School bathroom decree ...

[tarheel0910]

As for strum, he is someone who absolutely seems to get it. You guys can make fun of him all day but he makes very good points.

I have no problem was strum. The point I was trying to make was that you seem to sometimes take things a little too serious like him. Obviously there are other posters that do too, but since you seem to line up with him more than most I mentioned him. Brother from another mother comparison.

I have people like you guys in my family and I love them dearly but I honestly think you do not understand anything outside of your little comfortable box you sit in.

Please tell me more about this comfortable box that I sit in. Just don't be mad with my reply after you tell me. One of the worst things you can do is to make assumptions about people by their posts on a message board.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Please tell me more about this comfortable box that I sit in. Just don't be mad with my reply after you tell me. One of the worst things you can do is to make assumptions about people by their posts on a message board.

I wasn't really referring to you, sorry. I must have replied to the wrong post

 

[gunslingerdick]

I won't watch any of them unless a debate is on. As for strum, he is someone who absolutely seems to get it. You guys can make fun of him all day but he makes very good points. I have thought this way for a long time. I don't need anyone to influence me. I have witnessed and been through more than probably even he has to bring me to my conclusions. I have people like you guys in my family and I love them dearly but I honestly think you do not understand anything outside of your little comfortable box you sit in. Challenge yourself and go see what really is going on out there. I am not trying to be an ass either when I say that. I sincerely wish everyone could walk in other's shoes a little more. Be careful though, I was brought down a peg once, now I see that at any moment everything that makes you comfortable and that you think you "deserve" or even things you earned can quickly be taken away and you are forced to see what it is like on the other side of the fence.

Complete garbage. Everyone has a story to tell. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you but you're acting like you're the only one that has faced any adversity. I promise you, without a doubt that whatever your story is, someone here on this board whose opinion you're diminishing because they haven't had to go through anything like you - has had it worse.

 

[tarheel0910]

I wasn't really referring to you, sorry. I must have replied to the wrong post

No problem, but my point about making assumptions still stands no matter who it was meant for. That's just kind of a pet peeve of mine.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

With you continuously showing your massive hard on for Fox News, I'm starting to think that if you're a chick like your screen name would suggest, you're one of those that might be having troubles deciding which bathroom to use in NC.

LOL that is so funny! I am definitely a woman and have no identity problems... I used to love men! But not so much now because you cannot trust one... so I might use one occasionally for "needs."haha and in case you missed it I had a man follow me in a public restroom once... TG is not the problem! it is pervs that are the problem

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Complete garbage. Everyone has a story to tell. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you but you're acting like you're the only one that has faced any adversity. I promise you, without a doubt that whatever your story is, someone here on this board whose opinion you're diminishing because they haven't had to go through anything like you - has had it worse.

I have no doubt about that. I guess I expected people who have gone through struggle to have a little more empathy for those who are now. I forget that a lot of people don't have the heart I have, not that I am superior in any way, but I just really care about helping people that NEED it and finding a way to keep the lazy asses from being able to take advantage of those who are willing to give. Oh well..... I got stuff to do... later xo

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

I will say up front that this is from HuffPost, so the people on this board whom I would most like to read it, probably won't, or will just attack the source. But it's a very thorough and well-written explanation of HB2 and the main reasons it's problematic.

When non-lawyers hear Pat McCrory’s claim that North Carolina’s House Bill 2 is just common sense while at the same time they hear the Department of Justice attacking part of it as illegal, I can understand how easy it is for such non-lawyers just to take the word of the political party they prefer. They probably aren’t sure where to look for the Bill and even if they know where to look they understandably might imagine the Bill has much too much legalese for them to tackle.

I want to take a minute to try to change this mindset by first noting that people can find the bill by clicking here. Pulling up the Bill shows it has five “Parts” (only one of which is about bathrooms). If you haven’t yet read the Bill, please click on the link and let’s take a little tour. Politicians like Pat McCrory are betting everything that you won’t.

Part I (pages 1-3): This is the so-called “Bathroom Bill” and makes up only the first Part of the five Parts of House Bill 2. It regulates bathroom usage around the concept of “biological sex” which it defines as “[t]he physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a persons’s birth certificate.” Oddly, this “Bathroom Part” of the Bill doesn’t provide any penalties for people who ignore it. I say “oddly” because this Bill was allegedly rushed through to prevent an imminent crisis of straight men putting on dresses to view women in women’s restrooms. How does it prevent this without teeth? It can’t. In fact, since gender is now determined by a birth certificate, can straight male predators get life-time peeping passes by getting their birth certificates changed where jurisdictions permit that? Let’s hope not. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was an imminent cross-dressing crisis, it’s hard to see this toothless Part I with its birth certificate twist as any fix. If it’s not any sort of fix of a real problem, Part I hardly seems worthy of expensive and potentially catastrophic litigation to defend.

Part II (page 3): This Part and the remaining parts of the Bill have unfortunately been largely ignored by the press. Let’s try to fix that now. Part II jumps from bathrooms and straight men putting on dresses to the totally unrelated subjects of restricting minimum wage increases and child labor protections. This Part prohibits local governments from regulating or imposing “any requirement upon an employer pertaining to compensation of employees, such as the wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment earned wages, benefits, leave, or well-being of minors in the workforce.” On its face, this quoted language not only prevents local governments from setting a minimum wage. They’re even prohibited from taking care of child labor problems they might feel are specific problems in their locality. How can this change be a good thing?

Part III (pages 3-4): Here House Bill 2 continues its attack on workers. Before the Bill, North Carolina’s public policy was: “to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.”
After tweaking the old public policy protection against “sex” discrimination to discrimination based on “biological sex,” Part III then effectively guts all the public policy section by providing that it “does not create . . . a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.” In other words, there is no longer any state law claim for discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex (biological or otherwise) or handicap. What does this have to do with bathrooms? Nothing of course. Supporters of the Bill say this doesn’t matter because aggrieved employees can still go to federal court. Apart from the oddness of this coming from people who tend to see the federal government as oppressor rather than savior, the claim is just false. It does matter. First, taxpayers ought to have access to the state courts they fund. Second, federal court doesn’t provide the same remedies. Generally, discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days or they can’t proceed in federal court. Many employees who don’t know this or who can’t act that fast will be left without a remedy. Additionally, federal court can be more cumbersome and more expensive. Click here for a link to the EEOC website explaining this in more detail. How can this change be a good thing?

Part IV (pages 4-5): This is what lawyers call a “severability clause” and it’s a very important piece of House Bill 2. This provision provides that if any part of the bill falls, the rest will stand. The gamesmanship of House Bill 2 is no more evident than here. The business interests that pushed Parts II and III under the guise of Part I no doubt knew the problematic nature of Part I and wanted to assure that the limitations of Parts II and III would not fall if Part I falls. For the reasons given by the Department of Justice, it’s very likely that Part I will fall and we’ll be left with Parts II & III, the parts the lobbyists really wanted when the bill was passed. Of course, if Part I doesn’t fall, it’s still the toothless oddity I just described.

Part V (page 5): This part addresses the effective date of the Bill and raises interesting and troubling questions about claims existing or pending at the effective date. Those technical questions I’ll leave for others to address. I feel sorry for the injured workers who have or may have lost claims because of the language of Part V. (For an explanation of why McCrory’s Executive Order 93 doesn’t fix the Bill, please see my earlier piece here. )

Having gone through each of these five “Parts” of House Bill 2, it’s hard for me to see how a careful reading of House Bill 2 cannot deeply trouble all honest people from the most conservative to the most liberal. Since I haven’t seen much written about why conservatives should oppose House Bill 2, let me end with a few words about that. Conservatives champion truth and family. There is no championing truth in supporting a bill that only pretends to solve a bathroom crisis (apart from the further issue of pretending an imminent crisis exists in the first place). Furthermore, there is no championing of family in taking away the rights of localities to protect our minors in the workplace or in limiting flexibility for better minimum wages for our families. There is no championing of family in taking away their rights to sue an employer that has treated them wrongly because of the family member’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap whatever a conservative might think of other categories not included in the protections we used to have. I have seen many “conservatives” thank McCrory online for House Bill 2 because they say it supports God’s will. A Bill that takes away remedies for religious discrimination is not godly. It is ungodly.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

^ Part 1 seems to be the part being discussed in this thread. Parts 2-5 are irrelevant to this thread. I don't think people are defending HB2 that I've seen, more just discussing the implications of Part 1

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

It's all relevant to me, since it's now law in the state in which I reside.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Agreed. The way liberals use the term "fair share" pisses me off to no end. I mean, who the f*ck are you to declare what is "fair" and what is not? Because from where I sit, anyone paying 40% and someone else paying nothing isn't fair at all. It's the opposite of "fair".

Taxing the uber wealthy 40% on their income (over the threshold of the lower brackets, which is the majority of their income) definitely seems great at first glance, and some may argue "fair". It's easy to get behind the notion of "Oh that guy is filthy rich - why not hit him up for 40% of his income, to let the guy making $30K/yr only have to pay 10%"? While that sounds great in theory - in practice, what happens is it drastically reduces the incentive for the uber wealthy (who are, not coincidentally, the most productive members of society) to continue to produce/work. That guy will say, why bust my ass (aka produce more output) when I'm only keeping half of what I earn?

This is the fatal flaw of letting politicians get involved with economics when they have no business chiming in there. They know there are more people out there making $30K/yr than $100mil/year - so if they can screw the few rich guys to give the notion of benefit to the many poor guys - they get more votes. They don't care if their policy ends up making the country worse off by slowing GDP growth - as long as they're sitting in office.

how nice.... go to the morgue and handle those who have actually done that to themselves... fun! smh

If one of those is one of my 5 in the Death Pool - I'm owed $130!

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

If one of those is one of my 5 in the Death Pool - I'm owed $130!

LOL I did get a little "upset" earlier when the dude posted that meme because very recently I have had a family member do that but I know it happens and I have seen way too many in the morgue years ago that did something that foolish but I get that he was just trying to be funny. I'm over it now! You made me laugh! haha

 

[gunslingerdick]

I will say up front that this is from HuffPost, so the people on this board whom I would most like to read it, probably won't, or will just attack the source. But it's a very thorough and well-written explanation of HB2 and the main reasons it's problematic.

When non-lawyers hear Pat McCrory’s claim that North Carolina’s House Bill 2 is just common sense while at the same time they hear the Department of Justice attacking part of it as illegal, I can understand how easy it is for such non-lawyers just to take the word of the political party they prefer. They probably aren’t sure where to look for the Bill and even if they know where to look they understandably might imagine the Bill has much too much legalese for them to tackle.

I want to take a minute to try to change this mindset by first noting that people can find the bill by clicking here. Pulling up the Bill shows it has five “Parts” (only one of which is about bathrooms). If you haven’t yet read the Bill, please click on the link and let’s take a little tour. Politicians like Pat McCrory are betting everything that you won’t.

Part I (pages 1-3): This is the so-called “Bathroom Bill” and makes up only the first Part of the five Parts of House Bill 2. It regulates bathroom usage around the concept of “biological sex” which it defines as “[t]he physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a persons’s birth certificate.” Oddly, this “Bathroom Part” of the Bill doesn’t provide any penalties for people who ignore it. I say “oddly” because this Bill was allegedly rushed through to prevent an imminent crisis of straight men putting on dresses to view women in women’s restrooms. How does it prevent this without teeth? It can’t. In fact, since gender is now determined by a birth certificate, can straight male predators get life-time peeping passes by getting their birth certificates changed where jurisdictions permit that? Let’s hope not. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was an imminent cross-dressing crisis, it’s hard to see this toothless Part I with its birth certificate twist as any fix. If it’s not any sort of fix of a real problem, Part I hardly seems worthy of expensive and potentially catastrophic litigation to defend.

Part II (page 3): This Part and the remaining parts of the Bill have unfortunately been largely ignored by the press. Let’s try to fix that now. Part II jumps from bathrooms and straight men putting on dresses to the totally unrelated subjects of restricting minimum wage increases and child labor protections. This Part prohibits local governments from regulating or imposing “any requirement upon an employer pertaining to compensation of employees, such as the wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment earned wages, benefits, leave, or well-being of minors in the workforce.” On its face, this quoted language not only prevents local governments from setting a minimum wage. They’re even prohibited from taking care of child labor problems they might feel are specific problems in their locality. How can this change be a good thing?

Part III (pages 3-4): Here House Bill 2 continues its attack on workers. Before the Bill, North Carolina’s public policy was: “to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.”
After tweaking the old public policy protection against “sex” discrimination to discrimination based on “biological sex,” Part III then effectively guts all the public policy section by providing that it “does not create . . . a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.” In other words, there is no longer any state law claim for discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex (biological or otherwise) or handicap. What does this have to do with bathrooms? Nothing of course. Supporters of the Bill say this doesn’t matter because aggrieved employees can still go to federal court. Apart from the oddness of this coming from people who tend to see the federal government as oppressor rather than savior, the claim is just false. It does matter. First, taxpayers ought to have access to the state courts they fund. Second, federal court doesn’t provide the same remedies. Generally, discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days or they can’t proceed in federal court. Many employees who don’t know this or who can’t act that fast will be left without a remedy. Additionally, federal court can be more cumbersome and more expensive. Click here for a link to the EEOC website explaining this in more detail. How can this change be a good thing?

Part IV (pages 4-5): This is what lawyers call a “severability clause” and it’s a very important piece of House Bill 2. This provision provides that if any part of the bill falls, the rest will stand. The gamesmanship of House Bill 2 is no more evident than here. The business interests that pushed Parts II and III under the guise of Part I no doubt knew the problematic nature of Part I and wanted to assure that the limitations of Parts II and III would not fall if Part I falls. For the reasons given by the Department of Justice, it’s very likely that Part I will fall and we’ll be left with Parts II & III, the parts the lobbyists really wanted when the bill was passed. Of course, if Part I doesn’t fall, it’s still the toothless oddity I just described.

Part V (page 5): This part addresses the effective date of the Bill and raises interesting and troubling questions about claims existing or pending at the effective date. Those technical questions I’ll leave for others to address. I feel sorry for the injured workers who have or may have lost claims because of the language of Part V. (For an explanation of why McCrory’s Executive Order 93 doesn’t fix the Bill, please see my earlier piece here. )

Having gone through each of these five “Parts” of House Bill 2, it’s hard for me to see how a careful reading of House Bill 2 cannot deeply trouble all honest people from the most conservative to the most liberal. Since I haven’t seen much written about why conservatives should oppose House Bill 2, let me end with a few words about that. Conservatives champion truth and family. There is no championing truth in supporting a bill that only pretends to solve a bathroom crisis (apart from the further issue of pretending an imminent crisis exists in the first place). Furthermore, there is no championing of family in taking away the rights of localities to protect our minors in the workplace or in limiting flexibility for better minimum wages for our families. There is no championing of family in taking away their rights to sue an employer that has treated them wrongly because of the family member’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap whatever a conservative might think of other categories not included in the protections we used to have. I have seen many “conservatives” thank McCrory online for House Bill 2 because they say it supports God’s will. A Bill that takes away remedies for religious discrimination is not godly. It is ungodly.

tl;dr

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

tl;dr

I know.

 

[strummingram]

I will say up front that this is from HuffPost, so the people on this board whom I would most like to read it, probably won't, or will just attack the source. But it's a very thorough and well-written explanation of HB2 and the main reasons it's problematic.

When non-lawyers hear Pat McCrory’s claim that North Carolina’s House Bill 2 is just common sense while at the same time they hear the Department of Justice attacking part of it as illegal, I can understand how easy it is for such non-lawyers just to take the word of the political party they prefer. They probably aren’t sure where to look for the Bill and even if they know where to look they understandably might imagine the Bill has much too much legalese for them to tackle.

I want to take a minute to try to change this mindset by first noting that people can find the bill by clicking here. Pulling up the Bill shows it has five “Parts” (only one of which is about bathrooms). If you haven’t yet read the Bill, please click on the link and let’s take a little tour. Politicians like Pat McCrory are betting everything that you won’t.

Part I (pages 1-3): This is the so-called “Bathroom Bill” and makes up only the first Part of the five Parts of House Bill 2. It regulates bathroom usage around the concept of “biological sex” which it defines as “[t]he physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a persons’s birth certificate.” Oddly, this “Bathroom Part” of the Bill doesn’t provide any penalties for people who ignore it. I say “oddly” because this Bill was allegedly rushed through to prevent an imminent crisis of straight men putting on dresses to view women in women’s restrooms. How does it prevent this without teeth? It can’t. In fact, since gender is now determined by a birth certificate, can straight male predators get life-time peeping passes by getting their birth certificates changed where jurisdictions permit that? Let’s hope not. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was an imminent cross-dressing crisis, it’s hard to see this toothless Part I with its birth certificate twist as any fix. If it’s not any sort of fix of a real problem, Part I hardly seems worthy of expensive and potentially catastrophic litigation to defend.

Part II (page 3): This Part and the remaining parts of the Bill have unfortunately been largely ignored by the press. Let’s try to fix that now. Part II jumps from bathrooms and straight men putting on dresses to the totally unrelated subjects of restricting minimum wage increases and child labor protections. This Part prohibits local governments from regulating or imposing “any requirement upon an employer pertaining to compensation of employees, such as the wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment earned wages, benefits, leave, or well-being of minors in the workforce.” On its face, this quoted language not only prevents local governments from setting a minimum wage. They’re even prohibited from taking care of child labor problems they might feel are specific problems in their locality. How can this change be a good thing?

Part III (pages 3-4): Here House Bill 2 continues its attack on workers. Before the Bill, North Carolina’s public policy was: “to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.”
After tweaking the old public policy protection against “sex” discrimination to discrimination based on “biological sex,” Part III then effectively guts all the public policy section by providing that it “does not create . . . a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.” In other words, there is no longer any state law claim for discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex (biological or otherwise) or handicap. What does this have to do with bathrooms? Nothing of course. Supporters of the Bill say this doesn’t matter because aggrieved employees can still go to federal court. Apart from the oddness of this coming from people who tend to see the federal government as oppressor rather than savior, the claim is just false. It does matter. First, taxpayers ought to have access to the state courts they fund. Second, federal court doesn’t provide the same remedies. Generally, discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days or they can’t proceed in federal court. Many employees who don’t know this or who can’t act that fast will be left without a remedy. Additionally, federal court can be more cumbersome and more expensive. Click here for a link to the EEOC website explaining this in more detail. How can this change be a good thing?

Part IV (pages 4-5): This is what lawyers call a “severability clause” and it’s a very important piece of House Bill 2. This provision provides that if any part of the bill falls, the rest will stand. The gamesmanship of House Bill 2 is no more evident than here. The business interests that pushed Parts II and III under the guise of Part I no doubt knew the problematic nature of Part I and wanted to assure that the limitations of Parts II and III would not fall if Part I falls. For the reasons given by the Department of Justice, it’s very likely that Part I will fall and we’ll be left with Parts II & III, the parts the lobbyists really wanted when the bill was passed. Of course, if Part I doesn’t fall, it’s still the toothless oddity I just described.

Part V (page 5): This part addresses the effective date of the Bill and raises interesting and troubling questions about claims existing or pending at the effective date. Those technical questions I’ll leave for others to address. I feel sorry for the injured workers who have or may have lost claims because of the language of Part V. (For an explanation of why McCrory’s Executive Order 93 doesn’t fix the Bill, please see my earlier piece here. )

Having gone through each of these five “Parts” of House Bill 2, it’s hard for me to see how a careful reading of House Bill 2 cannot deeply trouble all honest people from the most conservative to the most liberal. Since I haven’t seen much written about why conservatives should oppose House Bill 2, let me end with a few words about that. Conservatives champion truth and family. There is no championing truth in supporting a bill that only pretends to solve a bathroom crisis (apart from the further issue of pretending an imminent crisis exists in the first place). Furthermore, there is no championing of family in taking away the rights of localities to protect our minors in the workplace or in limiting flexibility for better minimum wages for our families. There is no championing of family in taking away their rights to sue an employer that has treated them wrongly because of the family member’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap whatever a conservative might think of other categories not included in the protections we used to have. I have seen many “conservatives” thank McCrory online for House Bill 2 because they say it supports God’s will. A Bill that takes away remedies for religious discrimination is not godly. It is ungodly.

Encore:
There is no championing truth in supporting a bill that only pretends to solve a bathroom crisis (apart from the further issue of pretending an imminent crisis exists in the first place). Furthermore, there is no championing of family in taking away the rights of localities to protect our minors in the workplace or in limiting flexibility for better minimum wages for our families. There is no championing of family in taking away their rights to sue an employer that has treated them wrongly because of the family member’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap whatever a conservative might think of other categories not included in the protections we used to have. I have seen many “conservatives” thank McCrory online for House Bill 2 because they say it supports God’s will. A Bill that takes away remedies for religious discrimination is not godly. It is ungodly.

 

[strummingram]

I'm not a big fan of the news, but if I have to pick between MSNBC, CNN or Fox then I'm picking Fox.

The cool thing is, you don't "have to pick" at all. I don't watch ANY OF THEM! What's the point? They are all biased and they all sell peddle the same thing to keep drawing their paychecks.

 

[strummingram]

I know.

Thanks for sharing that, though. I gave the last part a re-post.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

I'm failing to understand the logic that because parts 2-5 may be bogus, that means that part 1 must be bogus as well.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Part 1 is just as bogus in its own right, as that column explains. It's an ineffective solution to a non-existent problem.

But the biggest issue is that it was used as cover for the rest of the bill, and done so very effectively, as the national, statewide, and local discussion, including this board, has centered almost entirely on the bathroom provision, despite efforts to say, "Hey guys, this other stuff is worse." AND the bill was written so the "other stuff" stays in place even if they end up having to capitulate on the bathroom provision.

 

[strummingram]

AND the bill was written so the "other stuff" stays in place even if they end up having to capitulate on the bathroom provision.

This is the most insidious part of government (state, local or federal). Well, ONE of the most insidious parts. This happens more often than people realize. It's bipartisan and it's rarely if ever, anything that benefits the actual citizens.

 

[bleeduncblue]

The biggest issue I have with people who call themselves liberal is their insistence that "I'm not supposed to say that." That comes off as censoring people and I don't like that. Or, that wearing a sombrero on Cinco De Mayo is cultural appropriation. They pretend to carry crosses for other people that don't even have the cross themselves. Truth be told, that is where much of this issue is coming from, too. People who AREN'T transgender are feeling sorry for them and then trying to play victims with them.

Strum, that is so accurate. Well said, sir.

 

[bleeduncblue]

But the biggest issue is that it was used as cover....

Correction, it's the biggest issue TO YOU... not to me and hundreds of thousands of Tar Heels like me.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Correction, it's the biggest issue TO YOU... not to me and hundreds of thousands of Tar Heels like me.

Thank you, Mr. Exhibit A. You couldn't make my point more perfectly.

 

[HeelFan58]

I won't watch any of them unless a debate is on. As for strum, he is someone who absolutely seems to get it. You guys can make fun of him all day but he makes very good points. I have thought this way for a long time. I don't need anyone to influence me. I have witnessed and been through more than probably even he has to bring me to my conclusions. I have people like you guys in my family and I love them dearly but I honestly think you do not understand anything outside of your little comfortable box you sit in. Challenge yourself and go see what really is going on out there. I am not trying to be an ass either when I say that. I sincerely wish everyone could walk in other's shoes a little more. Be careful though, I was brought down a peg once, now I see that at any moment everything that makes you comfortable and that you think you "deserve" or even things you earned can quickly be taken away and you are forced to see what it is like on the other side of the fence.

you were starting to make sense before you said strum gets it.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

you were starting to make sense before you said strum gets it.

He does seem quite open minded. The things he was saying about fear makes sense to me. I see it all the time and maybe because I choose not to live in fear of people that are different from me is one reason. I don't always understand why people make the choices they make. He and I are definitely in agreement on the news media being the last place you should ever go for truthful information.

 

[uncboy10]

Taxing the uber wealthy 40% on their income (over the threshold of the lower brackets, which is the majority of their income) definitely seems great at first glance, and some may argue "fair". It's easy to get behind the notion of "Oh that guy is filthy rich - why not hit him up for 40% of his income, to let the guy making $30K/yr only have to pay 10%"? While that sounds great in theory - in practice, what happens is it drastically reduces the incentive for the uber wealthy (who are, not coincidentally, the most productive members of society) to continue to produce/work. That guy will say, why bust my ass (aka produce more output) when I'm only keeping half of what I earn?

This is the fatal flaw of letting politicians get involved with economics when they have no business chiming in there. They know there are more people out there making $30K/yr than $100mil/year - so if they can screw the few rich guys to give the notion of benefit to the many poor guys - they get more votes. They don't care if their policy ends up making the country worse off by slowing GDP growth - as long as they're sitting in office.



If one of those is one of my 5 in the Death Pool - I'm owed $130!

That part is complete nonsense. Investors will continue to make good investments when there is profit to be made regardless of the rate at which that profit is being taxed. 60% of tens of millions of dollars is a helluva lot better than 0% of nothing. They're still making boatloads of money. If business didn't grind to a halt when the top earners were taxed at over 90% then it sure as hell wont if we tax them at 40%.

But to be clear, we wouldn't have to tax anyone at 40% if we had a flat tax without exceptions. As opposed to the corporate sponsored tax code we have now.

 

[bleeduncblue]

Thank you, Mr. Exhibit A. You couldn't make my point more perfectly.

You're welcome, glad I could help.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

That part is complete nonsense. Investors will continue to make good investments when there is profit to be made regardless of the rate at which that profit is being taxed. 60% of tens of millions of dollars is a helluva lot better than 0% of nothing. They're still making boatloads of money. If business didn't grind to a halt when the top earners were taxed at over 90% then it sure as hell wont if we tax them at 40%.

You're acting as if those returns are guaranteed. Investors are risking their money for those returns. Investing is much less enticing when you bear all the downside risk (loss of investment), while the government is about half in on the upside return (investment income).

 

[strummingram]

http://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...gender-harassed-in-7471666.php#photo-10075104

 

[strummingram]

This woman took time off from having a baker's dozen children to warn Target customers about the Devil raping children in the restrooms.

 

[strummingram]

He does seem quite open minded. The things he was saying about fear makes sense to me. I see it all the time and maybe because I choose not to live in fear of people that are different from me is one reason. I don't always understand why people make the choices they make. He and I are definitely in agreement on the news media being the last place you should ever go for truthful information.

We all have fears. I just try to make sure none of mine wind up on a politician's list of "Things to Exploit."

 

[bleeduncblue]

http://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...gender-harassed-in-7471666.php#photo-10075104

That sucks! Welcome to the new world of hypersensitivity and paranoia.

 

[gunslingerdick]

That sucks! Welcome to the new world of hypersensitivity and paranoia.

I call bullshit on the whole story. Very easily could be just another SJW wanting to get a point across.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

I call bullshit on the whole story. Very easily could be just another SJW wanting to get a point across.

I agree. That girl did not even look remotely close to looking like a male, short hair or not. I have seen several of these stories popping up and when I have checked into them found they were false. Only one so far has been actually true. I do not think this one in that link Strum put is true. You will begin to see many attention seekers now, unfortunately. The internet has started breeding a whole new form of idiot now, which sucks!

 

[UNC '92]

I agree. That girl did not even look remotely close to looking like a male, short hair or not. I have seen several of these stories popping up and when I have checked into them found they were false. Only one so far has been actually true. I do not think this one in that link Strum put is true. You will begin to see many attention seekers now, unfortunately. The internet has started breeding a whole new form of idiot now, which sucks!

Oh no, that breed of idiot has always been around. The internet just gave them the medium to strut their stuff in front of more people.

 

[tarheel0910]

If business didn't grind to a halt when the top earners were taxed at over 90% then it sure as hell wont if we tax them at 40%.

People like to cite that, but it's very misleading. Between deductions and the fact that was just the top marginal tax rate, the effective tax rate for the "rich" was well below 90%. I believe the inflation adjusted amount for that bracket is over two million, so very few people got to that bracket.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

People like to cite that, but it's very misleading. Between deductions and the fact that was just the top marginal tax rate, the effective tax rate for the "rich" was well below 90%. I believe the inflation adjusted amount for that bracket is over two million, so very few people got to that bracket.

Great point. Some people can't tell the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. Which really is sad. I've heard of people turning down raises because they would go from the 15% to 25% tax bracket, and thought they'd end up with less net money if they took the raise, due to the higher tax rate. Not realizing that only the marginal amount above the 15% tax bracket would be taxed at 25% (not their entire income).

 

[Raising Heel]

The General Assembly missed an opportunity to address the biggest issue in public bathrooms today: creepy people having cell phone conversations while dropping a deuce.

Some random dude came into the bathroom at work yesterday, went into a stall, and ripped ass everywhere while talking to his mom or grandmother on the phone. People like him need to be locked up.

 

[tarheel0910]

The General Assembly missed an opportunity to address the biggest issue in public bathrooms today: creepy people having cell phone conversations while dropping a deuce.

Some random dude came into the bathroom at work yesterday, went into a stall, and ripped ass everywhere while talking to his mom or grandmother on the phone. People like him need to be locked up.

Two more things that should have been addressed. The cheap ass toilet paper, which feels like I'm wiping with sandpaper and the enforcement of the farthest stall/urinal rule. I can't stand it when I'm using the bathroom and someone comes in and uses the urinal right next to me when there are five more empty ones.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Two more things that should have been addressed. The cheap ass toilet paper, which feels like I'm wiping with sandpaper and the enforcement of the farthest stall/urinal rule. I can't stand it when I'm using the bathroom and someone comes in and uses the urinal right next to me when there are five more empty ones.

Urinal Usage Test

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Two more things that should have been addressed. The cheap ass toilet paper, which feels like I'm wiping with sandpaper and the enforcement of the farthest stall/urinal rule. I can't stand it when I'm using the bathroom and someone comes in and uses the urinal right next to me when there are five more empty ones.

Damn. No wonder dudes want in the ladies room!

Maybe we should pass a law mandating urinary catheterizations and colostomy bags.... Problem solved