls to their employers for no reason whatsoever?

Just because there are worse injustices does not mean our own should be ignored or trivialized. There are European countries where trans issues are handled with far more civility than here.

[MrShow52]

Also, the military's treatment of gays does not equal how the country treats its gay citizens. So, unless you all want to go to iraq this doesn't really apply to you.

[SarahG]

Also, the military's treatment of gays does not equal how the country treats its gay citizens. So, unless you all want to go to iraq this doesn't really apply to you.

The military's treatment of lgbts is one of many ways in which we can look at how the federal gov treats its lgbt citizens.

Military issues specifically matter for people in addition to those in the service directly. You are forgetting there are gay and trans people who are in LTRs with those in the active service, there are gay and trans people who are dependents of those in the active service. It is a far more complicated issue than "going to Iraq"

[MrShow52]

Just because there are worse injustices does not mean our own should be ignored or trivialized. There are European countries where trans issues are handled with far more civility than here.

I'm trivializing don't ask don't tell because you're just using it as an argument when the law doesn't even apply to you. Stop acting so oppressed because they don't officially allow gays in the military. Truth is, like I said, outed gays in the military are not usually dismissed under the don't act don't tell policy, and I honestly doubt it will even be official policy for much longer, regardless of who is in control of the white house. Do you have any other examples of government sponsored "oppression"?

[scroller]

Pretty easy to look in hind sight and see all the issues with the war in Iraq. Lesson learned now let's move on.

I have the emails I wrote to Congress in early 2003, before the war, predicting in advance everything that actually happened. Honestly you'd have to be either (a) retarded or (b) corrupt to not have seen exactly what was happening with the Iraq invasion.

That lesson was not learned. The only sane thing would be to impeach Bush and ideally imprison or execute him as a warning for the future. But definitely don't give them permission to do it again.

[trish]

gays are not usually kicked for being outed.

Of course they are. It's in the news all the time. How about the gay translators of Arabic who were booted for their sexual orientation? How about Army Sgt. Manzella.

[SarahG]

I'm trivializing don't ask don't tell because you're just using it as an argument when the law doesn't even apply to you.


Really? And how would you know either way? You don't know a thing about my personal life. Like I said, this applies to more than just people who are in the active service.



I honestly doubt it will even be official policy for much longer, regardless of who is in control of the white house


I have said for years that don't ask would probably be the first casualty if they ever reinstitute the draft. Everyone would try to get out of the draft by presenting themselves as openly gay.



Do you have any other examples of government sponsored "oppression"?

In the military specifically? Depends, are we including the Veteran Affairs in that group?

[Justawannabe]

Um... coming from that tax bracket you think will be so onerous under Obama... I can tell you (and I think it's slightly over 200K and not quite that high percentage wise when I ran the numbers, but I won't argue that at the moment) that the money he is talking about won't affect my standard of living at all.

My family and I are all supported from largely one income that is distributed to avoid paying the maximum tax when my parents eventually pass... and it wouldn't even dent us. (For the record my brother and sister are independently in the class you describe and, even with my brother's five kids, he says it won't hurt them either.)

The price of necessities does not scale up with income... and 100K earning folks are more than past the basic luxuries.

The 'he's gonna raise taxes!' crap get's so overblown it makes me sick watching the tube... because it never really gets into what that means on an actual physical level to the people who are supposedly gonna be hurt, and how few of them their are. It talks about percentages, but rarely real dollars. When I watch some of the people I know buy their fourth car to use just for that twice a year ride to Florida I get sick when they complain that they might have to pay half the price of that car in higher taxes.

As to affirmative action being one of the things that cost the average white guy jobs (me when I was young before the family made its money), education and access to government money... um... yes it does happen, but not very often, and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the number of times the color of your skin will cost you all the above and more.

All things have to be equal for the white guy to say the playing field was tilted against him by affirmative action, the black guy is often correct when he complains he got shafted even though his application was better.


<kick soapbox back to the corner>

That said I tend to be financially conservative in my own approach philosophically. You earned it you should keep it. As long as we understand that some regulation is necessary to prevent large corrections like we're going through now, and we do at least some social justice work, becaues the playing field is not even...

The vast majority of the resources are controlled by people who don't want people like us to get ahead, and unrestricted they can indeed keep us from succeeding. Until such a time exists that that will not be the case, we have to deal with having government intrusion into private business... strictly in our own self interest.

Oh, and on gay rights... um... one state making gay marriage legal (or two) and both effectively by court order, does not outweigh the 11 states that banned it, or wrote laws/amendments that said they don't have to recognize those laws from other states. It does not outweigh changes in adoption law we've seen over the past decade in a number of states banning gay adoption, or the reverses of marriages by trans people years after they were performed. Doesn't outweigh the trauma of Bush trying to deport families that had trans marriages from other countries after they had been allowed entry to this nation (they did back off when the media came for them).

Gay rights has made some headway with central/liberal voters... but it had much more working capitol under the Clinton administration. Every major attempt to get national recognition for those rights has been beaten up pretty bad, and half the rights we've gained have been through judicial action, which can easily be reversed by the Supreme Court should it get there.

Sean

[MrShow52]

yes it's in the news sometimes that a gay man was kicked from the military for like, making a gay porn. But honestly, you think the two or three news stories they write are the only gays in the military? I'm not saying it never happens but there are plenty of openly gay people serving in our military.

Please give me an example of government sponsored oppression, other than don't ask don't tell, that applies directly to you. Military or otherwise.

[MrShow52]

In response to your post wannabe, I believe it should be up to the states. If you want to have a gay marriage move to a more liberal state, if you don't want to live in a more conservative state.

Also on taxes, take my sister. She has a very difficult, demanding job which few people would be capable of performing. She makes roughly 85k a year. As it stands now she takes home about 45k after all the taxes (NY state income tax is BS). Under Obama she would be taxed even further, to the point that she might as well just get an easier job and make 50k on paper and bring home roughly the same. I'm all for taxing the upper 5% more, however I believe anyone making under say, 200k shouldn't have their taxes raised, which obama plans to do. Only the lowest class will benefit under Obama.

[SarahG]

Please give me an example of government sponsored oppression, other than don't ask don't tell, that applies directly to you. Military or otherwise.

Other than don't ask:

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

2) Trans medical care is no longer tax deductible (and see#1, not an escort)

3) I could meet a guy who would be perfect for me in a LTR and not have the benefits from that relationship (as far as government benefits are concerned- not just tax law), whereas a GG being in a LTR with the exact SAME guy would.

4) Since there are no protections against discrimination- in theory or practice, if #1 occurs I can lose all of my earning potential from being outted in my field (by the feds) without any recourse whatsoever. This includes in addition to earning potential, even simple logistics like consumer discrimination (buying products) housing (renting, buying, whatever). My life could even be put in danger from such an outting.

Those sound pretty damning to me, and that's just what comes immediately to mind.

[underdog6]

NObama08! And I'm not a republican. Obama Will make Jimmy Carter look like a great president. Both choices this year BLOW. But I have to go with the lesser of two IDIOTS.

[SarahG]

In response to your post wannabe, I believe it should be up to the states. If you want to have a gay marriage move to a more liberal state, if you don't want to live in a more conservative state.

Leaving it up to the states would never work because;

-There are religious radicals in all of the states

-We are such a minority we can constitute no majority in ANY state (unless they make a state for us, but that sounds a bit like 'forced relocation')

-These religious radicals think it is morally wrong, like abortion, and as a result will try to end the practice anywhere it occurs even if it is in another state.

-What happens in red states gets into the case law and is then used in deciding cases in other states after the fact. The Littleton case in TEXAS has been cited in trans cases in every state in the Union at this point.

-Trans people, regardless if they are trans from biological predetermination, or developmental problems, have problems from such an early age that they must deal with the consequences even if they are born BY NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN in a red state. Take Ohio. if you're born there, even if you don't like the religious radicals and leave the state- you'll NEVER have a correct birth certificate, even after SRS- because that state thinks your IDs should out you for life. For gays it can be as simple as moving to another state, but trans people have to worry about the consequences of where they are born if states get the power to abuse peoples rights however they want.

[MrShow52]

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

well that sucks but it's more of a technicality than oppression/disenfranchisement. If an employer wants to fire you for this it's a definite lawsuit.


2) Trans medical care is no longer tax deductible (and see#1, not an escort)

Ok, well I don't think plastic surgery should be covered. Possibly not even the meds as they aren't essential to your survival. It is a choice you made. Maybe you didn't choose to be transgendered but you did choose to transition. I know, it sounds awful, but that's the logical argument. And on that note, hardly oppressive, it's just a tax break. There's plenty of shit I think the government should let me deduct from my taxes that I can't.


3) I could meet a guy who would be perfect for me in a LTR and not have the benefits from that relationship (as far as government benefits are concerned- not just tax law), whereas a GG being in a LTR with the exact SAME guy would.

I thought they allowed women who have transitioned to marry. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it's the state that you live in? Still hardly oppression.


4) Since there are no protections against discrimination- in theory or practice, if #1 occurs I can lose all of my earning potential from being outted in my field (by the feds) without any recourse whatsoever. This includes in addition to earning potential, even simple logistics like consumer discrimination (buying products) housing (renting, buying, whatever). My life could even be put in danger from such an outting.

I'm pretty sure that's untrue, if an employer fired you for being outted you'd have a lawsuit on your hands. As far as your life, well unfortunantely that's human nature and I doubt the government could do anything to stop ignorant people from hating you for who you are.

[trish]

Gee, Sarah's list failed to number even one example of an oppresive government policy against gays, lesbians, transgendered persons and bisexuals. With such a high bar on the standard of oppression I think its safe to say that it wouldn't be oppressive at all to raise taxes on the wealthy to help with the health-care of those who can't afford it.

[SarahG]

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

well that sucks but it's more of a technicality than oppression/disenfranchisement. If an employer wants to fire you for this it's a definite lawsuit..

WRONG, since there is no discrimination protections an employer CAN FLAT OUT FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING TRANS LEGALLY.

There would be NO GROUND FOR A WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT.

The only way someone who is trans can argue in court and win for being fired is if they live where the discrimination laws specifically say employers cannot discriminate based on "gender expression"

The courts see trans citizens as being separate from homosexuals- an employer can fire us for being trans, in states where they cannot fire us for being into guys or girls or, well you get the idea.



Ok, well I don't think plastic surgery should be covered. Possibly not even the meds as they aren't essential to your survival. It is a choice you made. Maybe you didn't choose to be transgendered but you did choose to transition. I know, it sounds awful, but that's the logical argument. And on that note, hardly oppressive, it's just a tax break. There's plenty of shit I think the government should let me deduct from my taxes that I can't..

It absolutely is discriminatory oppression if the EXACT SAME PROCEDURES AND MEDICINES are tax deductible for nontrans citizens.

Medical expenses are tax deductible for everyone else, EVEN IF IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LIFE. Viagra is tax deductible, hysterectomies for GGs are, estrogen for GGs in menopause is. I could go on and on and on there. The IRS has no provisions defining medical expenses as "necessary for life" and so to be fair they need to either get that specific, or allow EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.



I thought they allowed women who have transitioned to marry. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it's the state that you live in? Still hardly oppression.

It depends on the state, in all states with gay marriage bans sex is defined in the law by your blood and as a result postops are not legally female in these states AND cannot marry guys.

This is discriminatory because marriages influence all kinds of the law in addition to tax law. For instance:

-Married couples in ALL states are entitled to healthcare beneifits from their husband's employer. People who can't marry can't get benefits in that way.

-Married couples impact what happens if one of the two gets seriously hurt in an accident. If my BF got in a car wreck today I would not be able to even visit him in the hospital because I am not married! I won't be able to talk to the doctor about if he is ok, NOTHING. There are some LIMITED ways around SOME of this through power of attorney waviers and other legal documents, but no straight couple has to go threw with that crap and married couples have far greater power in emergencies like that.

-some states have cohabitation laws meaning IT IS A SEX CRIME to live with someone you are not married to or related to by blood. These are rarely enforced but they DO exist and they HAVE been known to have been used against sexually taboo groups in recent years.

.

I'm pretty sure that's untrue, if an employer fired you for being outted you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.
.

WRONG, you can probably count on one hand how many states define in their discrimination law that "gender identity or gender expression"

Even when orientation is protected, TRANS PEOPLE ARE NOT unless that specific "gender expression" phrase is in there.

[MrShow52]

I really doubt the government splits hairs like that. If an employer fired you for being trans I'm sure you could file a suit. Give me an example of where a person has been fired for being TG then was denied legal recourse.

Also on the taxes, boohoo it's just a tax deduction, still hardly oppressed. Viagra is not plastic surgery, it doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars (though I agree it shouldn't be deductable). Histerectomies are definitely necessary for life in many situations. If it really bothers you so much please move to europe.

[trish]

If it really bothers you so much please move to europe.

Thank you for inviting us to leave our country. Smooth move. Who else is known for that maneuver? I'm trying to think. When was I last invited to move back to Africa.

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

[marissaazts]

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for it

[peggygee]

1) I have to worry about when the SSA will start doing gender no match letters again. I'm not an escort, so I am more likely to have to deal with the SSA in my day to day live.

well that sucks but it's more of a technicality than oppression/disenfranchisement. If an employer wants to fire you for this it's a definite lawsuit..

WRONG, since there is no discrimination protections an employer CAN FLAT OUT FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING TRANS LEGALLY.

There would be NO GROUND FOR A WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT.

The only way someone who is trans can argue in court and win for being fired is if they live where the discrimination laws specifically say employers cannot discriminate based on "gender expression"

The courts see trans citizens as being separate from homosexuals- an employer can fire us for being trans, in states where they cannot fire us for being into guys or girls or, well you get the idea.



Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that
provide non-discrimination protections based upon gender identity and
expression.

They are: Colorado (2007), Iowa (2007), Oregon (2007), Vermont
(2007), New Jersey (2007), Washington (2006), Hawaii (2005), Illinois
(2005), Maine (2005), District of Columbia (2005), California (2003), New
Mexico (2003), Rhode Island (2001) and Minnesota (1993).

On June 3, 2008 the New York State Assembly voted 108-34 to amend
the state’s human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections
based upon gender identity and expression. The bill (A.6584a), known as
the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) bans
discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit,
public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life.

Additionally a number of larger cities such as NYC, Cambridge MA,
Los Angeles, Denver, Miami Beach, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Boston,
and a complete list of cities, states, and countries that afford gender
identity protection can be found here. http://www.hrc.org/issues/4844.htm





I thought they allowed women who have transitioned to marry. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it's the state that you live in? Still hardly oppression.




It depends on the state, in all states with gay marriage bans sex is defined in the law by your blood and as a result postops are not legally female in these states AND cannot marry guys.




Sarah, I must commend you for your excellent articulation of the facts and
issues impacting the transcommunity, you are doing an excellent job.

On the issue of post op marriage, I must repectfully disagree with you. I
do concede that the Litttleton ruling in Texas (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS251US252&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Littleton+case&spell=1) has muddied
the waters vis-a-visthe legality and legitamacy of post-op marriages, in
the vast majority of the states and jurisdictions we are able to be legally
wed if we so desire.

[vietboy]

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for it
Some Americans want to be permanent wards of the state, get coddled and suck the government teat from cradle to grave. Some Americans have no ambition other than to stick their faces in the community trough and eat on someone else's dime.

I'm not looking to the government for any guarantees. The government is already funding programs on credit from China and the government is not going to be able to meet its obligations for social security over the next several years, let alone pay for a new national health service program. Also, events over the last 8 years have shown that the government is unable to help people when it most matters. Why anyone would put faith in the government is a mystery.

[peggygee]

who cares what a prostitute/porn star thinks about politics? If people cared about your opinion on politics you'd be on CNN, not "Transsexual Prostitues #X"


As a citizen of the United States a woman who works in the sex trade, has
just as much right to an opinion and a vote, as the tricks and consumers
of said porn.

[trish]

marissaazts suggests:
how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for itDo you think that the money you pay to the insurance company (if you're fortunate enough to have coverage) is enough to actually pay for a prolonged stay in the hospital? Do you think YOUR payments are sufficient to cover radiation therapy and other treatments you might require were you discovered to have cancer? Of course you don't. It's your payments and the payments of hundreds of thousands of other people who have been lucky enough never to have need help which would pay those bills. No one who needs the advances of modern medicene can possibly pay for their own treatments and surgeries. Somebody is paying for you whether you like it or not. As far as personal responsibility goes, government sponsored health-care is no different than private: the idea is that we all pay in and we all look after each other. The lucky ones are the one who never needed to pay at all. I favor government sponsored health because it will cover more people and its been proven to work very well in Canada, Great Britian, France and elsewhere in western Europe. Let's have a little mutual responsibility as well as personal. Remember it was Cain who asked "Am I my brother's keeper?"

[trish]

vietboy asks,
Why anyone would put faith in the government is a mystery.

We are the government. Why anyone would not trust themselves is a mystery.

[vietboy]

vietboy asks,
Why anyone would put faith in the government is a mystery.

We are the government. Why anyone would not trust themselves is a mystery.
One's self is not the government, therefore trusting oneself and trusting the government are not the same.

If a is 1/300,000,000 of b, it does not follow that a is equal to b...

[Stoked]

vietboy asks,
Why anyone would put faith in the government is a mystery.

We are the government. Why anyone would not trust themselves is a mystery.
One's self is not the government, therefore trusting oneself and trusting the government are not the same.

If a is 1/300,000,000 of b, it does not follow that a is equal to b...

We are a "representative" democracy. Unfortunately, I am quite sure the people we elect, on both sides, are mostly representing only themselves and their own best interests.

[trish]

So don't vote for the 72 year old man whose been in their for nearly 30 years.

[trish]

After graduating near the top of his class in Harvard Law School, and being the president of the Law Review, Obama could have had a top paying job with any law firm in the country. Instread he chose to help laid off workers in Chicago as a community organizer. Not everyone is motivated entirely by greed and selfishness.

We our the government. Why shouldn't we trust ourselves?

[EyeCumInPiece]

so Allanah, are you telling me you support EVERYTHING the Democratic party stands for? how about ultra liberals like Obama who aren't very far from socialist? would you be willing to make the same amount of money as someone who does far less work than you?

i dont recall her saying that.

[tubgirl]

So don't vote for the 72 year old man whose been in their for nearly 30 years.

yeah, vote for the one with zero experience.... :roll: :roll:

[vietboy]

So don't vote for the 72 year old man whose been in their for nearly 30 years.
I bet the 65 year old man who has been in there for over 36 years will round out the experience gaps for Mr. Obama. What change!

LOL.

Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is still my favorite candidate.

[SarahG]

I really doubt the government splits hairs like that. If an employer fired you for being trans I'm sure you could file a suit. Give me an example of where a person has been fired for being TG then was denied legal recourse.

Surely you're joking?

Wasn't Conway the most known situation in which it played like that? I would suggest going and reading up on her website before you start saying it doesn't happen in our country. :roll:



Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for it

My stance has been consistent since day1- the bigger issue TO ME is equal treatment, even if it means not getting a hand out.

As it is some couples get "hand outs" that other couples do not have access to, just because some couples can marry while others cannot.

There are TWO paths to rectify this, you can give all couples the same treatment, or you can get rid of the handouts for everyone. I for one, do not care which of those two paths is taken, but failing to do so shows blatant discrimination in American law from everything from tax law, to probate law, to health care, to even something as symbolically important as who gets the flag when someone dies fighting for our country.

IF we are to TRULY play this card of "medically necessary to live" then do you realize just how much our health care programs will stop covering (for everyone, not just us)? Think of all the medical procedures, medical drugs, and other threatments that are done that have no baring on whether the patient lives or dies.

Back pain? No treatment- it won't kill you.

Allergies? No treatment- it won't kill you.

Eye problems? No treatment- it won't kill you

Compacted wisdom teeth? No surgery- it won't kill you.

Torn rotar cuff? No treatment- it won't kill you.

Broken bones? No treatment- it won't kill you.

Physicals? Not covered, you won't die without them- wait until you have symptoms of a life threatening medical crisis to seek out a doctor.

Come on, that's just nonsense. Our health care system might not be perfect but at least it pretends to care about the patient's quality of life. Our health care does actually, even if it doesn't do it for everyone, even if it doesn't do it flawlessly, it DOES cover treatments whose sole purpose is to improve quality of life, remove pain, and address similar FAR from fatal scenarios.

IF gg's can get HRT to prevent the masculation that comes from menopause (if you don't know what I mean by this, ever see an older GG with facial hair? rougher skin? lower sex drive? You get the idea), or for purely comfort reasons (preventing hot flashes) than it is only fair that the TINY portion of our population who is trans have access to the same medicines for the same reasons (comfort/quality of life).

[SarahG]

On the issue of post op marriage, I must repectfully disagree with you. I
do concede that the Litttleton ruling in Texas (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS251US252&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Littleton+case&spell=1) has muddied
the waters vis-a-visthe legality and legitamacy of post-op marriages, in
the vast majority of the states and jurisdictions we are able to be legally
wed if we so desire.

I knew that one would be a bit controversial- but, like I said, what long term expectations can we reasonably have for marriage rights in an era where political factions are largely succeeding at ballot initiatives that define marriage as "between one XX women and one XY man"?

Littleton predates this recent movement, and it isn't the only case where someone trying to get trans marriage rights failed to do so- but because we do have a case law system it is a risky, potentially destructive ruling even in other states. I seem to recall Ohio's ballot initiative, which was the most severe in the entire union, mentioned the Littleton case at least in passing but my memory could be off there as it has been 4 years.

[vietboy]

We our the government. Why shouldn't we trust ourselves?
Since you ask, here are some government mistakes and crimes to consider...

-the original sin, slavery
-untold civil rights violations
-the shameful response to Katrina
-debasing the currency with inflation
-warmongering abroad
-government waste and abuse of power

Yeah, I hear you. You're the government and you're telling us, "Trust me, I'm good." LOL.

Now, sell me some insurance, the national-health kind...

[SarahG]

If it really bothers you so much please move to europe.

Thank you for inviting us to leave our country. Smooth move. Who else is known for that maneuver? I'm trying to think. When was I last invited to move back to Africa.

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

The New HA Definition of a Patriot:

pa*tri&ot

Noun

1 A person who leaves their country once that country is prepared to violate its principles in the name of appeasing political factions.

Not to be confused with:

Traitor (trai*tor)

1. a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors

YES this post is sarcasm, don't take it seriously

[trish]

vietboy says:


Since you ask, here are some government mistakes and crimes to consider...

-the original sin, slavery
-untold civil rights violations
-the shameful response to Katrina
-debasing the currency with inflation
-warmongering abroad
-government waste and abuse of power


In the U.S. the practice of slavery was ended by the government…of the people by the people and for the people. The practice was maintained by those who didn’t believe government had any business telling people how they should run THEIR plantations.

It’s the Justice System (branch of the government…of the people by the people and for the people) that has been the main defender (until the recent neocon appointments) of minority rights in the U.S.

Bush put in charge of every government agency ideologues who basic premise is “government should not be in the business of doing what this agency does.” The shameful response to Katrina was the response of those who didn’t believe government should be in the business of responding to natural disasters.

The banking business was deregulated. Now yes, we have an economic debacle.

People have been banding together and raiding the village downriver for as long as there have been people. Sad, but true. Ron Paul won’t change that. True, Ron Paul and Obama voted against the war in Iraq. McCain is all for it.

There is also private waste of the commons and abuse of private power. We have absolutely no leverage (except through government) on those who wield private power for profit while despoiling our public resources.

[Felicia Katt]

maybe you should study U.S. politics before you speak on it...Obama is one of the most far left Democrats in the country, and his wife might be even worse...He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Ronald Reagan!
Did you get a purple mustache drinking that Kool Aid on how liberal Obama is? :)
Its true that the conservative magazine, the National Journal ranked Obama in 2007 as the most liberal senator. They did the same for Kerry in 2004. But their methodology is highly suspect and deeply flawed. Previously Obama ranked 16th and 10th on National Journal's "most liberal" list. A separate and more elaborate ranking system, developed by highly regarded political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole, found him to be the 11th most liberal senator in 2007 and 21st most liberal in the previous Congress.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=08c25e0a-9b88-49a6-97f5-45114f3fff28
And according to the VoteView system, a more comprehensive and objective mathematical model that analyzes all roll call votes , Obama was tied for 10th most-progressive senator, while Clinton was tied for 19th.

As a Chicago Tribune columnist recently pointed out, the National Journal’s ranking system doesn’t make much sense to people who follow politics. “It’s hard to believe [Obama]’s really more liberal than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders,”

Obama is a liberal leaning centrist, but he is far from the most liberal senator. The National Journal rankings are skewed by the number of votes made vs missed. To give you an idea of how badly, since McCain missed so many votes, he is not even ranked at all by the same study. But if the study was accurate, it wouldn't be as useful to the Republicans—and therefore wouldn’t give National Journal as much free publicity and you wouldn't be citing to it indirectly but wrongly here.

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for it
Some Americans want to be permanent wards of the state, get coddled and suck the government teat from cradle to grave. Some Americans have no ambition other than to stick their faces in the community trough and eat on someone else's dime.


Don't be so hard on McCain, its not his fault he has never ever been in the private sector, or left his disabled wife to dine very well on her billions of dimes LOL

FK

[Felicia Katt]

maybe you should study U.S. politics before you speak on it...Obama is one of the most far left Democrats in the country, and his wife might be even worse...He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Ronald Reagan!
Did you get a purple mustache drinking that Kool Aid on how liberal Obama is? :)


did you miss Statistics 101 in college? you can make the stats say anything you want them to...so just because you claim those other studies are "more accurate" doesn't make them so...

how about instead of speaking of Obama's leanings, name some of the actual change he has been responsible for, other than the blanket statements and rhetoric that he and all of his supporters espouse...

can we get a man elected to the most important position in the world without knowing anything about him? YES, WE CAN!!!!
I took Statistics 101, but apparently the National Review didn't. They were the ones who did the flawed listings in 2004 and 2008 where the Most Liberal labels were manipulated and manufactured to fit the Democratic nominees. I am not the one "saying" the studies are flawed, political experts and political scientists are. Since their numbers correspond to what the NR's were BEFORE Obama became the nominee, their accuracy is not in question. If you can find a single source to call this into doubt, do so. Because without substantiation, your post was the kind of blanket statement and empty rhetoric you are now claiming to decry.

FK

[GinX]

maybe you should study U.S. politics before you speak on it...Obama is one of the most far left Democrats in the country, and his wife might be even worse...He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Ronald Reagan!
Did you get a purple mustache drinking that Kool Aid on how liberal Obama is? :)


did you miss Statistics 101 in college? you can make the stats say anything you want them to...so just because you claim those other studies are "more accurate" doesn't make them so...

how about instead of speaking of Obama's leanings, name some of the actual change he has been responsible for, other than the blanket statements and rhetoric that he and all of his supporters espouse...

can we get a man elected to the most important position in the world without knowing anything about him? YES, WE CAN!!!!



When did the President of The U.S. become the most important position in the world?

[GinX]

When did the President of The U.S. become the most important position in the world?

.................................................



are you serious? can you name one position of more power, influence, and importance?

Yeah...the guys that bankroll him into office and help him decide what his policies are going to be.

[Felicia Katt]

Don't be so hard on McCain, its not his fault he has never ever been in the private sector, or left his disabled wife to dine very well on her billions of dimes LOL

FK
you sound real ignorant right now...he was stuck in the TORTURE SECTOR of North Vietnam for over 5 years, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
Since he mentions it in every other sentence, how could anyone not know everything about that LOL But, unless he was getting a paycheck from Hanoi while he was a POW. the fact remains that McCain has never, ever done anything in the private sector. Since he was a child, until today, he has only suckled at the government teat, and the only reason he is so rich and privlieged now that he can forget how many homes he owns or what kinds of cars he drives is that he does adultery better than most.

McCain may want us to ignore all his failings, as apparently you do too, but being a POW is not a get out jail card for everything else in this election. McCain is risking the honor of his service and sacrifice by constantly playing that card, rather than addressing criticisms on their merits. And unless you were a POW too, why didn't you respond with some facts on his behalf?

FK
PS, as far as your off the wall, vaguely threatening question about my employment and taxes, its none of your business but I am legitimate. Are you? LOL

[GinX]

umm, sure buddy...how about the Illuminati, the Majestic 12, His Highness the Omnipotent Krill, etc....

You know, I've noticed that most people who reply like that are mostly people who think that any time you question an elected official's power or influence, then you MUST be some conspiracy nut.

Did I say it was some inane conspiracy theory or dark, hidden agenda as you are trying to fallaciously make it appear that I did? Nope. You seem to think I am intimating that the office of the President is somehow part of some conspiratorial network out to rule the world behind the scenes.

I merely point out that the favor network has been a part of American politics-hell, politics in general-since it's inception. There is no conspiracy or hidden agenda behind it...it's business as usual. You think the President pays for his campaigns out of his own pocket and charitable donations? Don't be so naive. It's just a simple transaction...we'll put money into your campaign, but if you win the office, we want a favor back...simple as that. The guy who wants to be President needs those individuals or businesses more than they need him...it's a simple matter of dollars.

That's why I asked the initial question...yes, the President of the U.S. does hold a lot of influence and political power, but the only way to get there is to broker deals and make concessions, specifically from those people/businesses/organizations that you need monetary support from. This is Politics 101, buddy...you want something, you gotta give something.

[vietboy]

In the U.S. the practice of slavery was ended by the government…of the people by the people and for the people. The practice was maintained by those who didn’t believe government had any business telling people how they should run THEIR plantations.
This platitude proves nothing. Government still screwed up by calling blacks 1/3 of a person and enabling crimes against them. The union government did not even prosecute the war with the objective of ending slavery, and the opposing confederate government was nonetheless a government.


It’s the Justice System (branch of the government…of the people by the people and for the people) that has been the main defender (until the recent neocon appointments) of minority rights in the U.S.
Don't fool yourself. Throughout US history, the American Justice System has committed many, many crimes against minorities.


Bush put in charge of every government agency ideologues who basic premise is “government should not be in the business of doing what this agency does.” The shameful response to Katrina was the response of those who didn’t believe government should be in the business of responding to natural disasters.
Partisan finger-pointing does not restore faith in government.


The banking business was deregulated. Now yes, we have an economic debacle.
It's always the opposing party's fault.


People have been banding together and raiding the village downriver for as long as there have been people. Sad, but true. Ron Paul won’t change that. True, Ron Paul and Obama voted against the war in Iraq. McCain is all for it.
Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. But you are the one who trusts the government.


There is also private waste of the commons and abuse of private power. We have absolutely no leverage (except through government) on those who wield private power for profit while despoiling our public resources.
How convenient not to acknowlege those who wield public power for profit while despoiling private lives. American governments have brutalized minorities for hundreds of years; I'm not about to assume anything better now.

For every weak attempt at rationalizing why government has screwed up, a new example could be quoted in defense of, or to impugn, government.

The reality is that government is necessary, but capable of great harm. I think there is great shame in partisan defenses of government errors, and great folly in placing faith in something that has hurt so many.

Even when government's goals are justice and beneficence, government's track record requires that any government's actions be judged with suspicion.

[peggygee]

Ah, Peggy. You are a breath of fresh air. Always, the voice of reason and civility. Thanks for posting the chart.


No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, or who you plan to vote for,
I strongly encourage you to examine this chart which explains where your
tax dollars go.


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/magi43/taxes7x5.jpg

Click here for the enlarged version (http://www.grooveking.com/images/taxes.jpg)



Cool chart, Peggy. I'm surprised the military spends 1.39 billion on drones, not that I'm complaining, but that kind of money buys a lot of drones. What the hell are they doing with all of them (other then not finding Osama Bin Laden)? The way things are in Minneapolis right now, half of them are probably here. There certainly are more then enough helicopters and police prowling around at the moment.

:what

Thank you both. :wink:

Sorry, it took me so long to respond.

I was going line, by line, to check for government waste, like
President Obama says he will do.

I didn't see those welfare cheats the Republicans on the board
were talking about.

But I did see trillions of dollar$ going to defense.

[tubgirl]

Well, no thank you. I think I'll stay here and fight for more just laws and government sponsored health-care.

how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for it
Some Americans want to be permanent wards of the state, get coddled and suck the government teat from cradle to grave. Some Americans have no ambition other than to stick their faces in the community trough and eat on someone else's dime.


Don't be so hard on McCain, its not his fault he has never ever been in the private sector, or left his disabled wife to dine very well on her billions of dimes LOL

FK

what a horrible post....

[Stoked]

maybe you should study U.S. politics before you speak on it...Obama is one of the most far left Democrats in the country, and his wife might be even worse...He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Ronald Reagan!
Did you get a purple mustache drinking that Kool Aid on how liberal Obama is? :)


did you miss Statistics 101 in college? you can make the stats say anything you want them to...so just because you claim those other studies are "more accurate" doesn't make them so...

how about instead of speaking of Obama's leanings, name some of the actual change he has been responsible for, other than the blanket statements and rhetoric that he and all of his supporters espouse...

can we get a man elected to the most important position in the world without knowing anything about him? YES, WE CAN!!!!
I took Statistics 101, but apparently the National Review didn't. They were the ones who did the flawed listings in 2004 and 2008 where the Most Liberal labels were manipulated and manufactured to fit the Democratic nominees. I am not the one "saying" the studies are flawed, political experts and political scientists are. Since their numbers correspond to what the NR's were BEFORE Obama became the nominee, their accuracy is not in question. If you can find a single source to call this into doubt, do so. Because without substantiation, your post was the kind of blanket statement and empty rhetoric you are now claiming to decry.

FK

While your political experts' " interpretation" of the data probably cannot be disputed... we can dispute the validity of the input data concerning the results.. ie, how many role call votes did Obama miss, and exactly which role call questions did he not respond to compared to other Senators who did. What were the issues, etc.

As you can see, the results you offer as proof he is not the most liberal, are suspect. There are so many ways to skew results.

[Stoked]

... how many role call votes did Obama miss, and exactly which role call questions did he not respond to compared to other Senators who did. What were the issues, etc.

As you can see, the results you offer as proof he is not the most liberal, are suspect. There are so many ways to skew results.

Missed roll call votes in the 110h Congress (From The Washington Post)

McCain: 63.8%

Obama: 45.5%

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Holy Crap, Braveman, you are like a stalker. Leave me alone, I really dont have time to address all your IDIOTIC responses attempting to transform my posts.

My response to Ms. Felicia Katt was regarding how the analysis of data can be skewed by the data that was input.

On top of that you farthead, we were talking about in the SENATE, not Congress.

But once again, if you want to use your data, you prove my point. Assuming Obama's missed voting record in the senate is consistent( i believe he had a higher voting rate though) the full picture of Obama cannot be measured because he was absent 45.5%.

Stay on topic, or start a new thread, but don't parse my posts to change the subject we are discussing.

[trish]

vietboy (who preaches against platitudes) says:

The reality is that government is necessary, but capable of great harm.

True, it's a tautology that government is necessary: because government is just the way a society organizes various aspects of the public life. There are tribal governments and complex industrial nation states. Governments are capable of great harm because people can organize to cause great harm. But people, and therefore governments, can organize to do great good too. It's not a platitude that, in the U.S., government put an end to slavery. Neither is it a platitude that in the U.S. it was people in the guise of government that inoculated a nation full of children and stopped polio in it's tracks.

Sure, people CAN do great harm. But that's not a reason to avoid public projects that have the potential for considerable good. Besides, I really don't believe it's that potential for harm that gives you pause. What libertarians most hate is the fact that they are expected to put selfishness aside and help out sometimes.

[Stoked]

You are right, I had a brain fart of my own.
However, this message I received in my private email from you was very nice. Dont you think everyone deserves to see it?

Inbox :: Message
From: braveman
To: Stoked
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:44 pm
Subject: The Senate is part of Congress you stupid mother fucker
Go back to looking at cock pics. Let the adults discuss politics.

"The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both senators and representatives are chosen through direct election."

[TrueBeauty TS]

That's the best you can do? Calling people stupid. You are really pathetic. I almost feel for you, almost. Walk away? Yea, right. You may be a "beauty" on the outside, but you are really ugly on the inside. Please go away, let those who can disagree and remain civil, carry on with our conversation.



And I stand by my statement. You really are stupid. That's not name calling, that's a point of fact.

You avoided the issues because you knew you were wrong and have to resort to name calling and race baiting. Typical. :smh

You dug yourself into a hole. Now just walk away.

Just walk away....


.


Keep dodging the issues.

Your mother should have aborted you. The fact is, the world would indeed be a better place without you. You are nothing but a drain on society. You contribute nothing. That is not name calling, that's a true observation based on your posts here.

You keep saying how civil you are, but you are anything but civil. I don't even think you know the meaning of that word. All you do is attack, name call and play the race card. So typical of one who has no intellect, no points to debate, and so has to resort to childish tactics.

I have been civil with you from the start. And yet you attack instead of debating the issues.

The fact is, you are a horrible human being. You are disfigured on the inside and out. You have nothing of worth in your life. You are not loved and you are unable to love.

That's a terrible way to go through life. Are you sure it's worth it for you?

If only you could learn to be a decent person, to act in a civil manner. To learn to read and debate the issues instead of name calling.

:smh


.

[Stoked]

That's the best you can do? Calling people stupid. You are really pathetic. I almost feel for you, almost. Walk away? Yea, right. You may be a "beauty" on the outside, but you are really ugly on the inside. Please go away, let those who can disagree and remain civil, carry on with our conversation.



And I stand by my statement. You really are stupid. That's not name calling, that's a point of fact.

You avoided the issues because you knew you were wrong and have to resort to name calling and race baiting. Typical. :smh

You dug yourself into a hole. Now just walk away.

Just walk away....


.


Keep dodging the issues.

Your mother should have aborted you. The fact is, the world would indeed be a better place without you. You are nothing but a drain on society. You contribute nothing. That is not name calling, that's a true observation based on your posts here.

You keep saying how civil you are, but you are anything but civil. I don't even think you know the meaning of that word. All you do is attack, name call and play the race card. So typical of one who has no intellect, no points to debate, and so has to resort to childish tactics.

I have been civil with you from the start. And yet you attack instead of debating the issues.

The fact is, you are a horrible human being. You are disfigured on the inside and out. You have nothing of worth in your life. You are not loved and you are unable to love.

That's a terrible way to go through life. Are you sure it's worth it for you?

If only you could learn to be a decent person, to act in a civil manner. To learn to read and debate the issues instead of name calling.

:smh


.

Damn TBTS, straight talk like that is gettin' me all worked up!

[TrueBeauty TS]

My mother should have aborted me? Now that's not very nice. You should ask your parents what they think of their little boy, you, becoming a crossdresser.

You are not a very nice man. I may not be perfect, but at least I know what I am. Now go and tuck that penis between your legs and go out and service some men.

I tried to be civil, but you clearly do not understand that. You could have left it alone. Now the gloves are off. Bring it on DUDE.




That's how you try to be civil? Once again you proved my point. You don't know the meaning of the word.

I may not be a "nice" man, but I'm more of a man than you! And my parents think I'm the prettiest crossdresser they've ever seen. So there. lol

And how many times now have you said you were "done with me"? 5? 6? 8? 10?

And stop PMing me crying and whining. Grow a set, will you?

I'm being civil with you but you still do the name calling. Unbelieveable.

Since you know what you are, go back to sucking dicks through a glory hole, faggot. You have one more day left of the holiday. Make the most of it.


:lol:


.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Damn TBTS, straight talk like that is gettin' me all worked up!


LOL, thanks! Glad I could help! I'm just telling it like it is. Keeping it real.

:lol:

.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Listen dude. I was as civil as could be. You kept on insulting me. You even felt the need to mention my mother. So now the gloves are off man. Bring it on sucker. now be a nice boy and go away. Like I said, I can keep this up as long as you can. Have a nice weekend Mr.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

You dumb faggot. You didn't even write anything new. Even your mother is ashamed of you.

Now I'm tired of being civil with you. Here I am being totally civil and you keep name calling. If you keep it up, I'm not going to be civil with you any more.

Oh well.... keep posting. It's a good thing you don't need your hands when you are sucking mens dicks through a glory hole. You can multi-task.

:lol:

.

[TrueBeauty TS]

Come again dude? If you're sleeping, why do you keep on answering man? Come one tough guy. If you run at the mouth, in real life, like you do on this board, I would not be surprised if you get your ass handed to you.

What part of I've stopped being civil to you do you not understand man? Wipe the semen out of your eyes if you can't see.




Listen dude. I was as civil as could be. You kept on insulting me. You even felt the need to mention my mother. So now the gloves are off man. Bring it on sucker. now be a nice boy and go away. Like I said, I can keep this up as long as you can. Have a nice weekend Mr.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

You dumb faggot. You didn't even write anything new. Even your mother is ashamed of you.

Now I'm tired of being civil with you. Here I am being totally civil and you keep name calling. If you keep it up, I'm not going to be civil with you any more.

Oh well.... keep posting. It's a good thing you don't need your hands when you are sucking mens dicks through a glory hole. You can multi-task.

:lol:

.


So you've finally melted down, eh? Going back editing your posts, sending PMs, and repeating the same old stuff.

Boring........

Come on, Faggot. Use that little pea brain of yours, pick your knuckles up off the floor, take the dicks out of your mouth & ass and think of something original.

You don't even have any morals or ethics. You claim to be civil, but in truth, you are just an animal.

You poor, dumb, faggot.

:smh


.

[TrueBeauty TS]

From: braveman
To: TrueBeauty TS
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:57 pm
Subject: fuck you and your mother
see I too can be nasty. I'll pm you as much as I want. You started it, I'm ready to finish it dude.


:roll:

.

[TrueBeauty TS]

From: braveman
To: TrueBeauty TS
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:04 am
Subject: fuck you again
just sayin.




:jerkoff

[TrueBeauty TS]

So..... anytime the mods want to delete/lock this thread. I'm ready.

Braveman isn't going to say anything new.



:roll:


.

[TrueBeauty TS]

From: braveman
To: TrueBeauty TS
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:25 am
Subject: aw, he posts my pms on the thread
aw, post away cock sucker, post away.

here post this

Mr. TrueBeauty is an angry man.



:smh

[TrueBeauty TS]

Nope, not melted down dude. Now I'm just giving you a bit of your own nasty medicine. Aw, and you post my pms. I got more of those. feel free to post them my man.

There you go calling me a faggot again. Again, you are the one who sucks dicks and takes cocks up the ass. Why don't you tell us how that feels, or should we ask your father?




Um.... yeah. I'd say you've melted down into the hot shitty mess that you are. I'm tired of you just copying everything I say. Think for yourself for once.

And don't be trying to act like you're "all man". If you didn't crave a cock in your mouth and ass, you wouldn't be here. And your deadbeat, no show dad wouldn't be here too!!! LOL


Like I said..... this topic is off the tracks. Put a fork in it, it's done.



:deadhorse


.

[TrueBeauty TS]

From: braveman
To: TrueBeauty TS
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:35 am
Subject: :smh
?

that's it? no more insults about my parentage? no more calling me a faggot? Aw, I'm disappointed in you Mr. Man.




:roll:

[Stoked]

Buddy, you are the one who wears dresses and takes cocks up his ass. Remember that.



Ummm. Braveman? just exactly what are you doing here if not wanting to suck dick and take cock up YOUR ass?? I mean, this is a Transgendered community... most of the girls here have a penis.
Or are you just here for the conversation?

No. I am wrong again... you are calling out ALL the girls for being born genetically men. It is a reminder to yourself that the dick you want to suck and have up your ass, belongs to a male. So... since you need to remind yourself that the girls they are really men, it follows that you want your association with these girls to be as if they are men.

That is seriously fucked up. Maybe you just are not comfortable being gay.

Just go find a man and leave the girls alone. You have insulted many with the things you have said to TBTG

Furthermore, you really do owe her an apology.. you crossed the line.

[Tomfurbs]

[quote="SarahG"]

Do you really expect in today's America, if we had NHS tomorrow, to properly care for patients who are trans, gay, have stds, or care about their reproductive rights?

I have stated this in the past and it best needs repeating:

[quote="SarahG"]

The point is, if you did have an NHS, the staff would be subject to National laws, not state ones, which would be more liberal and anti-discriminatory. Therefore if some crazy right-wing doc gave a poor standard of care or even refused to treat a GLBT patient, he would be struck from the register.

An NHS-style health care system would actually afford more protection to minorities.

[Stoked]

[quote="braveman"]
And no, I don't suck cock or take it up my ass. Good for you if you do. Go at it champ.

LMFAO... post of the day!!!

Seriously Dude.... just exactly why are you here on HungAngels? You just want to look at one?

[TrueBeauty TS]

C'mon dude. You were so stoked to hurl insults. You can do better than emoticons. :roll:


From: braveman
To: TrueBeauty TS
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:35 am
Subject: :smh
?

that's it? no more insults about my parentage? no more calling me a faggot? Aw, I'm disappointed in you Mr. Man.




I'm not letting you copy my lines anymore, douchebag. You're such a dumbshit you can't even think up your own inslults.

Maybe one day you will learn to be a real man. But right now you are a pathetic, closet faggot. Yeah, you don't like cock. But you're here on this board 24/7. Dude, you are craving cock so much you're about to explode. Why don't you go out to some truckstop and get some. See if it will finally calm you down. :roll:

You're one sick motherf*cker.


.

[Buzz]

I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

NEW YORK (1 Sept 2008) In a surprise announcement, the McCain campaign revealed today that Sarah and Todd Palin have announced that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter Bristol is pregnant. The couple said in a statement that Bristol will keep the baby.
Gee DarkThanos, now your conservative candidate's daughter has something in common with all those "lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5" children that you gives you nightmares: they started breeding when they hadn't even finished high school yet. In fact, Bristol Palin has even dropped out of high school for the past 5 months. Now for sure she won't finish on time, if at all. Young pregnancy and early withdrawal from education are common tragedies in the lives of many mothers who receive government aid. They are not the "welfare queens" you imagine.

Even before her child can walk, it will join her mother and father in a life of dependency by receiving a ~$2000 per person check from the Alaskan government. That is the current yearly individual dividend from the state's fund for residents, which comes from a tax on oil companies operating in the state. This is in addition to the $1000 federal child tax credit that her parents will receive, just for having a child.

Those lazy Alaskans...they have no incentive to educate themselves and work, but instead just breed and live off your hard work, right? Can you vote for a VP candidate who won't do anything to stop such socialism? And if you feel that gas prices are too high, wouldn't it be fastest to just eliminate the tax on the oil companies in Alaska? Then the oil companies would lower their prices to you, right? Or is the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend a giant wealth redistribution scheme (http://www.unternimm-die-zukunft.de/Ausgewaehlte_Texte/englisch/The_Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Dividend_An_Experiment_i n_Wealth_Distribution.pdf)?

[marissaazts]

marissaazts suggests:
how about we all just take personal responsibility when it comes to our own care and not force others to pay for itDo you think that the money you pay to the insurance company (if you're fortunate enough to have coverage) is enough to actually pay for a prolonged stay in the hospital? Do you think YOUR payments are sufficient to cover radiation therapy and other treatments you might require were you discovered to have cancer? Of course you don't. It's your payments and the payments of hundreds of thousands of other people who have been lucky enough never to have need help which would pay those bills. No one who needs the advances of modern medicene can possibly pay for their own treatments and surgeries. Somebody is paying for you whether you like it or not. As far as personal responsibility goes, government sponsored health-care is no different than private: the idea is that we all pay in and we all look after each other. The lucky ones are the one who never needed to pay at all. I favor government sponsored health because it will cover more people and its been proven to work very well in Canada, Great Britian, France and elsewhere in western Europe. Let's have a little mutual responsibility as well as personal. Remember it was Cain who asked "Am I my brother's keeper?"

i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket and i have no ins. so no i do not wish to pay for others poor choices or poor health

oh and for the religous part of your comment i am an atheist and dont believe in those fairy tales either

[Buzz]

wow, ANOTHER witless wonder with reading deficiencies!

how many times must one state and restate who they do and don't vote for before it begins to sink in?

Actually I don't see where you've said who you are voting for, but instead things like


Obama is one of the most far left Democrats in the country, and his wife might be even worse...He makes Nancy Pelosi look like Ronald Reagan!
which imply that you won't be voting Democratic this election, after having done so in 2000 and 2004. Why not just say that you will vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr, and defend your choice. That's OK! Instead you always criticize other candidates using labels, without proposing your own.

So, what do you think about Alaskan "socialism"?

[SarahG]

The point is, if you did have an NHS, the staff would be subject to National laws, not state ones, which would be more liberal and anti-discriminatory. Therefore if some crazy right-wing doc gave a poor standard of care or even refused to treat a GLBT patient, he would be struck from the register.

You seem to be far more optimistic on this issue than I am. Like, I believe it was you (if not correct me, my memory is not perfect) who said that our country has a very large, very powerful christian fanatical population that constitutes a major faction in American political power distribution (I am paraphrasing here- not a direct quote).

It would at best be a gamble to hope that they'd "be struck from the register" especially if it were a national program.

Why? Because what is covered, and how well things are covered would change depending on which party is in control. You really expect stuff like proper reproductive rights, std treatments, and contraceptive to be properly distributed in a NHS system when there is a right winger president & right wing congress?

Unless a whole bunch of people die off in the Supreme Court we already have a conservative court thanks to Bush- that right there gives them a solid foundation from which to prevent a NHS system from covering these "social issues" - and since it would be the only game in town, if they don't cover it then suddenly access to all these "social issue treatments" would be greatly divided based on SEC standing in an America where discrimination against trans citizens is largely legal, largely ignored, and widespread (even if some in this thread would claim otherwise).

These treatments are badly enough split along SEC lines here today (w/out NHS), and if Canada is any case study to use for trans health care, NHS will make that even more divisive.

NHS in Canada for trans health care will pay for some treatments (srs, hrt) if you play their games, but they're not ethical games (Canadian health care still greatly follows Blanchard ideologies- I am assuming to keep this short you know who this asshat is and what his views are). Since you have to deal with this blachard BULLSHIT (and it is bullshit), the trans patient is often best off not going the Canadian NHS route for their treatments... which means going into private health care out of pocket, IF they can afford it.

The one thing I like about American health care, as a trans patient, is being able to go somewhere else when I run into people in the medical community who are these types of asshats, and when those asshats get into policymaking positions their power (and damage) is limited in scope because I can just go to another practice.

[trish]

i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket

So far. I certainly hope you will always be able to continue to pay them as well. Good health to you...without insurance, no matter how affluent you are, you'll need it.

[hippifried]

i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket and i have no ins. so no i do not wish to pay for others poor choices or poor health
Well I don't know how old or healthy you are, & that all sounds very Ron Paul rugged individualist & all, but I hope you realize that the only people who ever pay full retail price for healthcare are those who pay out of pocket.

[yodajazz]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

Sorry, I got to the party very late, but I have always wondered the same thing. I just started reading this thread, so maybe the mystery will be solved within. When I was new to this board, someone ask the same question. The reigning conservative was Guyone. His answer was just to call people names, like “Marxists” without even addressing the question.

I have noticed this a lot from several right wingers. They throw around terms like; ultra liberal, socialist, and a long list of others, without even talking about any specific issues. And if bring a specific issue, like almost 2 million Americans file bankruptcy every year, because they cannot pay medical bills, they often go ballistic and never address the specific issue, or try to change to one of the pet issues. I did notice that when someone could not hold their own in a discussion with Allanah, they attacked her occupation instead.

I am beginning to wonder if it is some sort of mind control, going here, where they cannot use reasoning, but only react and use pre-programmed code words.

I am very proud of Allanah for raising her political voice, even though she never answered my e-mail.

[yodajazz]

Poor people on welfare are an easy punching bag. For the last 30 years the right wing has used racist imagery and played on white peoples prejudices about lazy welfare queens, while simultaneously robbing the American public of trillions of dollars. Corporate welfare, the kind of welfare that Republicans have no problem with because it benefits those who already have wealth and power; drastically outweighs public assistance programs. The US is the most miserly nation in the developed world when it comes to caring for its indigent. Instead of talking about the tremendous wealth gap that exists, and how to lessen it, the media and politicians blame the impoverished.

Allanah brought up a simple question, how people can claim to love a group of people and then support policies that harm us?

:claps :claps :claps Yes, yes, yes!

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield held a press conference where he said that his department had spent 2.5 TRILLION dollars that it could not be accounted for. I read where there 800 cases of fraud pending, where contractors are accused of overcharging the goverment. The goverment has been able to collect over 14 million dollars, winning fraud cases, since Bush has been in office.

[marissaazts]

i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket and i have no ins. so no i do not wish to pay for others poor choices or poor health
Well I don't know how old or healthy you are, & that all sounds very Ron Paul rugged individualist & all, but I hope you realize that the only people who ever pay full retail price for healthcare are those who pay out of pocket.


actually thatis false my sig other had an emergency last summer and the bill for the er was $3800 and if we paid with in a week it was $750

i take blood thinners because im alergic to asprin and i am prone to clotting so w/hormones and such and i have a monthly visit to be tested for my inr it was $75 charge to ins and being cash pay its $30

[trish]

Marissaazts exclaims:
i do not wish to pay for others ... poor health

and explains
i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket

So your position is: things are just la dee dah for me, so screw everybody else.

An argument of equivalent logical merit and higher moral merit is:

Let's pass universal health care, make it the law that everybody contributes and screw the whiners.

[hippifried]

i actually pay all of my medical bills out of my own pocket and i have no ins. so no i do not wish to pay for others poor choices or poor health
Well I don't know how old or healthy you are, & that all sounds very Ron Paul rugged individualist & all, but I hope you realize that the only people who ever pay full retail price for healthcare are those who pay out of pocket.


actually thatis false my sig other had an emergency last summer and the bill for the er was $3800 and if we paid with in a week it was $750

i take blood thinners because im alergic to asprin and i am prone to clotting so w/hormones and such and i have a monthly visit to be tested for my inr it was $75 charge to ins and being cash pay its $30
You don't get it. What's billed & what's paid are 2 entirely different things. That's part of the scam of the healthcare industry. All initial billings are full retail. All payers in the industry, HMOs, PPOs, medicare, Medicaid, etc..., have their own price schedules. They pay what their chart says they pay & the difference is written off as a loss or uncollectable debt. Think about it. The hospital offered you an ER visit at half price if you just pay it. Do you really think that Blue Cross pays anything even close to what you paid? It's like a store that doubles its prices then puts the old stickers back on with a sign that says 50% off. The industry is it's losing its ass on paper & uses that to justify continuous increases. If they were really losing money, you'd be able to walk into a hospital someplace without having to dodge the construction on the new wing.

The whole system is totally out of hand. There's doctors who won't even accept cash nowadays. The whole system is run by insurance companies & they've botched it. It's not even healthcare anymore. It's just disease management. We should make healthcare part of the national infrastructure & concentrate on prevention. That's how you save money. Innoculations are cheaper than diseases & clinics are cheaper than ERs.

[SarahG]

You don't get it. What's billed & what's paid are 2 entirely different things. That's part of the scam of the healthcare industry. All initial billings are full retail. All payers in the industry, HMOs, PPOs, medicare, Medicaid, etc..., have their own price schedules. They pay what their chart says they pay & the difference is written off as a loss or uncollectable debt.


Flawless analysis IMHO, having briefly handled bookkeeping for a retired couple I find this, at least 5 years back (dunno how things change) is exactly how its done.

And if the patient has multiple health care plans (like retired people have have some kind of federal plan as their primary and something threw their pension/employer as secondary) it works like this:

Primary has a chart of what it thinks a procedure should cost, it looks at that chart and then depending on the plan pays a part of that, or all of that price- never any more than that.

If it does not pay all of what's "on the chart" the secondary kicks in and pays some or all of the reminder,

And then the individual pays whatever is left over, all in terms of that chart/database.

No one, not the individual with health care, or their health care providers, pays sticker price.

Yet someone walking in off the street w/out insurance? They pay full sticker price. They are the ONLY ones to do so.

Under our system this also makes procedures that don't get health care coverage, cheaper than they would be if they were sporadically covered. They don't use inflated sticker prices except for procedures that health care will usually pay. This is why plastic surgery is generally cheaper (for everyone) than a "medically necessary" procedure, the plastic surgeons know its being paid for in cash and try (like dentists used to do with braces) make it affordable, and easy to pay for (monthly payment plans, loans etc). Yet this is still moot point for people who can't afford said procedures either way however...

BTW, if you really wanna get a headache, consider this odd piece of trivia: Health care plans that employers "buy" for their employees ("buy" is a misleading term, the employees buy and pay for it- hence the deductions in your pay check!) come as packages/bundles with different clauses on what is/is not covered. The reason why trans health care is usually not covered for trans patients is because the standard bundles IN THE UNITED STATES, have trans health care excluded... and most employers just buy the policies without sitting down and altering them. Since trans employees and trans health care is such a minor issue for most employeers, the thought never occurs to them to have the policies altered to have this "thrown in"

Even more interesting is that in most cases, it won't cost the employer buying a policy a cent more to have trans health care included because the insurance company knows what small % we make up in the general population (especially in salary office jobs).



If they were really losing money, you'd be able to walk into a hospital someplace without having to dodge the construction on the new wing.

RELATED- the medical industry in the US likes to make it look like "stupid lawsuits" are causing the industry to lose money hand over fist. This is why the Bush admin tried(? forget if they succeeded) to limit how much of a payout you can get from malpractice lawsuits. I guess they think it should only be worth something like $200,000 if the DR amputates the wrong leg (leaving you leggless since the defective one will still have to go), or for a girl with cancer breastless (due to similar mistakes). I know whenever I get work of any kind done I sit down with a black sharpy and write all over myself so they know what they're doing, what side they're doing it to, and what drugs not to use on me (I've had enough surgeries that I consider myself more likely to eventually have a fuck up story like that).

The real reason why lawsuits occur isn't because of hot mcdonalds coffee, its because our medical industry makes a lot of fuck ups- cutting off the wrong parts of a body, killing people, using too much of certain drugs, sewing people up with towels or tools still inside them, I could go on and on and on.

So the drs want to get rid of (or limit) malpractice in order to get out of being accountable, while the insurance industry (that has enough of their own problems to justify a separate thread) price gouges under this faked "malpractice hysteria" Who pays for it in the end? Not the doctors or malpractice insurance providers....

[Buzz]

From an fascinating essay by a Wasilla resident
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
and in Time magazine this week
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Hmmm, guess what she would want to do with sites like this one?

[guyone]

What does this have to do with healthcare costs???

[yodajazz]

What does this have to do with healthcare costs???



Sorry, I got to the party very late, but I have always wondered the same thing. I just started reading this thread, so maybe the mystery will be solved within. When I was new to this board, someone asked the same question. The reigning conservative was Guyone. His answer was just to call people names, like “Marxists” without even addressing the question...



Move over you neo-con pretenders! Guyone is back in town to re-claim his crown, as the defender of conservative family values. God bless America!

Actually, your majesty, this thread is about an old question, you never answered about the apparent disconnect between supporting conservative issues and parties and being a member of a site which promotes alternative sexual lifestyles. Read Allanah's original post, sir.

I breathlessly await your answer.

[hangman]

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party. These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed.
I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

I'll try to explain. I am a Republican and I know no person who ever attended an anti-gay or anti-transgender rally. I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights, but I am sure that some Democrats do too. For some reason I really can't see unionized auto employees or dock workers marching in support of your cause.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

This site and other "alternative lifestyle" boards are titillating. I do get off on them. But, they have a limited place in my life. My life would not be very productive - meaning I wouldn't get alot of things accomplished - if I sat in front of the computer all day with my dick in my hand or even if met continuously with sex partner after sex partner.

[trish]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

[hangman]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

[trish]

It wouldn't be a SPECIAL right. It would merely say people can marry any one of any gender. That would apply to you and everyone else.

[hangman]

It wouldn't be a SPECIAL right. It would merely say people can marry any one of any gender. That would apply to you and everyone else.

The right to marry is not a Constitutional right, it is established by state law. Like I said, I am against changing a centuries-old definition, but I have no problem with a law that permits a "civil union" of a same sex couple.

[trish]

I'm not saying it's constitutional right, I'm merely contradicting your incorrect assessment that it would be a SPECIAL right.

[hangman]

Technically speaking when it comes to taxes, escorts really don't have to claim the money as it could be claimed as a gift. Financial gifts don't have to be claimed on your taxes, and I how do I know this? Because I went to school and am a certified tax consultant, and could work in that industry if I chose to.

I believe Allanah made very valid points in her conversation and her posts. One thing I've noticed about many of these boards is that whenever a transsexual steps outside of her box and shows she has any form of intelligence, many people try to put them away like pretty dolls that shouldn't speak what's on their minds and should just stand there for the world to gawk at.

We are intelligent, educated, individuals who are afforded many of the same rights as other americans, but not all. We have to fight to get what we want from a country that shouldn't make us have to do that.

"We The People" unfortunately doesn't stand for everyone in our country so if the LGBT Community sometimes seems like its angry, it's because we are. Imagine, some people can get married in this country 5 or 6 times and we can't even do it once. I don't see the logic in that.

So I have stepped outside of my box and I welcome your criticism. I don't always agree with other people's opinions, but I listen before I leap.

M

Meghan we have never met but I always admire your posts, talents, and the way you write. You always exude intelligence and I am always greatful when a fellow trans person steps outside the 'beauty' box to discuss revelant issues.

I completely agree with you of what is expected of us.

I have been critical of President Bush on my website since his election 8 years ago. I have always been very vocal about my political opinions and I used to get hate mail all the time for it.
"Go Back to sucking dick-because it's what you do best"- is one I recall fondly.

It is very important that we question the establishment that for the most part ignores us, and pushes policies that harm us. It's very important that we as trans women take a political stand because just being who we are is a challenge to the establishment.

It's is indeed sad when so many people just see you uss a sex object and just want us to remain that way-silent and convinient.

I am ladies people like you don't. :)

I have no idea whether you or any other escort reports the your escorting "gifts" or not. However, if you do not report your "gifts" as income and if the IRS seeks to collect the tax on the "gifts", plus interest and penalties, and perhaps charge you with criminal violation of the tax code, I am confident that Meghan's "gift" argument will not work. People have tried that argument, not with respect to escorting but with respect to the rendering of other services, and they have all lost.

[yodajazz]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

[hangman]

I see NOTHING wrong with a goverment that takes care, educates, and feeds it's people if need be.



I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...

That is a very backwards view of things and ofpeople who struggle to make ends meet.

Calling people who are poor, lazy, is an irresponsible and insensitive statement.



are you having problems reading tonight, dear? where did I call EVERY poor person lazy? I was using the prudent example of the MANY lazy welfare abusers out there...those who continue to have kids in order to reap the benefits...are you delusional enough to believe those people don't exist?

maybe you should take your millions of porn dollars and help those out...I'll pass...

There is no need to be condescending.

Of ocurse there are abusers of everything and those should be not be helped.

I have a very relevant story about health care in regard to my mother.

My mother had cancer about two years ago. She is in remission but the surgery and and radiation have led to a myriad of problems that are common after treatment.

She recently had an intestinal infection as a result of her treatment. My mother has private health insurance, with a $785 a month payment.

The anti biotic the doctor prescribed to her costs $1,500.

Yes, $1,500 for 90 pills.

The insurance would not cover the medicine because she had already used her $1000 a year prescription coverage.

They would not cover it, yet if she did not take it her infection would only worsen and she for sure would eventually need to be hospitalized.

Essentially she was shit out of luck if she did not have the $ to pay.
So I stepped in and paid for it.

Am I the only one that seems totally fucked to?

How can that be justified anywhere? How can medication be denied to people?

How exactly is that justifiable in the USA?

No, you are not the only one that thinks that medicine should be free. Many people think that. Of course, neither you nor the others stop to think that the medicine companies spend millions and millions in research to create medicines that work, and spend millions and millions researching medicines that don't work. If government limited the amount that could be charged, then the companies would cease their research and development, and medical advancements would grind to a halt.

You should be on your knees thanking the medical companies for the opportunity to purchase their medicine to keep your mother alive. Shouldn't you?

[SarahG]

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

In theory, you're entirely correct. In theory, as the document itself shows- there is nothing stipulating that any of the bill of rights et al be conditional based on whether or not someone is trans.

But there is a difference between theory & practice. Someone may have a right to (picking from random) due process, but that doesn't mean our country in every instance, respected due process rights.

It would be incredibly easy to argue that the constitutional rights of trans citizens are NOT respected by either state or federal governments. Case in point look at the way law enforcement handles cases where the victim is a tranny. You'd have to be mentally insane to believe trans citizens have in practice "equal protection under the law" especially since in many cases there are no protections.*

Then there is how the DOJ handles cases involving trans citizens. We already know the Bush admin was illegally using lgbt issues as dictating the hiring/firing/promotional practices at the DOJ to help ensure LGBT citizens DON'T get equal treatment from the justice department.





* Taking this a bit further- there are an almost infinite ways someone could show that equal protection does not exist for the trans citizen. Discrimination law prohibits employers for firing people in some areas/conditions for "being black" or "being female" or any number of other things.... and the system has routinely shown that when these laws exist they need to be universal.

Gender discrimination law prohibits an employer from firing someone "for being male" just as much as it prohibits that same employer from firing someone "for being female"... yet there is nothing to prevent an employer bound by these regulations from firing someone "because they're undergoing a transition"

An employer could flat out fully document that they're firing someone "for transitioning", and tell it to the employee during the exit interview with a smile on their faces... and there isn't anything that the employee can do about it for compensation.

This is anything but equal protection.



Now let's look at marriage law. Marriage status is used in BOTH the state and federal governments to impact how the government interacts with couples on ALL KINDS OF LEVELS. Its not just tax law here. It would take me all day to list all the times the feds or states care "if someone is legally married." And yet, using the constitutional right to equal protection (thats #14 btw in case you wanna look it up), we can see that the government's protections differ (aka are NOT equal) based on whether or not a given couple can legally marry.

I will give what I consider to be the most important differences here.

A couple with a legally standing marriage cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse because of confidentiality. Its about (if not more) difficult to compel a spouse to testify against the other party as it is to force a preacher, or lawyer to do so.

BUT, because some couples cannot be married under the law, some couples cannot claim spousal confidentiality. Let's say I am with a guy in a state where I cannot marry one, and I am married symbolically but not legally. Now, the state OR feds can come in- and force me to testify against my husband (in the example, I am not in such an arrangement ATM) and I cannot claim "confidentiality'

There you have it, two near bullet proof examples of how equal protection does not exist simply because of LGBT-aimed bigotry.

Do I really need to post more? I could.

[hippifried]

When you marry, your spouse becomes your next of kin. Everybody else, including parents, offspring, & siblings, gets once removed. Marriage is the personal choice of people to become next of kin to each other. No other definition has universal meaning. If it was about love, the contract wouldn't be breakable, & there would be clauses in the law to keep people from engaging in family mergers. Yet 90% or better of all marriage law is about how to breach the contract. If it was about children, licences wouldn't be issued to post-menopausal women. It's written into the rituals & religious texts: "...cleave only unto...", "...forsaking all others...", ", till death do you part...", & blah blah blah.

There's no other reason to get married really, & it's the only reason for the State to justify its involvement. It's a change in familial status that needs to be recorded. I'm not all that keen on the idea of state licencing. I'm even less enthusiastic about the fact that the contract is non-negotiable, written by a third party, & subject to change at the whim of the third party without notice to the principals. Doesn't matter anyway because nobody ever reads the contract. Vows at the altar mean jackshit & all the principals ever see is the licence certificate. Once you sign the licence, you've agreed to abide by the terms of the contract that you've never read & even your lawyer can't figure out, & you're not married till you sign the contract.

As far as I'm concerned, the government, at any level, should be relegated to recording the change of status & nothing else. They sure as hell shouldn't be interfering with people's choices of life partner/s. It's really none of their business who or even how many. The problem with this is that somebody still has to write the contract. I'm of the opinion that all principals should be required to negotiate their own contract & sign a form of fully informed consent in lieu of a state issued licence. What the hell. If you can't agree on what you want & expect out of the relationship, you probably shouldn't be getting married.

[hangman]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

[hangman]

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

In theory, you're entirely correct. In theory, as the document itself shows- there is nothing stipulating that any of the bill of rights et al be conditional based on whether or not someone is trans.

But there is a difference between theory & practice. Someone may have a right to (picking from random) due process, but that doesn't mean our country in every instance, respected due process rights.

It would be incredibly easy to argue that the constitutional rights of trans citizens are NOT respected by either state or federal governments. Case in point look at the way law enforcement handles cases where the victim is a tranny. You'd have to be mentally insane to believe trans citizens have in practice "equal protection under the law" especially since in many cases there are no protections.*

Then there is how the DOJ handles cases involving trans citizens. We already know the Bush admin was illegally using lgbt issues as dictating the hiring/firing/promotional practices at the DOJ to help ensure LGBT citizens DON'T get equal treatment from the justice department.





* Taking this a bit further- there are an almost infinite ways someone could show that equal protection does not exist for the trans citizen. Discrimination law prohibits employers for firing people in some areas/conditions for "being black" or "being female" or any number of other things.... and the system has routinely shown that when these laws exist they need to be universal.

Gender discrimination law prohibits an employer from firing someone "for being male" just as much as it prohibits that same employer from firing someone "for being female"... yet there is nothing to prevent an employer bound by these regulations from firing someone "because they're undergoing a transition"

An employer could flat out fully document that they're firing someone "for transitioning", and tell it to the employee during the exit interview with a smile on their faces... and there isn't anything that the employee can do about it for compensation.

This is anything but equal protection.



Now let's look at marriage law. Marriage status is used in BOTH the state and federal governments to impact how the government interacts with couples on ALL KINDS OF LEVELS. Its not just tax law here. It would take me all day to list all the times the feds or states care "if someone is legally married." And yet, using the constitutional right to equal protection (thats #14 btw in case you wanna look it up), we can see that the government's protections differ (aka are NOT equal) based on whether or not a given couple can legally marry.

I will give what I consider to be the most important differences here.

A couple with a legally standing marriage cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse because of confidentiality. Its about (if not more) difficult to compel a spouse to testify against the other party as it is to force a preacher, or lawyer to do so.

BUT, because some couples cannot be married under the law, some couples cannot claim spousal confidentiality. Let's say I am with a guy in a state where I cannot marry one, and I am married symbolically but not legally. Now, the state OR feds can come in- and force me to testify against my husband (in the example, I am not in such an arrangement ATM) and I cannot claim "confidentiality'

There you have it, two near bullet proof examples of how equal protection does not exist simply because of LGBT-aimed bigotry.

Do I really need to post more? I could.

Sorry, Sarah, but this is the real world. And, as much as I think ignorant people are ridiculous, I don't want it to be a purpose of government to make sure that everyone is nice to each other. People need to get a thicker thin and stop seeking to hold themselves out as victims.

[SarahG]

When you marry, your spouse becomes your next of kin. Everybody else, including parents, offspring, & siblings, gets once removed. Marriage is the personal choice of people to become next of kin to each other. No other definition has universal meaning. If it was about love, the contract wouldn't be breakable, & there would be clauses in the law to keep people from engaging in family mergers. Yet 90% or better of all marriage law is about how to breach the contract. If it was about children, licences wouldn't be issued to post-menopausal women. It's written into the rituals & religious texts: "...cleave only unto...", "...forsaking all others...", ", till death do you part...", & blah blah blah.

There's no other reason to get married really, & it's the only reason for the State to justify its involvement.


But if it were simply for establishing next of kin- then there is no point for having marriages, people could merely go out and make wills stipulating where they want their assets et al to go when they die.

Unless I am mistaken (which I will admit happens) I believe a married citizen can, in fact, leave their entire estate to some 3rd party, leaving their spouse high & dry.



It's a change in familial status that needs to be recorded. I'm not all that keen on the idea of state licencing. I'm even less enthusiastic about the fact that the contract is non-negotiable, written by a third party, & subject to change at the whim of the third party without notice to the principals. Doesn't matter anyway because nobody ever reads the contract. Vows at the altar mean jackshit & all the principals ever see is the licence certificate. Once you sign the licence, you've agreed to abide by the terms of the contract that you've never read & even your lawyer can't figure out, & you're not married till you sign the contract.

Agreed, and that's without getting into when marriages, what should be a natural right imho, are being used by govs as leverage to cause citizens to unnecessarily jump threw hoops solely for either raising money, or instituting reform, or data mining (i.e. the states that require having std tests to get the license). I think that in most cases all the marriage license is and originally was, was a way to raise funding for local governments, but when combined with eliminating common law marriages it does come off disconcerting... especially since there is no real benefit to the gov's hand in the picture.



Sorry, Sarah, but this is the real world. And, as much as I think ignorant people are ridiculous, I don't want it to be a purpose of government to make sure that everyone is nice to each other. People need to get a thicker thin and stop seeking to hold themselves out as victims.

YOU are the one who brought up constitutional law insofar as claiming that trans people have the same constitutional rights, which is all about theory. I also showed how "in real life" trans rights are not respected.

Hate to tell you this but in real life the government is supposed to treat everyone equally regardless how it impacts "feelings," and we see this time and time again.

We also see that time and time again it doesn't happen for trans people.

This isn't "to make someone feel nice"- that is complete nonsense (not attacking you, just saying how little that argument flies) especially when we are talking about issues like hippa-law, whether individuals in a LTR can be called to testify against the other, access to employers benefits, all that stuff.

Honestly, as far as trans issues go- I would care less about whether spouses can be forced to testify against each other, access to private health care, and medical records access AS LONG AS every couple is treated THE SAME. I am sure most people here are by now familiar that I am not advocating for hand outs- simply equal treatment. But there can be no equal treatment in these areas as long as some couples can marry while others cannot.

how is this for an argument: This is the real world, some couples should not be forbidden from being married simply to make the couples who can "feel good."

Especially in a system that claims its citizens have a natural and constitutional right TO EQUAL TREATMENT.

[SarahG]

now here's some food for thought regarding civil unions...

If civil unions are for all couples who do not met the "one xx girl, one xy guy" definition, then provided civil unions have all of the same benefits (see prior post)- for MOST people, gay's particularly- that works.

But for trans people, this creates a "we have given you accommodation so you have to use it" scenario in which, in order to be married & trans you have to use a "civil union."

This would do a number on stealth life, especially if there are differences between "civil unions" and "marriages." To give an example if someone is required to use the term "partner" instead of "husband," then that is going to out girls who for all extensive purposes, are in typical heterosexual relationships.

But if the choice is "no marriage rights" or "civil unions" (with all the same benefits AND disadvantages) then it is a no brainer.

Although I still want to know how that system would deal with someone who is not XX or XY, considering that our current usually exclusionary system has no idea how to handle it in some states. Littleton is still the law of the land in Texas, yet afaik there has never been a texas ruling for chromosomal abnormalities.

All of this talk is premature however if people are falsely believing that we already have equal treatment and there go have no reason to modify the system.

[hippifried]

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.
You left out "color, creed,& national origin". Those are also part of the Civil Rights Act. I believe your scenario would fall under "creed".

SarahG wrote:

But if it were simply for establishing next of kin- then there is no point for having marriages, people could merely go out and make wills stipulating where they want their assets et al to go when they die.
"Next of kin" isn't about wills. There's no law that says you owe your immediate family anything upon your death. People can & do write their wills any way they please. Once you're dead, what do you care about probate suits?

I think that in most cases all the marriage license is and originally was, was a way to raise funding for local governments, but when combined with eliminating common law marriages it does come off disconcerting... especially since there is no real benefit to the gov's hand in the picture.
Nah. The licence is cheap. It's just a recording fee. It covers handling & permanent storage of the public document. I don't really have a problem with keeping track of who's who. We keep records of births, deaths, adoptions, familial & name changes. It's basically just census data. The problem comes with the binding legal contract that comes with the licence & all the regulation over individual life choices. Based on what? We're back on this "I don't like that so you can't have it!" routine. The licencing procedure gives the state too much power to abuse. We already have laws that protect children from adult coersion, so aside from that, the only stipulation should be that the choice of someone's next of kin has to be another human being in order to be recognized & recorded. Sexual practices not only shouldn't be a factor, they shouldn't even be assumed based on the gender of the principals.

I'm up in the air about "civil unions". I've heard good arguments from all sides. Marriage is a civil union when it has anything to do with the state. The problem I have is in setting different parameters depending on who's unionizing. The government isn't allowed to discriminate, so if they're going to write the contract, it has to be exactly the same across the board.

[a994]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?


:claps

[SarahG]

"Next of kin" isn't about wills. There's no law that says you owe your immediate family anything upon your death. People can & do write their wills any way they please. Once you're dead, what do you care about probate suits?

You do have a good point there. But many of the ways next of kin can be important can be worked around using alternative legal documents. Depending on the state I could allow a bf to have access to my medical information in a crisis if my lawyer has the right waivers on file AFAIK, but- that's a lot of cost, hassle, and muddy legal water a straight couple can bypass simply by being married.


The problem comes with the binding legal contract that comes with the licence & all the regulation over individual life choices. Based on what? We're back on this "I don't like that so you can't have it!" routine. The licencing procedure gives the state too much power to abuse. We already have laws that protect children from adult coersion, so aside from that, the only stipulation should be that the choice of someone's next of kin has to be another human being in order to be recognized & recorded. Sexual practices not only shouldn't be a factor, they shouldn't even be assumed based on the gender of the principals.

I agree with you entirely here. The last line particularly, marriage is about sex as much as it is about fertility (that is to say: it isn't!). No one is gonna have their license revoked or refused simply because they are unable to have intercourse (regardless what the situation is behind that physical limitation).

[GinX]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

[hangman]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

I think you are wrong about an employer's right to fire an employee due the employee's political beliefs. Show me a case that says otherwise.

Based upon the rest of your comments I see that you don't know the extent of the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. Some reading should answer your questions.

[GinX]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.


You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

I think you are wrong about an employer's right to fire an employee due the employee's political beliefs. Show me a case that says otherwise.

Based upon the rest of your comments I see that you don't know the extent of the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. Some reading should answer your questions.


No reading for me is necessarry. Observe:

Most states EEOC have a list if what is called protected classes. This is the list which classifies the reasons you may NOT discriminate against someone:
* Race
* Color
* National origin
* Religion
* Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
* Disability: Physical or mental
* Age (40 and older)
* Citizenship status
* Marital status
* Sexual orientation
* Genetic information
* Gender
* AIDS/HIV
* Medical condition
* Political activities or affiliations

Notice the last one. Not every state has adopted this list of protected classes, but the states that have number in the majority. I obtained this list from the publication "The Manager's Legal Handbook", which is written by two attorneys, Lisa Guerin and Amy DelPo. Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions, I can tell I have had to attend more mandatory classes and lectures on discrimination than I care to admit. I can tell you firsthand that, no, you CANNOT fire someone simply on the basis of his or her political ties or affiliations.

It's simple pragmatism...discrimination is the singling someone out solely on the basis of his or her affiliation to a particular group. Trying to fire someone just because he is a Democrat would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone just because he is Jewish. That is the very essence of discrimination. The only possible way such a thing could happen would be if the employee willfully and purposely caused excessive disruption or damage...for example, if an employee, who, let's say works for Wal-Mart and who was a Republican locked himself in an office and started blaring out over the store's loudspeaker why no one should vote for Obama, then his excessive disruption would be grounds for termination and would not be considered discriminatory.

[vietboy]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions
I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

[GinX]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions
I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?

[hippifried]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions
I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?I know this is off topic.

Hey GinX,
I actually like you so far, but there's something about that post, coupled with the picture, that set something off in my head. I always have truble passing up a straight line anyway, & I'm biting my tongue real hard right now. While typing this, I've formulated a comedy routine that could easily go on for 20 minutes or more, & you're the brunt. I swear it's nothing personal, & I'm really trying to be good. So if, in the future, I end up losing control, I'd like to apologize in advance. :oops:

[GinX]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions
I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?I know this is off topic.

Hey GinX,
I actually like you so far, but there's something about that post, coupled with the picture, that set something off in my head. I always have truble passing up a straight line anyway, & I'm biting my tongue real hard right now. While typing this, I've formulated a comedy routine that could easily go on for 20 minutes or more, & you're the brunt. I swear it's nothing personal, & I'm really trying to be good. So if, in the future, I end up losing control, I'd like to apologize in advance. :oops:

Oh, that's alright...to tell the truth, everyone who has seen that picture thinks that I'm a mortician or some in fashion have job having to deal with corpses...I've also been asked if I was at a Halloween party when that picture was taken, so knock yourself out...if ya can't laugh at yourself, who are you going to laugh at, right?

[SarahG]

Oh, that's alright...to tell the truth, everyone who has seen that picture thinks that I'm a mortician or some in fashion have job having to deal with corpses...I've also been asked if I was at a Halloween party when that picture was taken, so knock yourself out...if ya can't laugh at yourself, who are you going to laugh at, right?


The mortician part makes sense because the background/backdrop does look like a lot of the funeral homes I've been in. I would have painted the walls in my room to look like that and use the same lighting but, the landlord wasn't keen on the idea.

[Buzz]

I see EVERYTHING wrong in taking money from MY paycheck to provide assistance to a lazy, 24-year-old mother of 5...
Hey! I found a plan that I think DarkThanos will like. In Wednesday's New Orlean's Times-Picayune:

LaBruzzo: Sterilization plan fights poverty
Tying poor women's tubes could help taxpayers, legislator says

full article (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2F%2Fnews-6%2F122223371288730.xml&coll=1)

Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

"We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out," LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. "And nobody wants to talk about it."

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government.
So, DarkThanos, would you be for this?

[Paladin]

I mean, you could live in Iran where people are hung for being gay. America doesn't have a long way to go, it's already there.

That's why the SSA went around outting girls to their employers for no reason whatsoever?

Just because there are worse injustices does not mean our own should be ignored or trivialized. There are European countries where trans issues are handled with far more civility than here.

So, move there. Outing is not the same as stoning to death, imprisoning, or deporting someone.

[Paladin]

vietboy says:


Since you ask, here are some government mistakes and crimes to consider...

-the original sin, slavery
-untold civil rights violations
-the shameful response to Katrina
-debasing the currency with inflation
-warmongering abroad
-government waste and abuse of power


In the U.S. the practice of slavery was ended by the government…of the people by the people and for the people. The practice was maintained by those who didn’t believe government had any business telling people how they should run THEIR plantations.

It’s the Justice System (branch of the government…of the people by the people and for the people) that has been the main defender (until the recent neocon appointments) of minority rights in the U.S.

Bush put in charge of every government agency ideologues who basic premise is “government should not be in the business of doing what this agency does.” The shameful response to Katrina was the response of those who didn’t believe government should be in the business of responding to natural disasters.

The banking business was deregulated. Now yes, we have an economic debacle.

People have been banding together and raiding the village downriver for as long as there have been people. Sad, but true. Ron Paul won’t change that. True, Ron Paul and Obama voted against the war in Iraq. McCain is all for it.

There is also private waste of the commons and abuse of private power. We have absolutely no leverage (except through government) on those who wield private power for profit while despoiling our public resources.

Don't forget it was Lincoln who freed the slaves and he was a republican !

[Paladin]

Buddy, you are the one who wears dresses and takes cocks up his ass. Remember that.



Ummm. Braveman? just exactly what are you doing here if not wanting to suck dick and take cock up YOUR ass?? I mean, this is a Transgendered community... most of the girls here have a penis.
Or are you just here for the conversation?

No. I am wrong again... you are calling out ALL the girls for being born genetically men. It is a reminder to yourself that the dick you want to suck and have up your ass, belongs to a male. So... since you need to remind yourself that the girls they are really men, it follows that you want your association with these girls to be as if they are men.

That is seriously fucked up. Maybe you just are not comfortable being gay.

Just go find a man and leave the girls alone. You have insulted many with the things you have said to TBTG

Furthermore, you really do owe her an apology.. you crossed the line.

Only a cockhound would make the ASSumption that you made.

[Paladin]

I have no idea whether you or any other escort reports the your escorting "gifts" or not. However, if you do not report your "gifts" as income and if the IRS seeks to collect the tax on the "gifts", plus interest and penalties, and perhaps charge you with criminal violation of the tax code, I am confident that Meghan's "gift" argument will not work. People have tried that argument, not with respect to escorting but with respect to the rendering of other services, and they have all lost.

correct..."gifts" given in exchange for ANY service must be claimed...hence:

a birthday gift doesn't have to be claimed...a wedding gift doesn't have to be claimed...however, if you give someone a massage, and they give you 100 bucks, you MUST claim that money legally...this is what she doesn't seem to understand, she is basically basing her whole argument on the wording, which might keep her out of trouble in a prostitution case, but if you are receiving money in exchange for even spending time with someone, that is a service of which income must be claimed...

you could work in the tax industry, Meghan? I'd sure hate to have you as my consultant...

It won't even help in that regrd, these "escorts" are real lucky that the IRS has much bigger targets to go after, but it they get a lot more agents hired, watch out. :shock:

This thread has more bickering and in-fighting than the movie it's a mad mad mad mad world :P

[El Nino]

Agreed

[hippifried]

Well, you just knew this subject had to come up.

Right out of the Josef Mengele school of sociology.

[GinX]

Okay, okay...a lot of insults going back and forth here, but not much resolution. Let's try this:

Dark Thanos...a few posts back, you did say something about people who have too many children needing to be "put down"; however, I'm certain that comment was made more out of frustration than anything else. The question I put to you is: do you think euthanasia is an acceptable form of population control and if so, would you be willing to see it implemented?

Braveman...the questions I put to you are: overpopulation is becoming an issue around the world. What reasonable methods do you think we could use to help alleviate the problem?

[hippifried]

overpopulation is becoming an issue around the world. What reasonable methods do you think we could use to help alleviate the problem?
Well that's just...

POLITICAL SCIENCE

"nobody likes us, Idon't know why
we may not be perfect but heaven knows we try
and all around even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one & see what happens!

we give them money but are they grateful?
no they're spiteful & they're hateful
they don't respect us so let's surprize 'em
we'll drop the big one & pulverize 'em

now Asia's crowded & Europe's too old
Africa's far too hot & Canada's too cold
& South America stole our name
so let's drop the big one there'll be no one left to blame us

we'll save Australia, don't want to hurt no kangaroo
we'll build an all American amusement park there
they've got surfin' too

BOOM goes London, BOOM Paree
more room for you & more room for me
& every city the whole world round
will be just another American town
oh how peaceful it will be
we'll set everybody free
you'll have a Japanese kimono baby, there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
so let's drop the big one now
let's drop the big one..."

~Randy Newman~

:D

[arnie666]

A video pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A

It's a pity more people didn't get it like this Gentleman .

[Tiffany Anne]

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.


Allanah.....who do you think the people tapping in the men's rooms are? :lol:

[headlock724]

very narrow minded.

[thx1138]

Most everyone on earth is playing the "my way or the highway" game to a greater or lesser extent.

[Silcc69]

>>INDEPENDENT THINKER!

ALL POLITICIANS ARE FULL OF SHIT!

BOTH SUCK DICK!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U

[nitron]

Dear Allanah I think it's because ....they can't help it. They have the desire to be with trans let's say, but have an equal desire to be right wing politically, or religious socially or avoiding taxes economically. Maybe.

[nitron]

Maybe it's biological.

[trish]

Maybe it's astrological! :roll

[maddygirl]

Personally, the only party which has ever made sense to me is the libertarian party. I don't understand why it's not more popular with the American public; as I see it as a meeting point between the Democrats and Republicans. And, I think both of these two parties are too extreme on both sides of the spectrum. Honestly, the mentality of the majority of the American public makes no sense to me, so I rarely get into political debates, lol.

[broncofan]

The Libertarian party is fine on social issues but quite callous and unrealistic when it comes to issues of social welfare. A true libertarian would argue that the civil rights act of 1964 is an abrogation of a proprietor's right to discriminate based on sex or race if he wants. That's what it means for the government not to involve itself in the way markets operate. A libertarian would say that labor laws are a violation of the sacred right to contract. They would say that EMTALA, which requires emergency rooms to treat people who are dying regardless of ability to pay, is a government handout and an interference with the rights of the hospital as a business.

The only advantage libertarians have on the Republicans is their policy of non-interference in truly private realms. But on many issues of civil rights and social welfare they are actually more archaic than the Republicans.