Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I come to Susan's because as a scientists (biomedical area) i thought I could contribute to inform the forum on the advances in unraveling the underlying biological causes of GID. To my surprise evidence on the biological origins of GID was not welcome or plain rejected, by most of the posting people.

I also come to Susan's to gather advice and knowledge on the art of transitioning from more experienced people. I have not been disappointed in this front. I am greatfull to all who have share there experiences and knowledge.

As in any other forum controversial topics, such as prostitution, abortion, entitlements, religious and political beliefs do arise. I like everbody else have my opinions and beliefs which are a product of my education and experiences. I pride myself of being tolerant, meaning I am willing to listen and respect the belief of others. However, when I do not agree, I will not keep silent and I will post y discent opinion.

My political, religious, ethical, moral, philosophical narrative are diametrical opposed to those sponsored by communists, anarchist, socialists, and far-left liberals.  I have, in several different posts, debated and argue my point of views. But is seems my postion is that of a minority. Is that the case? Is this forum mostly populated by communists, anarchist, socialists, and far-left liberals? Is there a "silent majority" out there?

In just about any post there is a 1:50 or more ratio of people who post versus people who just read. Please I urge to participate more, express you views.

Kate D

I am about as liberal as you can get when it comes to religion, social justices, and politics. I go to a pretty darn liberal Seminary too. But liberal and conservative is truly in the eye of the beholder. For example, what you may see as overly liberal form your position in regards to me, others may find me a little more conservative.

However, being liberal or progressive or whatever you wanna call it and being conservative or fundamentalist or whatever you want to call it is a mutual respect for each other.

Know that what you may find as immoral or vile I may find as natural and normal. What I may find as normal you may find as unacceptable or what you may find as acceptable, I may find as too restrictive, confining, or the chaining up certain freedoms.

But the most important respect is for each other. Seeing you call progressive minded people "mostly populated by communists, anarchist," can be seen as very offensive. From my experiences as both being a conservative and now a liberal, I find liberal people to have more personal freedoms and promote universal freedoms than conservatives do. Now, of course, this is only my opinion, but calling people who disagree with your beliefs as anarchist and communist is a little extreme. Sounds very MacArthur-esque.

The biggest and most important aspect of all of this is not to attack another person for a difference of beliefs.

And to be honest, conservative people are my biggest weakness and admitally, it is a prejudice I do have. I have lost my three children because of conservative beliefs. I was not good enough for my children to my ex under "the eyes of Almighty God" and she created an elaborate story and did unspeakable things in the name of her religion. I wont go into detail about it, but it has darkened my heart. I also lost my position in a church for coming out as a Transgender. The church promoted love, unity, and family style atmosphere...until you do something they do not like and they remove you like a country club member. However, my liberal seminary is helping me heal from those wounds. I never look at a conservative person in spite but I am cautious whenever someone starts to "preach" morals based on their own belief system and tries to make it universal and applicable to everyone.

Also, about bio testing for trans issues: i can certainly see the pros and cons. That subject of proving trans through medical and bio interventions is like a double bladed sword. A proficient user can use it very well but it can come back and injure the user if he or she is not careful when swinging it. For example, what if they do have medical and bio technologies to prove transsexualism and you take this test and it comes out that you aren't trans? What will happen?

For me, I believe gender transcends far beyond the medical complexities of our bodies. I believe it is spirit deep and to the point where no medical testing can effectively measure. I am not wholefully against medical proof but I can certainly see abuses that would inherit from it.

I'm one of those who probably COULD post more, but tend not to for some of the reasons discussed already.  I do not look at the world through rose-colored glasses (or even burnt orange glasses) and am never going to be confused with the portion of the population oft-termed as liberal.  I often describe myself as a politician's worst nightmare because I look at issues...fiscally conservative and somewhat socially liberal tend to put me into a moderate camp where I don't subscribe to ANY party or ideologic politics. 

However, I don't buy into the efforts some want to make to socially deconstruct the world around us...and that unfortunately is what too many of the arguments around here tend to devolve into.  And as has been seen on more than one occasion, that is when the backhanded personal attacks tend to come out from those that think the government owes them some sort of legislative change for every perceived slight they faced in their lives...

I am called a communists, anarchist, socialist "bed wetting liberal" regularly by some people because I haven't drank the tea party's koolaide. To a far left wing liberal, I am a conservative bigot who wants to see the poor and children stave to death. So I guess it depends where you are standing how others appear to you?

As far as the biology of transgender, I find it interesting but by the same token I don't believe this is something that you can medically test either with any accuracy. Nor would I allow myself to be "tested", I already know I am. I personally don't feel a need for a medical excuse for being transgendered, just as I don't think someone who is Gay needs a reason to be Gay. It just is and people are going to have to deal with it.

Hello Kate,
you ask questions --- you'll get answers.
And I'm sure you will not like some of them.

The 3 previous posts try to answer most rationally and should be applauded for that. And more so, for what Annah had to say in quite some detail.
That I think should answer a good part of your query.

There is another part and I will try to address that.
It is to do, and at least as you often come across, with an perceived attitude of entitlement.
You seem often if not always bristling with righteous indignation, and this does not go down well.
Whether it be in a forum or that be in a meeting, being too confrontational WITH OUT LEAVING OPEN SOME BACK DOOR, makes you seem harsh to the point of unloving, maybe even uncaring. Force-feeding your agenda.

Honey, you are asking for feedback and there you have some.
In fact I feel if you where always so sure of your position there'd be far less need to come across this "strong" and unyielding.

When I said attitude earlier on, this is the main issue in my perception - and not some silent majority, nor other politically motivated souls to the left, right or even middle ground.

"The way you shout into the forest, it will echo back to you". A German saying that holds true in my experience.

No need to be so tough around here, one can still make ones case --- and if it is not taken up? There may be more pressing interests for those that are presently posting. If folks are not wanting to post and just read --- so what. They may just want to "walk" before they "run" (post).

I do say the above with love, maybe tough-love but there you are.

Food for though...
Axelle

Kate, I'm glad that you express your views. Everyone has a right to express themselves. Keep on posting.                                                                                                                      Gennee

Quote from: kate durcal on August 09, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
My political, religious, ethical, moral, philosophical narrative are diametrical opposed to those sponsored by communists, anarchist, socialists, and far-left liberals.  I have, in several different posts, debated and argue my point of views. But is seems my postion is that of a minority. Is that the case? Is this forum mostly populated by communists, anarchist, socialists, and far-left liberals? Is there a "silent majority" out there?

-_-

If your views are "diametrical opposed" to the groups you list, that makes you a far right conservative. I won't list any of the derogatory names that are the right-wing equivalents of the derogatory left-wing names you used. I don't like extremists on either end of the spectrum. They can't see the world from anywhere but a distorted perspective. I am not a communist, anarchist, socialist or a far-left liberal, but I don't agree with you either.

Quote from: Axélle on August 09, 2011, 11:14:17 AM
You seem often if not always bristling with righteous indignation, and this does not go down well.

Truth.

Understand that in your third post at Susans, you were already saying that gender identity is all in our heads. And in your fifth post you were already quoting the Bible. That sets a tone that doesn't go down well here. I'm sorry but believing I should have been born a girl is not a dilution like believing I'm Napoleon (as you said in one of your posts).

I would put myself in the far left, a definite supporter of socialism, and I think that class is probably the most important problem facing society. I highly doubt I am in the majority here, or anywhere else for that matter, I mean, people in the centre are usually the ones who are the majority, the people both extremes of politics like to ignore or chastise as being not with us, therefore against us. So, if your views are far right, you will never really be in the majority either, the bulk of people are a bit apathetic and are gonna stay in their middleground.

That being said, express you dissent all you want, just now that if you aren't being tactful about it you will make people mad. Also, I rarely go into my political views on susans, at least not too in depth, the way I see it, arguing politics or religion on the internet, just isn't that worthwhile, but sharing support and information is, and that is the reason why I am here.

Quote from: Hikari on August 09, 2011, 04:43:43 PM
Also, I rarely go into my political views on susans, at least not too in depth, the way I see it, arguing politics or religion on the internet, just isn't that worthwhile,

Heck, it isn't worthwhile in any setting. :)

As a divinity student I only discuss religious matters in four places:

1. My Seminary
2. My Coven
3. My church I intern for
4. A forum designed for religious conversation

When it comes to religionin other places, I only discuss it whenever someone asks me too and even then I show the upmost respect to other religions. Which isn't hard for me since I believe every religion has a destination of wanting to find a truth in their lives.

When it comes to politics, I keep that purely to myself or to a group of people that I know share the same issues I do.

When it comes to social issues, I am left as I stated before but i never try to force my belief as being the only way as their are multiple correct paths. It reminds me of religious exclusiveness whenever someone tries to make it sound like their way or the highway (like....my way is right....everyone else who is wrong will go to hell). That's called prosyletization and that makes my skin crawl.

I don't mind hearing a wide range of opinions. I am even open to listening to arguments as to why some people think being transsexual is wrong, or unnatural (and what's wrong with being unnatural).

But as Annah said, respect for each other is very important. If I disagree with someone, I don't try to attack as aggressively as I can. I listen and, more than just listening, I consider from their point of view why they think their opinion is right. And if I am truly convinced that what they say is right more than what I thought, I would change my opinion on that matter (and I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong in that matter—I'm not a politician so I don't have to worry about being a flip-flop). If I don't agree, I try to explain nicely the precise things I don't agree with, if they are nice to me too and willing to discuss it openly.

I do find flaws with capitalism and even democracy, but I think they are the best systems the human society has come up with at this point in time. I imagine that one day a better system will be developed, though I can't imagine what.

This is a forum and forums are usually filled with opinions.  And that's fine.  It's what most conversations are all about.  If we never stated our opinion, this world would be pretty quiet.  But when someone disagrees with the opinion of another and says "you're wrong", things can get heated.  And I've seen a lot of people leave here because they took the opinion of others personally.

So, when posting, try to state things in such a way as to express this is just your opinion.  And calling someone an idiot is not what I'm talking about.

When reading, know that you are reading is just someone's opinion and in no way defines you.  Sticks and stones.

If we all did just those two things, I think there would be a lot less emotions flaring and feelings hurt.  But that's just my opinion.

Nothing new Ladies, I heard from you all before, I was hopping to hear from people who seldomly or never post, some fresh voices.

Nevertheless I take all your points homes -eventhough I did nit aks for a personal critique-, specially Axelle's. I could elaborate why I come brstling, but this thread is not about me (eventhough the posts have centerd around me); it is about hearing what other conservative people have to say (these are what I call the silent majority), and does not mean I do not want to hear about what the liberals have to say.

Kate D

I do not like being told that I am a pervert or lacking in character when I disagree with certain parties.

Personaly I think things were going real well around here until we started getting a few loud individuals who have diferant opinions and politics than most of us here posting in almost every thread that could be considered sensitive.
Makes me almost wonder if we are being attacked from within....

Every user is allowed to have their own opinions about politics (and other issues) we don't have to agree.  No one should be berated because of their beliefs and no one should try to "force" their beliefs on others.

Lets slow this down a bit.

...she asked us......

;D

Quote from: cynthialee on August 09, 2011, 06:53:47 PM
Makes me almost wonder if we are being attacked from within....

Assuming the person in question is not really a poser.

My views seem to be a mix of those considered "liberal" and "conservative". I guess it's fair to say I'm a socialist, though most people I talk to make the mistake of thinking that socialism is a governmental system when it is really an economic system. To my knowledge a democratic socialist nation has never existed in human history. I actually wouldn't even mind capitalism though if our (speaking from the USA) capitalist system weren't so rigged. I don't like seeing American jobs given to foreigners over citizens, which seems to be a more conservative viewpoint. Most progressives seem to want to let the whole world in when all the people already here are not taken care of. I also believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment, although I'm too poor to own gun myself. I primarily associate with progressives because they seem to be (generally speaking) the only ones who actually believe in freedom and equality. I am a pretty religious person, though not a Christian, but I certainly don't think that everyone should have to follow what I believe.

As far as the biology of this condition, I'm interested in whatever treatments can increase the compatibility of this body, though at present they are all prohibitively expensive. I don't really care about it beyond that, biology/medicine just isn't my area of expertise or even much interest. I've always been a physics and software kind of person. I guess some of this is religious belief that cannot be proven physically, but no medical test on this body can determine anything about me because this flesh is not me, it is just a biological system that I happen to be plugged into during this life.

So I guess whether I'm "conservative" or "liberal" depends on the issue in question. Maybe that makes me an independent.

Well Kate, I am as Conservative as you'll find here on a lot of topics, without veering into extremist territory. I vote Liberal all the way, unless I like the local National Party candidate.
  I have stated here previously, half in jest, that I think your whole 1776 republic was a bad idea anyway.  You'd be a lot better off with a Constitutional Monarchy. Then you'd have real Conservatives, not the  ignorant neo-Nazi rabble that seems to pass for such.
If you are a scientist then you should be prepared to accept new ideas once they have been subjected to proper scrutiny.   Maybe you would feel you are received better if you could put up some informative,straightforward,  factual posts that would help those looking for information .

Karen.

Sadly I think Kate has left the building.

As ex staff can I say that the site goes up and down, there are some very abusive people and  there are trolls. But there are lots of people who want robust discussion. Nothing wrong with that. But if you start to say things that will get you into trouble in the local bar, why say it here? You will get abuse and Mods will throw you out.

There are many fascinating people here, some beginning their lives, some travelling and some enjoying their fruits. Enjoy them.

I love a good discussion, but good discussions are not clouded by emotion.

Read your post before you send it. Would you say that to a friend or to a group of people in the bar?

If not don't post it here.

Geez Karen, you could end up premier of Tas :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Hugs

Cindy

True. Having a mature debate means allowing the other person to put their point of view, and treating them with respect, even when you disagree. It also means being mature enough to not resort to trying to pass off as fact something which is an opinion.  From this distance it seems to me that the US Tea Party resort to that far too often.

Hmm,scrap  the sales tax on local wine, compulsory wine tasting lessons in school, footpath motorcycle parking, massive investment in oyster and scallop farms,  and PUT UP SOME DECENT STREET SIGNS SO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. That should just about do it! ;D
Karen.

Vote Karen # 1

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You Aussies are so gifted with concepts and words!
So well put...

Vote Karen # 2

Thanks all. Peerages will be instituted and distributed to all supporters. Including a key to the House of lords drinks cabinet if you are in the UK.  >:-)

Karen.

You such a devil, babe :-)

And for fostering better international relations all Tri-Nations matches will be played at Bellerive Oval, and shown live world-wide. Except for NZ!!!

Such a good girl, even knows all about Ruby!

Being born a bread Germany I'm so much at loose ends with all this.

NOW, question about silent majority: "Is there maybe a silent majority of women/womyn playing Cricket?" --- 'cause I NEVER see them.

Deeply wondering,
Axelle
PS: This is neither meant to be a sexist, religious or political question --- and sport be OK, eh?

Cricket? Yes, and we beat the Poms regularly at that too! 
Karen.

Now you have problem. NZ play cricket?

Whoops pasting the old country. I see they have a slimmed down Shane. Welcome to him

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Cindy

Yes NZ play cricket and that's ok, but they also have this thing called the All Blacks. It sits in the middle of the pitch and chews up Rugby teams. :o

Karen.

Now don't you guys give no cabs liver, ALL BLACK are GUYS, hey.

And that Cricket stuff, are we talking GIRLS --- or just conveniently side stepping that question?

???
Axelle

Talking girls when it comes to the Cricket.  They have a better record than the men lately too.  ;D
I don't know much about women's Rugby, but I can't imagine the NZ girls team are all that different from the men.
Karen.

Ha! So there are girl Cricket teams. I'm amazed, very good.
Are they doing that fast-bowler thing like the boys?!

I mean baseball pitching is not like softball pitching --- for a reason, no.

And that nasty hard pip of a cricket ball? All the same?
That can take you out one time, never mind implants and some such.
And those funny hard hats. Totally ruin your hair do, hell.
And say you sure and not having on here now, honey?

Just a wondering minority I guess (me)
Axelle

well, I can pretty much say you three have completely butchered this thread. If there was any "conservative people" here for Kate, the thread is pretty much impossible for them to voice their opinions now.

Honey, you wanna put your lips were my hips are?

Please kindly, you may go back to all those despised silent majorities, sorry for this uncouth diversion.

Kiss, kiss,
Axelle

Quote from: Annah on August 10, 2011, 10:28:19 AM
well, I can pretty much say you three have completely butchered this thread. If there was any "conservative people" here for Kate, the thread is pretty much impossible for them to voice their opinions now.

Def butchered...although it may be a moot point given that Kate has gone her separate ways. 

It really does suck, though, that some insist on trying to silence those that don't subscribe to liberal viewpoints...

I was perfectly willing to be civil then one day I got called immoral by a conservative type who I disagreed with on this board. Then I get called a pervert on anouther day when I disagree with a point.

Sorry I came out swinging but I am tired of getting black eyes.

If you're looking for a reason why most of us aren't conservative, it's because one of the loudest messages conservatives have is that people who are different, who violate *their* sense of what is normal or traditional or natural, are the enemy.  Or at least, not deserving of the same rights and freedoms as they are.

They depict gay rights activists as "special interests" who want "priveleges" that are the rightful property of everyone else.  To many conservatives, trans* and androgynes and crossdressers are, of course, making a mockery of God and are all out to corrupt and/or seduce them and their children.  It's pretty hard to sympathize and agree with people who think you're an abomination.

To a conservative, "tradition" (theirs) and money are more important than people.  They hold conformity, the flag, "traditional family values" where the father rules and everyone else obeys, and the military sacred, but not freedom of expression (unless it's theirs) or religion (unless it's theirs).  They believe might makes right, and they have the might.   They claim life is sacred while opposing abortion but not where it comes to protecting the environment or the lives of  those already born.

I realize not all conservatives are like that... but I cannot agree with fiscal "conservatism" either, as it's been proven disastrous under both Reagan and W, and honestly just funnels more money toward the wealthy.

I'm a progressive. I believe we should all leave the world better than we found it. I believe it is better to be a healthy happy fish in a vast teeming ocean full of wonder than a big nasty shark in a choked polluted pond with starved and sickly prey to feed on.

I believe that we've reached the era where technology can serve humanity better if we shed capitalism.  I'm not a communist, but I don't think our current system is sustainable either.  I long for the end of scarcity economics, and value being put on things that actually matter and make people happy.

Quote from: foosnark on August 10, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
I cannot agree with fiscal "conservatism" either, as it's been proven disastrous under both Reagan and W, and honestly just funnels more money toward the wealthy.

There was nothing "fiscally conservative" about either Reagan or Bush, unless you define the term as spending lots of money on the military. Cutting taxes on the rich while at the same time busting the budget on military spending doesn't fit my definition of fiscal conservatism.

Quote from: Axélle on August 10, 2011, 10:33:51 AM
Honey, you wanna put your lips were my hips are?

That type of comment is not welcome here, please do not do it again.

Quote from: foosnark on August 10, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
If you're looking for a reason why most of us aren't conservative, it's because one of the loudest messages conservatives have is that people who are different, who violate *their* sense of what is normal or traditional or natural, are the enemy.

I believe that we've reached the era where technology can serve humanity better if we shed capitalism.

Yep I agree with both of these things. I tried to explain the latter one to someone I know but he completely insisted that capitalism is so great. He seemed to really believe that everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want in the USA. I wish that were true. Sure our laws support it, but all one needs to do is pay attention to the news to see that money from special interests and large corporations beats the law every time. I wonder if it is because this person was a cis straight male. I'm sure things look pretty good to someone with lots of privilege, but unfortunately they don't to all of us.

Quote from: Pinkfluff on August 10, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
I'm sure things look pretty good to someone with lots of privilege, but unfortunately they don't to all of us.

Actually the day before yesterday SUCKED for some of us who apparently are defined as having 'lots of privilege" and the past few months haven't been much better...I won't discuss specific numbers, but Monday was an upper five-figure loss day.  Some of us have busted our asses to get to the point in our financial lives where we are at the moment and we take grievous offense at the way the US Government pisses money away under the current administration...

Does that mean that I liked everything under previous administrations?  No it does not.  However, they did not do NEAR the damage to future generations as the current regime has done in the span of just a few years...

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 10, 2011, 04:47:50 PM
Actually the day before yesterday SUCKED for some of us who apparently are defined as having 'lots of privilege" and the past few months haven't been much better...I won't discuss specific numbers, but Monday was an upper five-figure loss day.  Some of us have busted our asses to get to the point in our financial lives where we are at the moment and we take grievous offense at the way the US Government pisses money away under the current administration...

Does that mean that I liked everything under previous administrations?  No it does not.  However, they did not do NEAR the damage to future generations as the current regime has done in the span of just a few years...

I don't think we can entirely blame the current stock market crises solely on this administration. I lost my 65K a year job under Bush's administration and I saw similar market drops too.

The way the government has been handling things for the last 20 years is to be blamed. All the administrations are to blame for this. It is a result of years of mishandling and misappropriation of monies that lead to these current events.

Quote from: Annah on August 10, 2011, 05:03:50 PM
I don't think we can entirely blame the current stock market crises solely on this administration. I lost my 65K a year job under Bush's administration and I saw similar market drops too.

Don't get me wrong...I have had other days with significant losses...October 1987 was the first truly brutal week I ever experienced but my exposure was limited back then and it created some buying opportunities.  The dot.bomb period hurt as well because I had a larger stake in the markets.  However, as the professional career flourished, so to has my portfolio...I am one of those people that some want to label as privileged simply because I had been able to save and generally invest effectively.  While the current regime may not be entirely to blame, the reality is that it is hemoraging cash like it was going out of style...and yet they refuse to heed the message that came from the downgrade on the ratings. 

It really is almost enough to make me just pull out of the market and shift all of the funds out of the country.  We simply cannot afford another collapse like we saw under Carter...and even if bonds started paying rates like we saw then, I don't know that I trust the government enough not to try and monopolize them not unlike they are cramming Obamacare down our throats... 

QuoteThe way the government has been handling things for the last 20 years is to be blamed. All the administrations are to blame for this. It is a result of years of mishandling and misappropriation of monies that lead to these current events.

But at SOME point, SOME administration has to say "it is time to quit pissing money away."  Instead of hitting the brakes though, the current regime mashed the go-faster pedal through the floor.  And the only thing they want to do in response is figure out how to get more money out of people in my bracket so that they can continue to fund the entitlement populous...

The system will not be repaired until it completely fails.

Don't get stuck holding paper on that day.
Specie (metals), and land that you own clear of mortgage are your best bets when the SHTF.
dyodd

Sorry for the thread derailment there, but there is a real difference between what Americans consider 'conservative' and 'liberal', and how the terms are viewed in other places.  Lots of the silent majority here would equate a lot of US conservatives with the most extreme right wing, and really can't take them seriously.  Those who do are a bit worried.
 
On the one hand the National Party ,( which is a rural interests group, not like the BNP), is absolutely against the idea of Australia becoming a republic, yet their agricultural policies would be regarded as totally socialist by the Tea Party.  For purely commercial reasons, they are a bit more open to the Arab point of view on the Middle East than the other parties as well.

Our main conservative party is the Liberal Party, which is located about where the most moderate Republicans are, and the Labor Party is a coalition of factions ranging from old Southern style Democrats, to near Trotskyites.  Apart from the extreme left of Labor both are  staunch allies of the US and generally pro-Israel.

So the silent majority is a pretty fluid idea.  Yours is definitely not mine Kate, so if you do come back please don't assume all of us hold familiar positions and opinions even if we have the same label.

Karen.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 10, 2011, 04:47:50 PM
Actually the day before yesterday SUCKED for some of us who apparently are defined as having 'lots of privilege" and the past few months haven't been much better...I won't discuss specific numbers, but Monday was an upper five-figure loss day.  Some of us have busted our asses to get to the point in our financial lives where we are at the moment and we take grievous offense at the way the US Government pisses money away under the current administration...

Does that mean that I liked everything under previous administrations?  No it does not.  However, they did not do NEAR the damage to future generations as the current regime has done in the span of just a few years...

I certainly am not saying that times haven't been tough on everyone (well mostly everyone) lately, but I think it is fair to assume that if you deal in funds as large as five figures (and if that was the loss you probably deal in at least six figures) that you are not facing homelessness and untreated medical problems. I don't deny that you have worked hard. So have I. Yet I don't even get anything to show for it. While you may worry about your financial life, I am stuck worrying about my entire life and how much longer they will let me live it.

As far as the government, I am no longer a fan of Obama after this so-called deal, but it has been shown that the majority of the debt and deficit problems faced by the government come from Bush's reckless spending on two wars (they never did find the WMDs he said Iraq had) and on tax breaks for the very rich.

Quote from: Pinkfluff on August 10, 2011, 08:25:18 PM
As far as the government, I am no longer a fan of Obama after this so-called deal, but it has been shown that the majority of the debt and deficit problems faced by the government come from Bush's reckless spending on two wars (they never did find the WMDs he said Iraq had) and on tax breaks for the very rich.

I agree.

Here's where the debt came from, when and by whom.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/31/the_debt_crisis/ (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/31/the_debt_crisis/)

If someone doesn't  like the facts, that doesn't change what they are. I'm no fan of Obama but people who preach he is the main contributor to the debt aren't using facts. Regan over doubled the deficit but for some reason he is their God? I just don't get it. If ANYONE is to blame over the current market crash it's the tea party, S&P says this in their report. But some people just don't want to hear the truth when it doesn't fit their agenda. Stick with these tea party guys and watch ALL your investments disappear.

Typical of the cut and run crowd.  First try to silence all opposition, and when that doesn't work take you ball and go home.  Any wonder we're in big trouble when people are not even capable of listening to an opposition argument anymore?

BTW, the US is spending $325 million per day in Afghanistan, and the entire country ain't even worth half of that if you bought it outright forever.

You give me what I want and I'll... have everything I want.

That's how compromise works, doesn't it?

Sorry, just came to mind, a line from a song by Christia Aguilera.
Maybe should have quoted that? --- C.A.?
Sorry for the oversight.

Also, that thread got so HEAVY it's just not funny. Tends to bring out my frivolous side, with the OP having left, feeling ever so misunderstood. Now joining her*) own silent majority?

Girl will be girls,
Axelle
PS: Freudsche Fehlleistung*) - Lapsus linguae - THIS was not intended, neither meant as a snub. I wish to apologize.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 10, 2011, 05:21:12 PMI am one of those people that some want to label as privileged simply because I had been able to save and generally invest effectively.

Half the people on earth over age 20 have a net worth under $4,000.  2/3 of the people on earth over 20 are under $10,000.

Chances are pretty good that every person on these forums is priveleged.  Certainly anyone who can even *think* about investing is priveleged.  The middle class doesn't typically invest, except maybe in a retirement plan of some kind; it's not because they are stupid or lazy or less deserving but because they simply don't earn enough to save, much less to risk.  And yet the middle class is FAR better off than the world's poor.

My thought is, if wealthy people don't want to pay tax, they don't get to use public roads, public fire departments, public police, public clean water, or public clean  air, nor do they get the benefit of the defense provided to the public by the military.  Enjoy Somalia, the Tea Party paradise.

Quote from: foosnark on August 11, 2011, 08:31:33 AM
My thought is, if wealthy people don't want to pay tax, they don't get to use public roads, public fire departments, public police, public clean water, or public clean  air, nor do they get the benefit of the defense provided to the public by the military.  Enjoy Somalia, the Tea Party paradise.

Yet another misconception...you will find that those with wealth are not opposed to taxes (not thrilled with them, but understand them as a necessary evil).  The problem is when the government wants to impose punitive rates on the haves while the have-nots either are below a taxable threshold or pay a much smaller percentage.  If the government TRULY wanted to equalize tax burdens, then we would see a flat tax with the balance coming through what amounts to a sales tax (in which case people are only being taxed on what they actually consume). 

Federal taxes on income are not where the vast majority of funding for roads and public service come from...in fact, most local services are paid for through the property taxes on residential and commercial property, or in the case of a volunteer fire department, on the local association fees.  Something like 50 cents of every gallon of gas on average is state and federal taxes...although the distribution of those funds is hardly handled in an equitable fashion.  Admittedly, I have not paid attention to what amount of my Avgas is tax and what is not...and most of what I fly is often handled as a wet-lease, meaning that if I refuel somewhere, it really isn't coming out of my pocket as a separate expense and is credited against my per-hour rate...and then there are the stupid TSA-related taxes on commercial flight that do absolutely NOTHING towards the improvement of domestic air safety. 

 

Quote from: Axélle on August 11, 2011, 08:13:55 AM
Sorry, just came to mind, a line from a song by Christia Aguilera.
Maybe should have quoted that? --- C.A.?
Sorry for the oversight.

Also, that thread got so HEAVY it's just not funny. Tends to bring out my frivolous side, with the OP having left, feeling ever so misunderstood. Now joining his her own silent majority?

Girl will be girls,
Axelle

The thread wasn't meant to be funny. It was suppose to be heavy. She brought up a something that was a concern to her and even though many of us philosophically disagree with her, the mature thing to do is to voice of our own opposition to those ideals without attacking her. Even if she got ugly with us, our responsible response is not to put her or others who share her philosophies down.

Anyone can disagree and people should disagree and voice their opinions but the execution on how one disagrees with another should always be centered around a co respect; even if she doesn't respect you, the answer is not to return the favor. If someone gets out of hand with me, i simply will not stoop to their own level. I simply report it and go on with my life.

And even if you don't agree with her, calling her a guy is a bit below the belt.

Quote from: Annah on August 11, 2011, 09:52:27 AM
Anyone can disagree and people should disagree and voice their opinions but the execution on how one disagrees with another should always be centered around a co respect; even if she doesn't respect you, the answer is not to return the favor. If someone gets out of hand with me, i simply will not stoop to their own level. I simply report it and go on with my life.

And even if you don't agree with her, calling her a guy is a bit below the belt.

True, but beware of "righteous self promotion" in the interest of the better good.

Well thank you for pointing this out Annah,

I have correct my error:

Now joining her*) own silent majority?

Girl will be girls,
Axelle
PS: Freudsche Fehlleistung*) - Lapsus linguae - THIS was not intended, neither meant as a snub. I wish to apologize.

Further more, I did not say *that thread should be funny*, you are quoting me out of context here by saying: *The thread wasn't meant to be funny.*

I said *it was getting too heavy*, and that THIS was not funny. A very different meaning that is.
You may agree?

Axelle

I believe that when one takes the high road it should only be a few inches above the low road....this affords the other individual room for improvement.

Quote from: kate durcal on August 09, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
I come to Susan's because as a scientists (biomedical area) i thought I could contribute to inform the forum on the advances in unraveling the underlying biological causes of GID. To my surprise evidence on the biological origins of GID was not welcome or plain rejected, by most of the posting people.

In just about any post there is a 1:50 or more ratio of people who post versus people who just read. Please I urge to participate more, express you views.

Kate D

Hi Kate I am an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  My gut tells me that GID had biological origins.  My studies show me some major differences between general TS in East and TS in West.  One big difference is that 75% of MTF in West "liked" females to some degree.  This number is three times higher than in East.

Do you have statisitics to back up your findings?

Quote from: valeriedances on August 11, 2011, 01:27:37 PM
I think the reason is that the knowledge of GID is personal at an individual level and because the person knows their experiences better than anyone else, no on can refute it, whether scientist, medical doctor, or phsychologist psychologist.

Been waiting to try that! :laugh:

Quote from: wendy on August 11, 2011, 01:20:23 PM
Hi Kate I am an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  My gut tells me that GID had biological origins.  My studies show me some major differences between general TS in East and TS in West.  One big difference is that 75% of MTF in West "liked" females to some degree.  This number is three times higher than in East.

Do you have statisitics to back up your findings?

Can you further explain what you mean that 75% of MTF in the wst "liked" females to some degree and what your assumptions are regarding this?

I also find it interesting that you state you are ultra conservative followed by you "accepts nothing." To be honest, I never heard of a conservative openly admit that they refuse to accept any other "explanations" so I have to commend you on your convictions even tho I disagree.

Also, concerning your biological convictions, you state it is all based on medical explanations. If these became standard, would you start dressing as a man and living as a man again if your personal medical examinations came back with negative results of Transexualism?

I know you feel convinced you are trans but what if the medical tests prove otherwise? It would be similiar to those who are trans who desperately want to be intersex but their tests shows they were born biologically 100% male. Many do not take the results lightly. I wonder howsomuch more the emotional disturbance may be compounded based on an actual transsexual medical examination that proves negative of transsexualism. At least those who did not test positive for intersex traits still have their gut feelings of being a transsexual to fall back on.

Quote from: foosnark on August 11, 2011, 08:31:33 AM
My thought is, if wealthy people don't want to pay tax, they don't get to use public roads, public fire departments, public police, public clean water, or public clean  air, nor do they get the benefit of the defense provided to the public by the military.  Enjoy Somalia, the Tea Party paradise.

That's a noble thought, but those that are the most dependant on government services generally pay the smallest portion for them.

Public Transportation (inc.  Roads) is paid for almost entirely out of tax dollars.  Public transportation is heavily taxpayer subsidized, yet most of its ridership pays little if anything in taxes to support it.  The services of public fire departments are most often used by low to moderate income people, in the case of fire department provided EMS services, also heavily tax payer subsidized, the most infrequent users (the privately insured) pay the full bill when they do use the services, not so for the high volume users (those with no or publicly funded (aka taxpayer supported) insurance).  Same for the police.  Clean water is paid for with user fees, not taxes.  "Gas guzzlers" (driven by the wealthy taxpayer almost exclusively) and cars in general (not public transportation) are also taxed heavily for the sake of clean air, not to mention those "public" roads are also built and maintained mostly with gasoline taxes.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 11, 2011, 09:47:55 AM
The problem is when the government wants to impose punitive rates on the haves while the have-nots either are below a taxable threshold or pay a much smaller percentage.  If the government TRULY wanted to equalize tax burdens, then we would see a flat tax with the balance coming through what amounts to a sales tax (in which case people are only being taxed on what they actually consume). 

First of all, punitive? Yeah right. Punitive is denial of basic necessities and any semblance of equal opportunity to those who were born poor, any kind of minority, who were born or have become disabled, or some other stupid reason. If the government would stop allowing so much outsourcing (whether it's building factories in other countries or giving jobs to immigrants when there are citizens to do it) then more people would be paying taxes and there would be less demand for assistance programs. Raise revenue, reduce spending, and grow the economy all at once? I guess that's too bold of an idea for those in power. As far as a flat tax, that would only make sense if the income rates were linear. We all know (even if some choose to ignore it) that the rich make obscenely more than the poor or even middle. So far from being linear, it is closer to exponential. At the very least some kind of quadratic. It also can be a problem when it comes to taxing based on consumption. Those with little income spend a much greater percent of their income just to survive. It really doesn't make sense to tax consumption anyway though, since that just discourages consumption. To grow the economy, we want people to consume (responsibly and sustainably of course). It makes more sense to tax generation than consumption, hence taxing income.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 11, 2011, 09:47:55 AM
then there are the stupid TSA-related taxes on commercial flight that do absolutely NOTHING towards the improvement of domestic air safety. 

Yeah I can agree with this, but that doesn't mean that we don't need air safety and security, just that we need to find better ways of achieving it. Here's an idea, why not hire some American engineers, security consultants, and whoever else to work on it? And forget all this made in China technology... There is no good reason not to make it right here.

Quote from: Pinkfluff on August 11, 2011, 04:04:09 PM
First of all, punitive? Yeah right.

I would LOVE to have the lower tax rate percentage that some enjoy...if you SAW what I pay quarterly, you would quickly understand WHY I say punitive...

QuoteAs far as a flat tax, that would only make sense if the income rates were linear.

Disagree about needing income to be linear...20% (as an example) is 20%. 

QuoteIt also can be a problem when it comes to taxing based on consumption. Those with little income spend a much greater percent of their income just to survive. It really doesn't make sense to tax consumption anyway though, since that just discourages consumption. To grow the economy, we want people to consume (responsibly and sustainably of course). It makes more sense to tax generation than consumption, hence taxing income.

Taxes on consumption already exist...they are typically shown in the form of sales taxes.  If we went to a flat tax plus some variant of a modified sales tax, then people come closer to paying taxes for what they actually utilized. 

re TSA nonsense:

QuoteYeah I can agree with this, but that doesn't mean that we don't need air safety and security, just that we need to find better ways of achieving it. Here's an idea, why not hire some American engineers, security consultants, and whoever else to work on it? And forget all this made in China technology... There is no good reason not to make it right here.

The current nonsense is designed to keep the Kettles feeling safe since they have no idea JUST how unsecure the cargo and ground areas of major airports happen to be (or even that I don't have to deal with the TSA when I fly privately.  Even flying out of Bergstrom in Austin, in Class C airspace, I get to the parking lot, go to get the key to the plane, check weather, walk on the tarmac, do pre-flight, make my radio calls to the appropriate personnel (clearance delivery and ground, who then hands me off to tower) and I am off and into the air.  I could load the plane with a ton of C4 and nobody would know the difference until it was too late.  And despite the Joe Stack incident (actually took off from Georgetown but still a towered airfield, albeit Class D space), nothing has changed in how we get to our planes...

Quote from: Annah on August 11, 2011, 02:14:13 PM
Can you further explain what you mean that 75% of MTF in the wst "liked" females to some degree and what your assumptions are regarding this?

I also find it interesting that you state you are ultra conservative followed by you "accepts nothing." To be honest, I never heard of a conservative openly admit that they refuse to accept any other "explanations" so I have to commend you on your convictions even tho I disagree.

Also, concerning your biological convictions, you state it is all based on medical explanations. If these became standard, would you start dressing as a man and living as a man again if your personal medical examinations came back with negative results of Transexualism?

I know you feel convinced you are trans but what if the medical tests prove otherwise? It would be similiar to those who are trans who desperately want to be intersex but their tests shows they were born biologically 100% male. Many do not take the results lightly. I wonder howsomuch more the emotional disturbance may be compounded based on an actual transsexual medical examination that proves negative of transsexualism. At least those who did not test positive for intersex traits still have their gut feelings of being a transsexual to fall back on.

.........................................................
Thank you for asking.  Internet claims about 75% of eastern MTF's enjoy males.  Internet and my findings on Susan's correlate for MTF in West.  Pre-hormones 1/4 like males, 1/4 like males and females, and 1/2 like only females. Prior to transition about 75% of MTF like girls to some degree.  After transition about half of group that only liked females likes males too.

I did survey for FTM and found that 75% of FTM liked females before transition and about 25% liked males.  FTM were less fluid on sexuality after transition.  Some FTM were considered "gay" after transition and were happy.

Statistics also suggest that males are 3 times more likely to change to other gender as females.  These statistics suggest that MTF are more fluent on gender and sexuality than FTM.  Time will tell.
.......................
Ah you find it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  Well I am an ultra conservative on this site and a liberal in society.  My friends are frequently not accepted by society but they are good people and I love them.  I accept nothing without some degree of investigation.
.........
Cut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich.  Yes rich create jobs.  How many poor people support your Church and create jobs?  Totally against big government.  Bush spent too much but Obama beat Bush at spending game.  Obama has grown government by 30% in three years and growth in jobs is not private sector but government.
..........................
If medical test shows I am not transgendered I want urologist to reconnect my testes and refund my $3000!  They look dehydrated from sitting in alcohol but I am positive that those dehydrated testes will be just as useful as before they were removed!  I do have a friend that fathered a son at 15 and now that her son is grown she wants her son to call her mom.  She tells me she is intersex and therefore she can be mom to her son.

I also want to be validated but I took opposite approach to prove I could not be "one of those people".  My survey showed a number of old folks were good dads.   That is not as common in East.

Actually I do feel it is in your genes.  My sister likes girls and one of three male cousins likes boys.  I'm a whatever.  How I wish I could validate myself! Actually I am happy if you can validate yourself.  Society certainly does not validate me but still feel way I do.  Maybe hormone imbalances during fetal development can cause gender disruptions?   I love science and do not fear it.

Quote from: wendy on August 11, 2011, 06:07:31 PM

Thank you for asking.  Internet claims about 75% of eastern MTF's enjoy males.  Internet and my findings on Susan's correlate for MTF in West.  Pre-hormones 1/4 like males, 1/4 like males and females, and 1/2 like only females. Prior to transition about 75% of MTF like girls to some degree.  After transition about half of group that only liked females likes males too.

Do you have links to these figures? The only reason why I ask is because I live in Pennsylvania and about 80% of the transgender girls I know who lives in the east likes women before transition and women after transition. And I know A LOT of trans women from doing speaking events, being a minister aspirant, support groups and several websites where I met the women personally.

Also, my sexually course at Graduate school had sources that were conflicting than yours. This course was just this past May 2011 so it's pretty recent studies. Studies regarding sexual preferences showed that MTF were much more inclined to be lesbians than FTM  to be gay. There was no difference according to region.

QuoteI did survey for FTM and found that 75% of FTM liked females before transition and about 25% liked males.  FTM were less fluid on sexuality after transition.  Some FTM were considered "gay" after transition and were happy.

This this as opposed to MTF lesbians who aren't happy?

QuoteStatistics also suggest that males are 3 times more likely to change to other gender as females.  These statistics suggest that MTF are more fluent on gender and sexuality than FTM.  Time will tell.

Interesting. Do you have sources on that too? I would love to read it.

QuoteAh you find it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing.  Well I am an ultra conservative on this site and a liberal in society.  My friends are frequently not accepted by society but they are good people and I love them.  I accept nothing without some degree of investigation.

No, it doesn't have anything to with me finding it difficult to accept an ultra conservative that accepts nothing. My past vocational background was as a Priest in a conservative church. I never met a conservative person who outrightfully admitted that they do not accept any other option. Usually, they play the love game until someone conflict with their personal conservative belief system and then it shows.

QuoteCut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich.  Yes rich create jobs.  How many poor people support your Church and create jobs?  Totally against big government.  Bush spent too much but Obama beat Bush at spending game.  Obama has grown government by 30% in three years and growth in jobs is not private sector but government.

This I agree with you on. However, it is also a sad statistical fact that politicans who want small government and no social programs also wants to make gay sex illegal, ban same sex marriage, force a woman to make birthing decisions and reject the anti discrimination bills for LGBT people.  So, until I can find a group that wants smaller government and also be socially liberal, I have to settle with the lesser of two evils.

QuoteIf medical test shows I am not transgendered I want urologist to reconnect my testes and refund my $3000! 

Well, I appreciate your honesty to that question. Personally, I would never detransition because of what a brain scan of cellular DNA tells me. But I do appreciate your tenacity of willing to detransition if the medical examinations conflicted with what you believed in.

QuoteActually I do feel it is in your genes.  My sister likes girls and one of three male cousins likes boys.  I'm a whatever.  How I wish I could validate myself! Actually I am happy if you can validate yourself.  Society certainly does not validate me but still feel way I do.  Maybe hormone imbalances during fetal development can cause gender disruptions?   I love science and do not fear it.

I love science as well. I am a big fan of quantam physics, cellular biology, muscular structures of feet (weird I know...but i was a pre med major with a concentration in Podiatry before I switch to Music Education and Theology). I do hold some stock in genetic markers to prove homosexuality, etc etc.  However, as a conscientious observer in both the science world and the spiritual world I also look at both sides of every issue. I look at the pros and evaluate the cons within the pros and likewise, I look at the cons and find the pros within that.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 11, 2011, 04:47:48 PM
I would LOVE to have the lower tax rate percentage that some enjoy...if you SAW what I pay quarterly, you would quickly understand WHY I say punitive...

I'm sure if I saw your quarterly taxes I'm sure I'd say wow I wish they'd let me earn that much.

I wondered about the term "Silent Majority" today, actually.  I realised it was Richard Nixon who first used it in contrast to the "Noisy Minority".
I have to ask myself, would you have bought a used country from that man?
Does it in fact exist, or is it a mythical creature that politicians find useful?

Karen.

Quote from: wendy on August 11, 2011, 06:07:31 PM

Cut government in half and remove all social programs!  After WWII U.S. was on top of world now we have leveraged ourselves into a debtor nation.  No social security, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical care , no free SRS, no unemployment payments, no socialism, no higher taxes for rich. 

Have you actually ever LOOKED at how much the rich paid % wise in taxes during this "on top of the world" period? It was at least 3 times the % it is today. During the war some were paying 95%. That pretty much kills the "Taxing the rich ruins the economy" theory. As far as social security, I guess all those thousands I paid into this, along with my employer, should just be forgotten along with all my medicare payments? I guess they should repeal the ROTH IRA deal too? What other promises should we promote them breaking?

And I notice all the conservatives who constantly blame Obama for "the national debt" ignoring the chart I posted that shows an overwhelming majority of the debt was accumulated by conservatives.

Quote from: Pinkfluff on August 11, 2011, 11:08:10 PM
I'm sure if I saw your quarterly taxes I'm sure I'd say wow I wish they'd let me earn that much.

It is NOT a matter of someone LETTING me earn that much but rather that I took the bull by the horns and seized every opportunity I had to make a name for myself in my field. 

And, just to pre-empt the next likely comment, it is NOT a case of my reputation having been built prior to transition...almost the entirety of my career, to include finishing college came AFTER transitioning. 

The nation is in the toilet. The only way out is to return to the punative tax rates of the past. Is it a good way to do things?
NO.
But it is the only way out unless we cut military spending to a fraction of what we have been spending.
But for some reason we have to be able to wage war on the entire planet to feel secure, so cutting spending on the military is tantamount to treason it seems.
As it is we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but hey at least guys in bomb making factories have jobs.

After WWII U.S. was on top of world

After WWII the US had the ONLY industrial base that hadn't been turned into rubble, but rather, was running at full speed.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on August 12, 2011, 09:52:41 AM
It is NOT a matter of someone LETTING me earn that much but rather that I took the bull by the horns and seized every opportunity I had to make a name for myself in my field. 

And, just to pre-empt the next likely comment, it is NOT a case of my reputation having been built prior to transition...almost the entirety of my career, to include finishing college came AFTER transitioning.

I second that.  Its simple supply and demand.  The fewer people who can do what you do, the more you get paid (yes there are always exceptions, but for the most part its true).  If you want someone to "let" you earn that much money, its simple, you have to earn it.

Quote from: tekla on August 12, 2011, 10:13:31 AM
After WWII U.S. was on top of world

After WWII the US had the ONLY industrial base that hadn't been turned into rubble, but rather, was running at full speed.

QFT!

I have seen the pictures of Europe and Japan after the war. No wonder we were on top for so long. The rest of the world was incapable of competeing with us.
Maybe we can get back on top if we reduce Europe and China and Japan to rubble again.
In fact I know it would work! Lets get on the buisness of murdering our fellow man so we can all have 2 cars and a boat in our garages again!

Quote from: cynthialee on August 12, 2011, 10:13:07 AM
The nation is in the toilet. The only way out is to return to the punative tax rates of the past. Is it a good way to do things?
NO.
But it is the only way out unless we cut military spending to a fraction of what we have been spending.
But for some reason we have to be able to wage war on the entire planet to feel secure, so cutting spending on the military is tantamount to treason it seems.
As it is we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but hey at least guys in bomb making factories have jobs.

So you think we should just shut down the military-industrial complex, hold hands and sing peace songs?  Sounds like a great idea, too bad the rest of the world doesn't think that way.  Have we forgotten the deterrence factor?  Its rather simplistic to argue that we don't need the military that we do becuase no one's attacking us when no one's attacking us becuase of the reality of our retaliation if they do.

Would you disband the fire department because there were no fires or get rid of the police department becuase there was no crime?

The fact is the military is good for the economy.  The fact that the run up to world war II brought us out of the great depression should be enough proof of that; however, regardless of the economic climate, the military will always be spending money either directly (payments to contractors) or by its members supporting the local businesses in the towns where bases are located.  In fact, those local economies seem to be thriving now that I think about it.

Do we really need a military force capable of wageing war on the entire world?

I never said get rid of the military, that would be foolish. But we do not need to be spending more money on our army than all the other nations combined. Hell we really dont need to spend but 25% more than the next most powerful nation.

And as for deterance, we haver deterance that we are scared ->-bleeped-<-less to use.
Back off our military and declare every place we ever occupied a tactical asset that will not be gaurded and gleefully invite the world to try and mess with our stuff at the risk of facing nuclear anialation. Then actually drop a nuke on the first idiot that calls our bluff.

No other nation would retaliate, no one wants a glowing Earth.

Maybe we can get back on top if we reduce Europe and China and Japan to rubble again.

Hey, as much USA #1 as I am we can't take full credit for that.  Japan destroyed China all by itself, though China was hardly an industrial power at the time.  Europe did a swell job of destroying itself (twice).  We got to that late (twice) and really only helped, we only deserve about 20-25% of the credit for destroying the European industrial base.  We did, and by we I mean the U.S. Army Air Force alone, took care of Japan's manufacturing capacity.  So all that rubble wasn't us.  Lots of other people helped.

Quote from: valeriedances on August 12, 2011, 10:31:29 AM
So you think we should just shut down the military-industrial complex, hold hands and sing peace songs?  Sounds like a great idea, too bad the rest of the world doesn't think that way.  Have we forgotten the deterrence factor?  Its rather simplistic to argue that we don't need the military that we do becuase no one's attacking us when no one's attacking us becuase of the reality of our retaliation if they do.

Maybe if the U.S. did it, everyone else would. Arms reduction would work if the major powers agreed to do that.

I'm sure Quadaffi will get right on that...

As for arms reduction, when we tried that Russia "lost track" of a number of their nukes.

Forget perfect world, this is the world we live in...

World peace is a nice concept when you're busy smoking pot and blowing your student loans in college, but in the real world it just doesn't work.  Aggression is, always has been and always will be, part of human nature, there is nothing you can do that will ever override that.  We try to mediate it through diplomacy, but when diplomacy fails, war happens.  It really is just that simple.

Yes it is a creul world but that does not justify being the biggest arms dealer in the world. It doesn't justify having an arsenal that could melt the face of Earth.
We could do just fine with 1/4 of the military might we have. Nukes make an awesome deterance. Armies are only for occupying foriegn territory.

Quote from: cynthialee on August 12, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
We could do just fine with 1/4 of the military might we have.

Can you prove this?

Quote from: cynthialee on August 12, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
Armies are only for occupying foriegn territory.

So following that logic you would disband the Coast Guard and the National Guard?  Who would handle disaster relief, drug interdiction and search and rescue?  For that matter what about the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, should we get rid of them too?  How about Space Command?  Hey why not get rid of the junior ROTC programs while we're at it to, there's certainly no need for young people to learn discipline, leadership, etc.

Oh did I mention that battlefield medicine is largely responsible for the structure of emergency medicine in this country, but I guess we can do with out that too...

Quote from: regan on August 12, 2011, 11:14:07 AM
Can you prove this?

So following that logic you would disband the Coast Guard and the National Guard?  Who would handle disaster relief, drug interdiction and search and rescue?  For that matter what about the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, should we get rid of them too?  How about Space Command?  Hey why not get rid of the junior ROTC programs while we're at it to, there's certainly no need for young people to learn discipline, leadership, etc.

Oh did I mention that battlefield medicine is largely responsible for the structure of emergency medicine in this country, but I guess we can do with out that too...

If we reduced to 1/4 of force level we would have the personel to do all those jobs.

Like I said we have the ultimate deterance. Nukes. All we have to do is declare places we wish to keep as strategic and tactical assests and the attacking of them will merit the harshest level of retailiation possible that the USA can inflict.
That would mean droping a nuke on the first idiot that tested us. But we do not have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

Also war crimes laws prolong wars. Get out of the Geneva Convention and go Roman on our eneimies and see how long others wish to fight us...

Quote from: cynthialee on August 12, 2011, 11:38:07 AM
If we reduced to 1/4 of force level we would have the personel to do all those jobs.

Your original quote was "Armies are only for occupying foriegn territory.", by that logic all the programs I mentioned would be disbanded under your theory force reduction or not.  I have yet to see proof that a force reduction is appropriate.

Threatening the world with nukes doesn't work either, becuase believe it or not we do care what our allies think of us.  I'm pretty they'd be a little pissed at us when the nuclear fallout from our retaliation fell on them too.

War Crimes are determined after the fact (interestingly enough its only a war crime if you lose) and have no bearing on the duration of a war.  We're not in Iraq any longer because a few Iraquis were "illegally" killed anymore then World War II lasted as long as it did becuase of the German death camps.

I did say that.

ok everything I ever said is no longer valid, you may now place cynthialee on ignore

If we kept 1/4 of our forces they would have to be stationed somewhere. If they are not stationed in other places they must of course be stationed at home.
Obviously those jobs would be filled.
Don't automaticaly jump to the furthest extremes. that is just lame.

Quote from: Annah on August 11, 2011, 07:19:30 PM
Do you have links to these figures? The only reason why I ask is because I live in Pennsylvania and about 80% of the transgender girls I know who lives in the east likes women before transition and women after transition. And I know A LOT of trans women from doing speaking events, being a minister aspirant, support groups and several websites where I met the women personally.

Also, my sexually course at Graduate school had sources that were conflicting than yours. This course was just this past May 2011 so it's pretty recent studies. Studies regarding sexual preferences showed that MTF were much more inclined to be lesbians than FTM  to be gay. There was no difference according to region.

Ah you do like numbers.  I have my masters in finance and minors in mathematics and chemistry.  I worked in five sigma (1 error in 10,000) long before six sigma became fashionable.   Came to Susan's maybe four years ago and ran numerous surveys.  Left Susan's for two years and worked as an inner city high school mathematics teacher.  Guess my breasts got too big for couple high level administrators and they no longer needed my services.  Came back to Susan's and my surveys are on server someplace.  Now your statistic of 80% MTF like females and my survery that 75% like females have close correlation.  Maybe it was 77% in my survey since I round for convenience. 

I did find that 50% of MTF that did NOT like males sexually started liking them sexually after SRS.  I did not see your corresponding piece to that statistic.

Also found majority of FTM liked females and ones that liked males continued to like males.  (I frequently added FTM sections into my surveys so that everyone could vote.)

What section do you place eunuchs under?  Chemically they have potential to be equal to post op but maybe they still kept parts bank.  It is very difficult to compare apples to apples on surveys.  I actually worked very hard to make good surveys.  Few would have known that.

Logically you can prove an hypothesis/ conclusion wrong by finding an argument that does not support it.  Therefore I spent two years on this site developing surveys to prove to myself that it is mathematically impossible for me to be TS.

Findings:
1. MTF can not sexually like girls.  False
2. MTF will have fewer left handed people.  False In fact I found 30% of MTF were left hand dominant or ambidextrous.  I have seem these results in a conference in Atlanta and on article on TS traits. 15% of genetic males are left hand dominant and 5% of genetic females are left hand dominant or 10% of general population.
3. MTF will not work in engineering or be good at math.  False on both counts.  Males dominate engineering and math.  However many of MTF have worked in systems and engineering.  In fact larger than general polulation.
4. MTF will not be in mechanical. False
5. MTF will not be in be aggressive.  False.  My goodness one friend was a Navy SEAL and many are in military positions.
6.  MTF will not be self centered.  False.
7. MTF will not have wanted to be pretty. False

Annah I was teasing about reattaching my testes if medical tests prove nothing.  Yes I would like something to confirm my findings but in end you just need faith in your feelings.  I have watched numerous "old" MTF transition and they have done fine.  They felt similar to me.  They worked hard and tried to be good dads and good husbands.  I have known only one to fully transition and keep her spouse.  I currently know a professor that is transitioning and has two young children and wife is still with her.  Sad thing is that MTF "without" FFS looks prettier and has better personality than wife.

Agree Republicans tend to be homophobes and Democrats seem to be spendthrifts.   I am not pleased but if we keep spending we will be out of business as a country.

We attend a Methodist Church and it has four trans people that I know counting myself.  (It is illogical for me not to count myself as trans.)  People are respectful in my neighborhood.  Rural part of state tends to have more hostile females.Wife and I teach Sunday school and I teach students to think for themselves.

Gender issues are troubling for me but I can laugh at myself.

Final note:  Years ago crowd tended to be older and now it tends to be young.  Guess dinosaurs are dying out and new age mix could change statistics.

Silent Majority comes into modern usage (it used to mean the dead - as in dead and burred) meaning 'the supporters of the Viet Nam War, who mostly lived inland (as opposed to the coastal people) and we're not being heard (though apparently they did have enough people listening to them that the war had been started and was continuing) and despite the TV coverage they were, in fact, the majority of people in the US.  Though at some point they were, at some point they were not, and at the point Nixon used it, they were no longer the majority.  Just count it up as another lie from old Tricky Dickey.  Most people now understand the VN War as a bad idea, one that created many bad things and solved nothing.  Why you would want to compare yourself to a lie brought out in support for a real bad idea.   

Quote from: regan on August 12, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
I'm sure Quadaffi will get right on that...

This is one thing I've never understood.  Why does it have to fall on us to play policeman when some dictator does horrible things to his own country?  I mean... yes, it's completely terrible that it's happening, but it costs us a lot of money.  No one pays us back.  At some point we need to stop playing the lonesome policeman around the world and spread the responsibility to the other first world countries.  We need to realize that we don't have the money to do it.  And we shouldn't be the only country stepping up.  Historically, every "world power class" empire that fell in the past spread itself too thin to support itself with the money it took in.  That is part of what is happening in this country.

Sure, it's good to have an army.  It's even good to have a large army.  However, it's not good to spend ourselves into the ground trying to fight several endless middle eastern wars at the same time.

Quote from: AmySmiles on August 12, 2011, 04:45:38 PM
This is one thing I've never understood.  Why does it have to fall on us to play policeman when some dictator does horrible things to his own country?

Because if you fail to learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it. Both World Wars could have been avoided (as a World War) if other nations jumped in to intercede against offending countries. For example, the US pledge to not get involved in WW2 and many Western European Nations signed non aggression pacts with Hitler even though they knew he was conquering eastern countries.

The "close your eyes and hope the fighting over there wont reach us" is a fantasy. In the advent of nuclear warfare it is even more adamant to douse a situation before it grows.

Also, the US is not the only "police" of the world. There are 188 countries involved in this process.

Kia Ora,

::) All I can say, if Kate has really parted ways with Susan's , is if you read this Kate...I wish you well on your journey of self discovery and like I hope for other members here I hope you find what it is you are looking for...

All the best Kate...And remember "Don't take life too seriously !"

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Zenda on August 12, 2011, 05:25:14 PM
Kia Ora,

::) All I can say, if Kate has really parted ways with Susan's......

Is that the person who started this thread? O.o

yes

Quote from: Stephe on August 12, 2011, 08:22:47 PM
Is that the person who started this thread? O.o

Too funny!

No one reads what we write.

Silent majority are people that sit around while Rome burns. 

Did you know that Obama released strategic oil reserves to hold oil prices down?

Did you know that Federal Reserve Kept borrowing rate for funds near zero to hold down interest rates?

Guess what?

What magic tricks are left after next year's election?

What happens when we use all of strategic oil reserves?

What happens when we give more to entitled?

Hey my daughter is teaching English in China and is learning Mandarin!

There was an interesting article in 'The Australian' newspaper this morning on the US-China-Australia relationship that made the claim that  economically things were not as bad as some seem to think. 

It pointed out that the way investment and trade flows between the three is protecting all of us from outside influences, such as the EU debacle,  to a large extent.  China is undergoing huge development, and with Australian resources imports and US investment running at  high levels, will make all three more prosperous, unlike the predictions of US decline that seem to be given more credence.

It should be available on-line.

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on August 13, 2011, 06:31:53 AM
There was an interesting article in 'The Australian' newspaper this morning on the US-China-Australia relationship that made the claim that  economically things were not as bad as some seem to think. 

Maybe for the rich they are not. In the USA there are still millions unemployed, far more than what the government numbers indicate because those numbers only count those who they will give unemployment benefits to. It does not count all those who have been denied benefits or those who have had their benefits run out. There are millions of homeless, millions with untreated medical problems due to lack of money, nobody (even the government itself) can pay their bills... Yeah, it is bad alright. That's why something needs to be done about it.

Quote from: Pinkfluff on August 13, 2011, 03:46:31 PM
That's why something needs to be done about it.

What are you doing about it?

Quote from: regan on August 13, 2011, 06:29:57 PM
What are you doing about it?

Bugging my Senators and Rep asking them to support equal rights and environmental responsibility. About all I can do with no money but at least it is something.

I am aware that the US, along with a lot of other countries are doing it a lot tougher than Australia is at the moment thanks to another mining boom. The article was pointing out that things are not as doom laden as some commentators make out, and some of the underlying strengths of the relationship.
Karen.

Bugging my Senators and Rep asking them to support equal rights and environmental responsibility. About all I can do with no money but at least it is something.

Rarely works.  What works is putting people into office who believe in that to begin with and then you don't have to bug them about it.