Monday, May 2, 2016

Housing Debacle Revisited

Ok. Hiram and Sean want to beat this to death again instead of discussing how to better push people into the light...  So here is what they have to say on that topic.

"I assume one forced transaction is that government requires wealthier people to pay more taxes even though we all stand on the same American soil with the same rights and freedoms, and then government distributes this money to the less wealthy people.

Were the crooked transactions that led to the financial crisis any less crooked because rich people benefited from them?" Hiram

"Hiram,  No one forced individuals to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back. They entered into their mortgages of their own free will.

You are correct that this is a free country, and yet you want to burden the "800" group of citizens with the costs incurred by the poor choices made by the "200" group of people at the risk of the whole town. This does not sound very free.

Freedom comes with responsibilities in a society like ours. It is what enables our society to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. " G2A

"No one forced individuals to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back.

No one forced banks to create worthless financial instruments, or to put them in your mutual fund claiming they had value. But they did." Hiram

As we have discussed before. It was the mortgage defaults that triggered the house of cards to fall down... Two key groups of people who freely contributed to the disaster, those greedy people who offered the loans to "underfunded greedy idiots" with little collateral required, and "underfunded greedy idiots" who bit off more than they could afford and bailed on their obligation when the going got tough.

Beyond these key players we had the government, investors and millions of other citizens who freely chased the expanding housing bubble and low interest rates. Somehow they thought that double digit home price increases would continue indefinitely... Even when the inflation rate was almost non-existent.  A Refresher for those confused by this. "G2A

"The problem really wasn't the mortgage defaults. People are always defaulting on mortgages and debt. The man Republicans are putting forward as their candidate for president has declared bankruptcy several times on a scale that is unimaginable for the ordinary home owner struggling to come up with a monthly house payment. And if you read what that candidate says on the subject, he explains to all of us, that there is nothing at all wrong with defaulting on debt, that it is a natural part of doing business.

No, the problem that that bankers created a system that disguised the nature of debt claiming that instruments were much more secure than they were." Hiram

"Has anyone around here mention "The Big Short". Among other things, it lays out in a pretty accurate manner a portion of what went wrong with our financial system." Hiram

"Hiram, The mortgage broker and investment firms contributed to the problem and have paid massive fines..." G2A

"The mortgage broker and investment firms contributed to the problem and have paid massive fines

Did they compensate people for the lost value of their houses? Or for the lost raises, and the lost jobs? Were the huge bonus packages paid to bankers in any charged to pay for the enormous damage they have done." Hiram

"Why are you afraid to discuss the reality of people like my friend's daughter and so interested in side tracking this comment string?

The questions are different and they are personal. But on a less personal level, you can see how these issues played out with our irresponsible bankers, and Donald Trump. If others weren't involved, weren't dependent on the situation, it would have been very easy to let the bankers, and Trump to go broke. But just like an irresponsible parent with a child, the bankers and Trump were to some extent in a position to use the innocent as hostages. So calculations were made, arrangements were imposed and everyone hopes for the best. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't" Hiram

"Have the people who defaulted on their loans and crashed the house cards made any reparations to anyone?

Well, yes. They went through bankruptcy. They have seen their houses foreclosed, their wages garnished, that sort of thing. They aren't like Donald Trump who has the political and economic power to prevent that from happening. Nobody seems to have given them huge bonus packages financed by taxpayer bailout dollars, although the economic arguments for doing that are similar.

And the fact is, the folks who went bankrupt aren't really the losers because they didn't have any money to start with. The people who were hurt by the financial crisis were the folks who didn't do anything wrong. The folks who made the payments on their underwater mortgages. Who lost their jobs or at least income through no fault of their own, because of the financial misfeasance of people they never had dealings with at all. " Hiram

"Hiram,  Going through bankruptcy is the opposite of paying reparations... It cost the tax payers and the bank... " G2A

"By the account of most economists, the economy lost about $6T in economic activity in the Great Recession. Bankers have paid about 1/12 that amount in fines as a result of the behavior that was responsible for it.

I guarantee you today that the big banks are doing far better than the family that was forced into bankruptcy.

And again, let's remind ourselves how the big banks feasted on racial minorities to fuel the subprime bubble.

"According to one study, about two-thirds of all subprime loans between 2000 and 2007 were made to people who already owned their homes. The targets were often elderly, in particular men and women of color. Visiting loan officers convinced these borrowers to use the homes they'd poured their savings into their whole lives as ATM machines.

The pitch was: refinance your home, and get a little extra spending money each month! Lots of people went for it. But there was mischief hidden in the fine print of many of these "refi" deals, which often quickly exploded. Before long, the now-departed agent's promises would evaporate into a toxic quicksand of debt, unforeseen penalties and foreclosure.
Thanks to a number of settlements, we now know that some companies got many of those new signatures via intentional strategies targeting black and Hispanic customers. The most infamous example was Wells Fargo, which paid a $175 million settlement for systematically overcharging black and Hispanic borrowers.

It came out that a Maryland office of the bank referred to subprime loans as "ghetto loans," and pushed its loan officers to unload as many as possible on the "mud people" of Baltimore and the surrounding suburbs. A crucial element involved pushing expensive and dangerous subprime loans on people who qualified for the safer, lower-interest prime loans.

The New York Times did a study of New York-area home lending and found that African-Americans who made more than $68,000 were five times as likely as white people in the same income category to be marketed risky subprime loans. The ratio was even worse at Wells Fargo, where it was more like eight to one."

Taibbi on the connection between Wall Street and race" Sean

"Going through bankruptcy is the opposite of paying reparations..

They take all the bankrupt's property to pay the debt. Nothing more can be done than that. Punishment or not, we can't take more than people have, and if we take away their reason for working, we can't really expect that they will work that hard.

In any event, it wasn't the broke who were hurt by the financial crisis since they were already broke. It's the people who were playing by the rules who lost income and wealth. And it's the people who broke them who became immensely rich. "Hiram

Sunday, May 1, 2016

It's Not My Fault !!!

Jerry is doing the thing that drives me crazy. Though he enjoys living in the United States and wants to stay here...  He wants to claim that our elected government is apparently not a creation that is empowered and controlled by the people who live in the country.  And it definitely is not doing what he wants it to do...  By Golly !!!

Apparently the idea that Obama was elected by a majority of the voters in the United States to do what he promised to do eludes him. Apparently our government will only represent our society if, and only if, it does exactly as Jerry says it should!!!
""Society" has no ability to affect behavior so long as government stands between "us" and "them" with a great big check. It both prevents us from helping them, and prevents them from joining us. It's a wall, a ledge, an almost insurmountable hurdle." Jerry

"I know you disagree, but the citizens create, control, empower and manage the government. It is what the citizens make it." G2A

"Really? You believe that? How many of us demanded that the IRS keep conservative groups from getting tax-free status? Where were the petitions to force Obama's EPA to put forward the Clean Power Plan (aka destroying the coal industry to prevent global warming)? Anybody remember the Congressional majority being voted out for voting for Obama's worthless and deficit-driving stimulus? How about Obamacare? Did we "control" the government when that stupidity was foisted on us? No, I am sorry. What I will concede is that we have been massively lied to and propagandized, and thus do not take the control we should." Jerry
It reminds me of the few team members in my history who would go along until something went wrong.  Then they would cry "It's Not My Fault" and that the team had ignored their earlier concerns. Of course I would remind them that it was our team, and that we would swim or sink together...  Thoughts?

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The Non-Interventionist Middle East Plan?

We got into several interesting discussions over hearMP Iraq Mission Creep
"Okay, I'll bite, What do you non-interventionists want to do?
Should we have let:
  • Saddam invade our ally Kuwait? (and maybe Saudi Arabia)
  • Maintained the No Fly Zones for 60 years? (kind of the like in Korea)
  • Let the Taliban continue to allow terrorist training camps?
  • Let ISIL continue to take land, secure funding, grow, etc?
It would be interesting to see what the Middle East would have looked like if the Ottoman Empire had not entered WWI on the wrong side. Unfortunately they did and the rest is history.  BBC Middle East History" G2A
"In Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq? I would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now. Afghanistan may be hopeless--progress is going to be stymied in a country with such relatively small economic potential. Syria is also a hard case. Assad should go, but he is being backed by Russia, so there is little US pressure that would work. I think containing Daesh is the top priority now, and the US military has a limited role it can or should play there (intelligence, possibly air support)." RB
Now the Liberals can try to blame past US Foreign Policy and Interventions for many things, however the reality is that it does not matter.  It is in the past and can not be changed.  My summary of RB's position is that US should revert back to President Obama's ~2011 strategy regarding the Middle East.

  • Pull all US ground troops out Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East.
  • Just provide intelligence, air support and political support. 
  • In essence let the countries resolve their own issues through civil war.
Now what we know of the recent past is that ISIL, Al Qeada,  Al Shabaab, and all the other power hungry violent Sharia law supporting fundamentalists thrive in power vacuums.  And the reality is that even Obama needed to change his plan when it failed and ISIS grew in power, wealth, land, reach, etc.

So I will ask again, what do you non-interventionists want to do?
  • Pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban enslave the country again?
  • Pull out of Iraq / Syria and let ISIS start growing again?
  • Other?

Friday, April 29, 2016

Punishment, Gift or Reward

Matt and my comments took an interesting twist on the MP GOP Doomed article.  It is a very interesting look into what social programs are from different perspectives.

Matt seems to believe that the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they want to "punish" the recipients.  Kind of like when a Parent sends a Child to bed without supper...

Whereas I see the GOP's insistence on tying personal improvement requirements and deadlines to welfare, Medicaid, etc is because they are aware that it is  a "huge gift / investment" from the other tax payers in the country.  And that it is only fair to expect the recipients to do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personnel situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.

My point is that poverty is the natural consequence of keeping a single parent household, squandering the huge K-12 investment our society made in the recipient, having more children than you can afford, having children too young, etc.  Therefore any public assistance one receives is a blessing that one is not entitled to.  Therefore one should be very thankful and work their butt off to use as little of it as they can, not complain that they are entitled to more.  Thoughts?
"Please do tell. Name a societal level economic and or social ill eliminated by charity. Charity is wonderful for its purpose, targeted relief for specific problems. It can never be the panacea that conservatives wish it to be, due to the fact that too many competing interests are after the same dollar. Societal level problems require societal level solutions, not well intended half measures from a nonprofit community unequipped to address that level of need." Matt

"I am unsure. I may agree with Medicaid, however I don't think charity could have done any worse than the government intervention... Forbes War on Poverty" G2A

"There's a reason for the term "poorhouse." There's also a reason we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to. You live in a world which has never seen the way things used to be, a world that is, on average, utterly ignorant of its own history. It's reflected in nearly all aspects of life and only grows more obvious with each passing year. Would that folks pause to speak with even one person who actually experienced the past before the sweeping victories of the New Deal and Great Society, perhaps minds might change, but as fewer and fewer remain (at least those who were in a position to understand the implications, sorry boomers) that opportunity will soon pass." Matt

"Choices. "collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to deal with care for the aged, we couldn't afford not to."

It is interesting comparing families here to families in Asia. Over there it is more likely to have grand parents, parents and children living together. Whereas here we seem to have outsourced child raising of our young and elder care to the government in many cases. Maybe it is our self centered independent American way...

Maybe this is part of why there are so many single parent households out there. I mean why would anyone choose to deal with their Parents or a Spouse, and their expectations of us, when Uncle Sam is out there handing out checks without judgment, advice or expectations? Why would we choose to help care for Mom or Dad in their old age when there are government funded nursing homes available?

I agree whole heartedly that we collectively decided to move away from charity and family resources to resolve many personal and family issues. Unfortunately it came with a big price tag for our society and some terrible consequences for our most vulnerable children. On the upside is very convenient and let's us delegate some of those family responsibilities elsewhere..." G2A

"Always a punishment. It's really the only card conservatism knows how to play isn't it. Couldn't afford to save for retirement? Starve, or bankrupt your children. Can afford health insurance? Die, or bankrupt your entire lineage. Want to give your kids an education? Better have the funds or else.  
The problem with your entire mindset was never that it didn't, or could still today, work for SOME people. It's that it would be disastrous for MOST people.  
If you'd like an example, let me suggest ME. My mother's father died 6 months after I was born. She and my father were 20 something's, married young with my seven year old sister already around. They had just begun to get their heads above water, with my mom having just landed the job she'd hold until last year, and my Dad getting through tech school. My grandmother was a lovely lady, but being rendered deaf at a young age by scarlet fever had never gotten advanced education, being considered too disabled by the general consensus of the times. She was completely dependent upon my grandfather, unable even to drive. As she aged her diabetes consumed ever more of her budget. Did I mention my mother's sibling were still in high school at the time?  
Under your worldview, responsibility for my grandmother and her minor children should have been assumed by my parents, which would have cost them two homes, as well as any hope to save for their own future. It would have cost my aunt and uncle the college degrees they both earned later and the success they enabled. It would have cost my sister and I ours as well, and likely cost my younger brother his chance to be born.  
What prevented all of this, not charity, we come from poor families in a poor town, in a poor county, in a backwater state. There was no one else not to busy trying to survive themselves, to assist us. Social security, Medicaid, and later Medicare SAVED my mother's family, and by extension saved me the success I have enjoyed in my life. Spare me the condescension about caring for my elders, we have, by enabling programs to ensure they have what they need even if we can't provide it." Matt

"You call not offering social support systems a "punishment", where as I see having social support systems as a "huge gift / investment" that the recipients should be incredibly thankful for. In fact they should be so thankful that they should do everything they can to improve themselves, improve their local community and their personal situation so they can get off those support systems and help pay for them.

Do you in someway believe that society owed your family the help you received?
What do you think your family did to earn the tax dollars from the pockets of your neighbors?
If you in no way earned that "gift / investment" from the other tax payers, how could putting conditions on your receipt of it be considered a punishment?

As I have said before, I am happy to see tax dollars used to help people improve. (ie learn to fish) However I am not happy to see tax dollars used to help healthy capable citizens stay sitting in the US Social Support hammock. (ie buying fish)

So it sounds like your family made good with "huge gift / investment" that the other tax payers in the country gave you from their wallet. That is excellent news, now why are you resistant to demanding that from the other recipients across the country?" G2A

Peace and Love. Not.

Those pro-peace anti-hate anti-Trump folks sure have a strange way of demonstrating their deep held beliefs...  Thoughts?

CNN Violence at Anti-Trump Rally

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

GOP is DOOMED... Or not...

A gift from Laurie...
This tax topic bores me so I will throw in a link to something more interesting:

“Complete and total destruction of the Republican Party”: Former Reagan official Bruce Bartlett on why he backs Trump

I can't say that I see the GOP returning to sanity any time soon.
And some thoughts I left at MP Demographic Shifts Spell Doom for GOP
"The reality is that people who have earned money through hard work and self discipline will be more likely to vote Republican, since they will value their personal wealth and want lower taxes so they can spend it or give it away as they choose. And the folks who want the government to arbitrate / control the distribution of wealth in America with no regard to effort / sacrifice will continue to vote for Democrats.

On the upside, as more non-white individuals become more financially successful... They will shift towards the GOP / Capitalism party and away from the DFL / Social Democracy party. Thank heaven for the pendulum." G2A

"If you are standing in line at a movie theater that has 500 seats. 50 people walk past you and budge in line in front of you, thereby pushing you to the point in line that you are not able to see the movie. The theater management sees what happens , refuses to sell tickets to the budgers and let's you buy tickets. Is this a "hard line stance" in your view or is it "fair"? 
If you want to let in more legal immigrants who are willing to apply, stand in line, go through back ground checks, etc... Sounds great !!! I'm all for legal immigration, it can help keep wages globally competitive. 
If you want to give citizenship to "budgers" who bypassed the legal process, avoided back ground checks and jumped in front of law abiding immigrants... Then I disagree. I think they should go to the back of the line... 
By the way, on a related note apparently ~400,000 people illegally entered the country and ~400,000 left... Therefore net illegal immigration was about ZERO. Now this is good news until you think that many of ~400,000 people entered the country with NO Background check... It is kind of amazing that we have not had more terrorist incidence since our border is apparently pretty easy to violate." G2A

"As I said, I don't who will vote for who... However I think race should have little to do with it" G2A.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You

A common theme in these 2 pieces and their related comments, are that some Liberals seem to want to hold those who fail in school and "life" blameless, while they want to guilt those who succeed in school and "life" for making good financial decisions.  Thoughts?

MP MN Vote with their Feet
"Hi Guys, I agree that you made a very rational decision... I am pretty sure everyone here would make a financially sound decision to move to a low tax state when they can work it into their life. My parents changed their residence to SD 10 years ago or so, and they spend the Winters near Miami. (for the concerned folks here, as farmers / landlords they still pay a boat load of MN property taxes)

I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to. I mean who would say "I want to pay $10,000+ per year in taxes rather than save it for my children or help them with their bills...

I know it is hard for some Liberals to understand, however people with good money management skills (aka rich), take many things into account before making big decisions. And $10,000+ / year in unnecessary expenses will make the list.

After paying 100's of thousands of dollars in MN taxes during my working career, I will have no problem changing my state of residence when it works for my family..." G2A
"It is unfortunate that you think so poorly of the folks in other states who see the world differently than you do. And for people with a million dollar net worth at the time of their retirement and much of it taxable, we are not talking "a few dollars"... We are talking 10s of thousands of dollars. I think I will give it to charity or my children rather than the bureaucrats.   State by State Guide" G2A

MP Things are Getting Better
"Like all organizations of people, our country will only maximize the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" promise if everyone is a productive and responsible citizen. Meaning that everyone helps to row the boat.

Unfortunately though our society provides welfare for many and free K-12 education for all. Many of our young citizens are failing to become academically proficient and seriously employable. In a large part because of their parental role models and because the public education system rewards tenure over results.

Ironically as I have said before... The 10% will make money whether the American workers succeed or not. They and our consumers just invest in the countries and companies where the government and citizens support excellence, effectiveness and efficiency. And the countries and citizens who don't will continue to struggle." G2A

"I have no desire to cut kindergarten. My point is that society and tax payers are investing between $130,000 to $260,000 into each and every child in America. (more in some cases) Much of which goes into the pockets of Teachers and Administrators. Unfortunately millions of students each year can not achieve basic academic proficiency.

And after the Parents, Teachers and Students have failed to make good use of this huge investment, the folks on the Left demand that we continue to send more money to these folks... I am curious about the rationale?

What does it mean to be a responsible citizen from your perspective? I like Kennedy's view.

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy" G2A

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Paulsen vs Bonoff

Well I am bummed out now... I actually voted for DFL State Sen. Terri Bonoff, now it is likely I will choose to vote against her...  What a waste.  I would prefer her in the State Legislature fighting for increasing Teacher accountability.

Well I guess this is one race where I will need to do by homework before filling in the circle.  Thoughts?

MP Could 3rd Elect a Democrat
MP 3rd District Race

Clinton Support by Sanders Voters

I thought this was an interesting question and piece.  Thoughts?
CNN Will Sander's Voters Support Clinton?

Friday, April 15, 2016

Government Helping to Improve Things

Well Eric is back covering the pro big government supporters.  MP Gov't Helping Things Get Better
"Continually the Left makes the case that the Right is trying shrink the government to somewhere we have not been before. Often comparing the GOP's dream government to some third world country. All the while neglecting to mention that the total government spend as a % of GDP has been growing pretty much non-stop since 1900. Federal_State_and_Local_Spending_In_20th_Century

Now I am not recommending that we go back to 8% of GDP, however I think 33+% is probably excessive. How about instead of giving government more of our hard earned dollars, we demand that they become more effective and efficient with what they already receive.

I also, thought this was amusing. "But, Hacker said, “the new idea that government is parasitic on a very small creative elite and the rest of society is mooching off of that elite is new to me and troubling.”" Because of course Ayn Rand was writing about that concept in 1943." G2A

Democratic Debate and Non-Answers

The Black MN comments seemed to move to a new topic, so I dragged them over here.
"There is a rhetorical tactic out there to the effect of why aren't you making a different argument from the one you are. It's a form of reverse straw man I suppose. You see it when people who talk about issue X, are criticized for not talking about issue why. It's a question that can be asked, I suppose, but it's one where the real answer is usually not very interesting, having to do with things like internal strategizing and allocation of resources. What is generally pretty clear is that while issue X may or may not be a valid issue, it's validity isn't dependent on the validity or lack thereof of issue Y. Indeed, the attempt to shift the discussion to issue why is sort of an implicit admission that the person who wants to deflect the discussion because of his weakness on issue X." --Hiram  

"As it happens I just saw an example of this on Morning Joe. Hillary was asked to release the text of her speeches to Wall Street which obviously she should and she immediately tried to shift the issue to Sanders refusal to provide complete income tax returns. Bernie should do that of course, but that was an implicit admission of her own position. This is particularly true since the argument bounces back in that she is trying to impose a standard that's totally justifiable and fair on Bernie that she is not willing to meet herself." --Hiram 

"An interesting point and line of reasoning, Hiram. I have noted it often in these and other discussions, particular with those of a more liberal persuasion. If one raises a good, logical and direct point, the liberal response is very often the non-sequitur or the tu quoque, neither of which addresses the issue at hand. In this case, it is, one assumes since we would call BLM the "liberal" side of this debate, that it is conservatives raising the ancillary question of black-on-black violence as the REASON for the police presence and the tiny few but unfortunate cases of blacks (a soupcon of them innocent) being shot by police.  

In this case, though, I think the logical position is that there must be some balance to the argument made by the BLM people. The are outraged and driven to massive demonstrations by something like .06% of the violence against black people, while doing absolutely nothing about the rest, which is increasing as a result of their actions. It seems the ultimate in irresponsibility. " Jerry 

"about Hillary's speeches- has any other candidate in any other election cycle been asked to release transcripts of speeches or, as I believe, this is a new expectation just for Hillary. 

otoh, releasing several years of tax returns has been a standard expectation for many years. 

I agree with Hillary, why should she be held to a new standard? I bet there would be nothing too radical or different from her public positions on issues in those speeches." Laurie
"Laurie, I'll agree with you except to note that "new standards" is nothing new for Democrats running for office. The object is to make the opponent look bad for doing, or not doing, something that doesn't sound unreasonable but that is difficult for them at least politically, and easy for you. It's unfair, in some sense.

In this case, though, Hillary is making her own mess. First, she takes $250,000 from Verizon for a speech, then joins the strikers and denounces them. There's some hypocrisy somewhere and of course Bernie points it out. " Jerry

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Black Minnesotans Unite

MP Black Minnesotans  We will see if my comment gets through the moderator...
"The common theme I hear from BLM and other organizations is that they just want to be treated like everyone else... That people should treat them as people, not Black people. Racism should end.

And yet this whole effort seems to be aimed at uniting people based on their race and promoting special benefits that will be determined based on race.

I also sense some puzzlement that foreign born Blacks are far more likely to associate with Whites and other foreign born Blacks. Which is odd to me if skin color / race is not supposed to matter. Personally I am just hoping that the Blacks who migrated here keep their perspective and attitude that America is the land of opportunity instead of shifting towards a victim mentality.

I support Morgan Freeman's view.  Ending Racism by Morgan Freeman" G2A
What frustrates and/or concerns me the most is that young Black immigrants like my recent energetic Ethiopian cab driver may be sucked into the Victim Mentality that many of our local Blacks suffer from. (By the way, this VM link is to a different site than usual)  Enjoy !!!

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Coed Bath and Shower Rooms

Joel, Jerry and I have been having a long drawn out discussion about sexuality, body parts and bathrooms.  This triggered an interesting question.

If the LGBT community has figured out that anyone should be able to use any bathroom or shower room based on their personal self identification, not on their sexual preference and/or body parts.  The logic being that it really doesn't matter since we all are mature open minded people...  Then should our society just drop this whole silly men's and women's thing?

I remember a while back that Laurie said she would have no problem being naked in a shower room with a Lesbian. (ie woman sexually attracted to other women)  So does that mean that we should be able to go coed and have heterosexual men in that same room? (ie man sexually attracted to women)

Why or why not?  What is your rationale?  How does this apply or not apply to the on going bathroom law debate?

For a visual...  Here is an image of the coed shower scene from Starship Troopers...

A discussion of the scene at Quora
More discussion on Reddit

Monday, April 11, 2016

The Challenge of Moderation

Joel asked an interesting question:

"I wonder why such a flat out fabrication of someone else's position would be allowed to stand and not be deleted by our moderator?

I think this somewhat impolite and yet within the rules comment by Jerry triggered the question:
"Joel, you are free to eat anything you like but not to tell me what I will eat. And if you think that makes you healthier, great. But if you tell me you're doing it to save the planet from CO2 and/or methane, I'm going to laugh at you. See, that's the thing. We have all these folks running around telling us where we should get our energy, or that we shouldn't be getting our energy, and how much we should pay for it, just to do something for which they don't have a lick of conclusive evidence for the necessity."
I guess my view is that Joel is free to correct Jerry in the next comment as he did.
"And you'll find that nowhere and at no time in my life have I ever suggested that the government mandate "such a radical totalitarian policy", so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth." Joel
Lord know Sean has straightened me out more than once...  So please play nice, argue lively and attack the topic...  Not each other.

G2A Moderation Rules
  • G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
  • G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
  • G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
  • G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
  • G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
  • G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)