Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

I think the feeling is still more or less that one does not have to be gay - it's a sexual preference, a choice. (If that is really true, I don't pretend to know.) We didn't get to pick our race, nationality etc ... at least as far as I know.

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

I think the feeling is still more or less that one does not have to be gay - it's a sexual preference, a choice. (If that is really true, I don't pretend to know.) We didn't get to pick our race, nationality etc ... at least as far as I know.

 

I don't know where medical science and psychologists stand on this but I think it can be either/or. There are some kids who were gay because they were sexually molested as a child by someone of the same sex. I've known a few. Also, bi sexual at least from repeatedly being abused by someone of the same sex. For example, there are guys who are sent to prison and are raped repeatedly over months and sometimes years and become 'stockholmed' to same sex and actually seek it out once they get out of prison.

 

There are also guys who grew up 'normal', no incidents and are gay. I recall a show with twin boys. Raised exactly the same as twins ofen are one of them is gay as the 1890s.

 

So, my opinion is someone can be gay for no apparant reason just like how I like cute petite girls with c cups and firm asses for no apparant reason. It certainly wasn't repeated sexual encounters when I was growing up...I only wish!!

[Flashermac]

You are probably talking about this one. The libs like to cite it as "proof" that our upbringing makes us what we are, but that was absolute BS. The "female" twin had a terrible life ... until after deciding to be male again. He finally ended his own life. Yet the SOBs try to keep it quiet and still spout his upbringing as a success!

 

 

 

 

Twins

[Steve]

It was boys that I saw and they were about 8 or 9 and one was a rambunctious kid into sports and the other liked his mom's clothes. lol.

 

Its a fact though that some kids who were sexually abused by the same sex become gay. Same as some girls who were sexually abused by their dad become porno stars and many are into 'father figure' boyfriends. I would have to be a pscyhologist working that all out.

[Flashermac]

It is amazing how different "identical twins" can be - completely different personalities and interests.

[Julian2]

Time for Obama to lead on deficit

 

Last week’s fiscal crossfire by Democratic and Republican lawmakers was a reminder of what many had put at the back of their minds; that the deal to avert US sovereign debt default last July was not a real deal. It merely kicked the can down the road.

 

The next stretch of road ends on 23 November – just over three weeks away – when the so-called “super-committee†of 12 lawmakers publishes the deficit plan set out under the terms of the deal in July. It is meant to come up with a modest $1,200bn in savings over the next decade.

 

It is easy to see what is needed: A short-term stimulus combined with a medium-term plan to tighten the budget when the economy gets going again. Alas, Washington is in no better shape than it was during the debt crisis. Republicans remain just as opposed to any kind of tax increase. And Democrats, who last week proposed to shrink the deficit by a much larger $3,000bn, will reject any plan consisting only of spending cuts.

 

Not that the Democrats aren’t trying. Last week’s plan was skewed six-to-one on spending cuts versus tax increases, according the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This was a far tougher ratio than those put forward by the Simpson-Bowles committee last year, and the Gang of Six senators last summer – both of which left the Republicans cold.

 

John Boehner, the Republican House leader, still dismissed the Democratic gambit as “outrageous†because of its proposed tax increases on the wealthy. All of which suggests a familiar showdown is looming – and with it the spectre of another credit rating downgrade. In defence of its controversial action last August, Standard & Poor’s cited Washington’s growing dysfunction. Capitol Hill can be relied upon to keep bolstering S&P’s case.

 

Which leaves the White House. So far Barack Obama has kept his counsel on the kind of package he would like to see. This is a mistake – albeit understandable after what happened in July. In his ill-fated “grand bargain†pitch to Mr Boehner to avert the debt crisis, Mr Obama bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans and was humiliated. He should try again.

 

Sometimes good policy makes good politics. Instead of watching Congress mess it up and hoping Republicans will get the blame, Mr Obama should submit a plan to simplify the tax code and rein in entitlements spending. He should push to phase out the most wasteful tax subsidies in exchange for lower rates across the board. Every year the US fritters away $1,200bn on tax breaks, such as relief on mortgages and private healthcare plans. Even a 10 per cent shrinkage in “tax expenditures†would meet the 10-year deficit goal. If a third of the tax spending were scrapped, the savings could fund a big tax cut for everyone. And so on.

 

As it stands, nothing serious is likely to happen on Capitol Hill before 23 November. Even if lawmakers reached a deal on their own, it would be heavily tilted towards spending cuts – the last thing a fragile US economy needs. Nor would it be set in stone. No Congress can bind the actions of a future Congress. That applies to the much-hyped automatic cuts in discretionary spending that would be triggered if the super committee fails to strike a deal. The cuts would begin only in January 2013 after the next Congress is in place – not a big enough fear to concentrate minds today.

 

Mr Obama has little to lose. Rather than waiting passively for what would almost certainly be a last minute patch-up that could harm growth prospects, he should take the initiative and lead.

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/757af82e-0182-11e1-8e59-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cHPcEQxg?ftcamp=crm/email/20111030/nbe/ExclusiveComment/product

[Flashermac]

Number one item: Congress and the president do not get paid until they fix the mess they created. Give them an incentive. Let them live off of their savings, like the unemployed folks.

 

p.s. Maybe we could outsource the government to India. Would be cheaper and surely no worse.

[Julian2]

What get your politicians from India?

They could run the country from Delhi.

It would certainly cause an exodus of Pakistanis moving out of fall out range of their major cities.

[Steve]

Without trying to seem biased, the Republicans aren't compromising. It seems only one side is compromising and has been. Democrats are dispappointed in Obama primarily because he compromised too much, not on the bad economy. People understand the mess will take years to get out of.

 

My guess is that the Republicans know Obama and the Dems won't do just cuts and they are hoping this makes Obama popular going into the election. Republiicans have no problem raising taxes when it suits them. They have done so plenty of times in the past. Both parties have.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Without trying to seem biased, the Republicans aren't compromising. It seems only one side is compromising and has been.

 

Look Steve...pleeeeeeeeeeze stop with the standard-issue libtard rhetoric. The GOPers HAVE offered compromises; that is, agreed to some of the elements in Obama's proposed legislation. Now, if compromise means not getting all of what the Marxist-in-Chief wants, too friggin' bad. I think it's safe to say that Obama would like to tax the "wealthy" 80% if he thought that he could. Then, it would be equally safe to say he would offer a "compromise" at 79% and the libtards, if the GOP refused to accept that, would say the GOP refuses to compromise. Please be aware that even some Senate Demoncraps refuse to vote for Obama's "jobs bill". Otherwise, it would have been passed in the Senate. As it stands now, Harry Reid won't even bring Obama's proposed legislation to the floor for a vote, cuz he knows he doesn't have the votes to pass it. In the meantime, the House has passed many bills and sent them to the Senate. What does Reid do? The fuckstick puts them on the shelf. They don't even get hearings. Now, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze tell me who is obstructing who?

 

HH