Price Controls on every day goods. are they a good option for ordinary people.

[papa tiger]

I guess it can depend on what it is. If that $1.50 can of beans gets raised to $5.00, people just won't buy that can of beans. They will buy something else. I buy most of my clothes second hand. Forget Goodwill for clothes. I get better things at better prices at other thrift stores in town including PAWS.

There was that senior mobile home in the news in Northern California. The new owners were raising prices so high, seniors were saying they couldn't afford the space rent anymore. Is that free market or greed? Same with rents.

You know there are a lot things in the store one continually need but are priced near or over $5.
$20 + for a pair of work Gloves. Near or over $10 for a Lb. Of Bacon. $20+ for a Porterhouse Steak. Slightly tough too. $12 for 1/4 Lb. Burger that doesn’t taste / chew / swallow the same anymore.
——-
Have your wages gone up 5X over the last 20 years. Are you given a $10,000 sign on bonus?
Yes it is buy 2, pay and get the second one free. …. … Use outside Call order, delivery.
Bag, Not what cha ordered, no napkins etc.

 

[Remy]

You know there are a lot things in the store one continually need but are priced near or over $5.
$20 + for a pair of work Gloves. Near or over $10 for a Lb. Of Bacon. $20+ for a Porterhouse Steak. Slightly tough too. $12 for 1/4 Lb. Burger that doesn’t taste / chew / swallow the same anymore.
——-
Have your wages gone up 5X over the last 20 years. Are you given a $10,000 sign on bonus?
Yes it is buy 2, pay and get the second one free. …. … Use outside Call order, delivery.
Bag, Not what cha ordered, no napkins etc.

I don't get your post at all.

 

[ChiroDoc]

Nixon wasn't the cause of it, but presidents are responsible. It was the first and only time in my life time when we saw abrupt inflation of such magnitude, making the last two years seem like a picnic. Nixon tried things that didn't seem to work. It's almost like no one knew what to do. The wage freeze seemed to create more hardship as inflation kept getting out of control.
...

Almost no one in the public, nor 98% of the people in Congress can give an accurate definition of inflation. Inflation is simply the increase in the money supply (the money supply is inflated). When that created money floods the system then each existing unit becomes worth less as a result. When the money becomes less valuable prices must rise just to stay level. Rising prices are the result of inflation.

Who is responsible for that? The Federal Reserve System. The Fed is considered a private enterprise, but it's really an extension of the Treasury Department. Why do they "print" more money? Because of inflation, when it comes time for the Treasury or big corporations to pay back loans it's less expensive to do so from when the money was borrowed. Who ever dreamed up this 2% inflation target out of thin air ought to be in prison. For a hundred years the dollar had the same value until the Federal Reserve started playing with it.

 

[papa tiger]

I don't get your post at all.

It’s ok no one in California understood it. U r right at $3 a gallon + more for 87 octane at the pump higher than I am Today sept. 2, Labor Day. today.

My friend told me 20 years ago that his $300,000 home in Beverly Hills was a Pile of crap.

Perry Mason once said it over and over “Cal. Law.” “Your honor, it’s cal. Law.” Again And again.
——-
Then there are others who say, “ I don’t have to obey any Law.”
——-

E.M. Left because his Teenager might screw him? …. ….
—————-
The why, are the prices so high question; Is it because of Over spending of the Budget?
______________
Billions upon. billions in Over budget for Boeing and they can’t get their Astronauts back to earth maybe safely till 2025. What were we talking about, right inflation controls. Gubbermint overspending is the root cause most likely.
—-
all of it is its fault most likely! Not your need to buy a bag of toilet paper.

 

[VaughanJB]

Saying manufacturing has been decimated because of cost cutting is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Manufacturing of basic products, and some advanced products, has moved from Western economies to lower-cost economies such as China, India and Vietnam. That has put a lot of unskilled workers out of work. In the US, many have migrated to service jobs or "gig" jobs after losing manufacturing jobs.

Through tariffs and regulations, we can mandate that, say, shoes be manufactured domestically. But those shoes would be astronomically expensive compared to those manufactured overseas. Like most economic issues, it's complicated.

Erm, you just rewrote my posts, but told me I'm "looking through the wrong end of the telescope." Moving factories abroad to access cheap labor IS cost cutting. Labor is the largest cost, so yeah, they went for cheap. Businesses are leaving China hand over foot today, but they're not coming back to the US/UK, they're moving to India, Vietnam, and so on. Why? Because labor is cheap!

Those displaced workers have had to find other things to do. Other than some military needs, I'm not aware of a Tariff demanding a product is made in a specific country. And yes, as I've said in this very thread, the big problem with "Made in the USA" is that consumers don't want to pay for the privilege.

 

[VaughanJB]

Changes in legislation is what has allowed healthcare, including medical treatments, to transform from a service dedicated to people's well-being, to an industry dedicated to share-holder's profits.

Again, we disagree, I'm afraid. Capitalism is what made your health system what it is. We could all name instances of profit before care. The issue you have is that public health is a for-profit business. You have TV commercials for new drugs so you can go ask your doctor for it - something banned in the UK, for example. It's often money first, care later.

Legislation didn't cause this - a mindset of capitalist principles above all else, did. Without some kinds of legislation, who knows how many people would be dying from poor drugs, mistakes, and goodness knows what else.

Not that I want to get into a healthcare discussion, because that would require a whole other thread!

 

[VaughanJB]

I think shipping costs have also aided in raising prices.

It's everything, my friend. It is well known that wages in the UK have been stagnant since 2007. In that time people still had to live, and they're slowly been squeezed and squeezed so the growth of business can continue on regardless. Money went from the workers pockets, to the companies they traded with. The percentage of total income that went to business grew and grew, which the money in our pockets shrank.

Now there has been a slight change, because at some point people say, "that's enough!" So workers are asking for what seems like large increases. Guess what the government is saying? Can't do that, it causes inflation!

So isn't it time to question a system that enforces low wages, and increasing profits? We're suffering from inflation and need extra cash,but if they give us the cash we cause inflation. It's not the wages that's the problem, it's the system we've all accepted as paramount. IMO.

 

[Irishdude]

Erm, you just rewrote my posts, but told me I'm "looking through the wrong end of the telescope." Moving factories abroad to access cheap labor IS cost cutting. Labor is the largest cost, so yeah, they went for cheap. Businesses are leaving China hand over foot today, but they're not coming back to the US/UK, they're moving to India, Vietnam, and so on. Why? Because labor is cheap!

Those displaced workers have had to find other things to do. Other than some military needs, I'm not aware of a Tariff demanding a product is made in a specific country. And yes, as I've said in this very thread, the big problem with "Made in the USA" is that consumers don't want to pay for the privilege.

My point is that, in a competitive environment, if you don't move your factory abroad to access cheaper labor, you'll be out of business before you know it. It's not a choice, it's a necessity, unless the government intervenes to prop you up, which leads to all sorts of other complications.

But maybe we agree on this. We're in two different countries with two fairly different approaches to economics, but I'm not sure what you're advocating exactly. U.S. style capitalism works pretty well here. Our GDP per capita is vastly greater than the UK's, and the disparity is growing.

 

[VaughanJB]

My point is that, in a competitive environment, if you don't move your factory abroad to access cheaper labor, you'll be out of business before you know it. It's not a choice, it's a necessity, unless the government intervenes to prop you up, which leads to all sorts of other complications.

But maybe we agree on this. We're in two different countries with two fairly different approaches to economics, but I'm not sure what you're advocating exactly. U.S. style capitalism works pretty well here. Our GDP per capita is vastly greater than the UK's, and the disparity is growing.

Well, firstly, we're in a mess here in the UK.

You and I are also, largely, in agreement.

I advocate capitalism with adequate controls and regulation. I am not anti-capitalist, and in fact spent my entire working life exploiting the system. I am also aware that there is no fairness in bare bones capitalism. There is no caring. There is no conscious.

Now your first point there is true, that is why they moved these things abroad. But again we know, it doesn't necessarily mean things are cheap. For example, it apparently costs about $500 to build an iPhone. The best iPhone is around £2500 to buy (which most people cover through the contracts they sign with their providers). That's a chunk of money added for various stages of the resale trade.

The system is (supposedly) at work. But honestly, iPhones could be cheaper at retail, but at the same time, why would Apple do that? People are essentially paying this much, what's the incentive to lower prices? Clearly, competition alone isn't doing it - and so it goes. We accept things as just the way things are done, when in reality we are simply following a mindset.


All that said - jobs in the UK and US were/are a big part of the election process, so yes, all these things matter.

 

[Murrmurr]

It's everything, my friend. It is well known that wages in the UK have been stagnant since 2007. In that time people still had to live, and they're slowly been squeezed and squeezed so the growth of business can continue on regardless. Money went from the workers pockets, to the companies they traded with. The percentage of total income that went to business grew and grew, which the money in our pockets shrank.

Now there has been a slight change, because at some point people say, "that's enough!" So workers are asking for what seems like large increases. Guess what the government is saying? Can't do that, it causes inflation!

So isn't it time to question a system that enforces low wages, and increasing profits? We're suffering from inflation and need extra cash,but if they give us the cash we cause inflation. It's not the wages that's the problem, it's the system we've all accepted as paramount. IMO.

You are wrong if you believe that politics and industry aren't bedmates in the US. Politicians create legislation that favors billion-dollar industries because it's literally rewarding. It isn't the capitalism model that's causing issues, it's greed among policy-makers.

That isn't supposed to happen, but legislators have also created laws that give them the right to take "donations" from billion-dollar industries and that gives billion-dollar industry lobbyists a key to the front door. Elected officials retire with billions of dollars and acquire billions in real estate while in office.

That isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. Like the separation of church and state, a separation of the market and state was capitalism's original intent.


You keep saying "controls and regulation." Controls and regulations do exist; there are industry standards for all existing industries and even some developing ones, and some people say it's too much control and there are too many regulations.

So, what do you mean by controls and regulations, specifically?

 

[VaughanJB]

You are wrong if you believe that politics and industry aren't bedmates in the US. Politicians create legislation that favors billion-dollar industries because it's literally rewarding. It isn't the capitalism model that's causing issues, it's greed among policy-makers.

Oh, I'm well aware of corporate welfare. The lobbying system, etc.

That isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. Like the separation of church and state, a separation of the market and state was capitalism's original intent.

Yes, but I don't for a second think we'd be better off with pure capitalism. I think a lot of us would be dying sooner, if not dead already. Ultimately, capitalism is a theory, and I think it requires controls and regulation for it to do what it should do - provide for citizens.

You keep saying "controls and regulation." Controls and regulations do exist; there are industry standards for all existing industries and even some developing ones, and some people say it's too much control and there are too many regulations.

So, what do you mean by controls and regulations, specifically?

I have been countering posts that seem, to me, to suggest there should be little to no controls and regulation. I suppose the number of controls and regulation depends on the industry. Pollution poured into a river will travel downstream, would I trust a corporation in self-governing how much is too much, how it should be monitored, and the consequences of it going wrong? No. Not a chance.

But yes, of course, rules and regulations exist. Some are effective, some not. Some were good when written, but no longer matter. It's all about the effectiveness to whatever end it's trying to address. I just think, in many instances, corporations need regulation if they are to serve society and not do harm. A lot of people don't trust government these days, but I trust corporations "doing the right thing" far less.

 

[Murrmurr]

Oh, I'm well aware of corporate welfare. The lobbying system, etc.



Yes, but I don't for a second think we'd be better off with pure capitalism. I think a lot of us would be dying sooner, if not dead already. Ultimately, capitalism is a theory, and I think it requires controls and regulation for it to do what it should do - provide for citizens.



I have been countering posts that seem, to me, to suggest there should be little to no controls and regulation. I suppose the number of controls and regulation depends on the industry. Pollution poured into a river will travel downstream, would I trust a corporation in self-governing how much is too much, how it should be monitored, and the consequences of it going wrong? No. Not a chance.

But yes, of course, rules and regulations exist. Some are effective, some not. Some were good when written, but no longer matter. It's all about the effectiveness to whatever end it's trying to address. I just think, in many instances, corporations need regulation if they are to serve society and not do harm. A lot of people don't trust government these days, but I trust corporations "doing the right thing" far less.

So, environmental protection and personal safety regulations.

The main complaints about regulations regarding environmental protection are a) there's no solid proof of the dangers, it's only theory, computer models are inaccurate, etc., and b) the regulations are ineffective at mitigating proven dangers.

There are few complaints about personal safety regulations and most of them concern cost. Some states have programs that assist small businesses with those costs, and some don't. Big Businesses and major corporations have access to that kind of assistance at the federal level that small businesses don't have, which makes small businesses rightfully suspicious.

And as for certain corporations doing harm for the sake of profit, it is legislative policy that allows that to happen. That's the problem I'm talking about when I say separation of market and state. Aside from worker and consumer safety, and sure, I'll add environmental protection, politicians should not profit from corporate businesses in any way, and absolutely should not be involved in creating legislation and/or policies for businesses they've invested in or are affiliated with in any way that allows them financial gain; policies where there's a conflict of interest.

 

[VaughanJB]

So, environmental protection and personal safety regulations.

The main complaints about regulations regarding environmental protection are a) there's no solid proof of the dangers, it's only theory, computer models are inaccurate, etc., and b) the regulations are ineffective at mitigating proven dangers.

No offense intended. But I think you're falling into the trap of "everything is bad, nothing is good" that is prevalent in these days of the internet. I mean, there is not "solid prof of the dangers regarding "environmental protection"? What are we talking about here? From my seat, there are tons of examples of why environmental protection is vital, and is factual. Look at any environmental disaster and you have proof. You can say "regulations are ineffective at mitigating proven dangers" but offer no alternative than trying. Regardless, all kinds of regulations protect our environment. I'm sorry, I'm getting lost here, I hold your view with regard, and I must not be understanding your point.

Are talking oil tankers cleaning their tanks out new beaches, global warming, or something else?

There are few complaints about personal safety regulations and most of them concern cost. Some states have programs that assist small businesses with those costs, and some don't. Big Businesses and major corporations have access to that kind of assistance at the federal level that small businesses don't have, which makes small businesses rightfully suspicious.

I see people complaining the whole time about "cost". It's always "cost". Yes, if all corporations did the right thing, we'd not need regulations. However, there's nothing in capitalism that dictates business should care about much else than profit. Perhaps, in your scenario, there should be a regulation that dictates how tax dollars can go to small businesses to help them out? But again, "makes small businesses rightfully suspicious" is on the conspiratorial end of things, and honestly I'm so very tired of conspiratorial thinking when it is whitewashed into every aspect of every day life. It's risen in the internet years, and is now wildly out of control.

That said, anyone who wants to start a small business must simply do due diligence. That means, knowing the regulations applicable to their given business, complying with the law - such as minimum wage - and depending on the business type keeping things safe and clean. I've spent a good deal of my time at work working on due diligence (not that it applies to starting a small store), and it's simply an essential step. To not do it properly is to invite disaster.

And as for certain corporations doing harm for the sake of profit, it is legislative policy that allows that to happen. That's the problem I'm talking about when I say separation of market and state. Aside from worker and consumer safety, and sure, I'll add environmental protection, politicians should not profit from corporate businesses in any way, and absolutely should not be involved in creating legislation and/or policies for businesses they've invested in or are affiliated with in any way that allows them financial gain; policies where there's a conflict of interest.

I agree with most of this, but no party has ever said they would put a stop to it - not in the US or the UK. We - the people - have allowed this to fester and go on. In my eyes, it's the legacy we (us old folk) are leaving behind, and the generations that follow would do well to address it. The average salary in the UK is £35K. An MP earns £91K plus expenses. Sorry, that's wrong. It's bad policy, and it's bad government. The answer is to fix government, but to have anarchy.

Honestly, another thing is creeping in here. I don't feel a need to get bent out of shape/angry about things that aren't affecting my every day life. I may be interested in them, I may research them, but I'm not going to get angry about things to which I have no money in the game. I'm old, and I have more in the rear-view mirror than out the windscreen. Retiring is akin to handing over the job to a younger generation.

As I've said, no government on either side of the aisle is going fix some elements of government, usually out of self-interest. But you know, the representative for Montana is elected and paid to represent the interest, and special interest, of people who live in Montana. New York is not his concern. So self-interest is kind of built in.

 

[Murrmurr]

No offense intended. But I think you're falling into the trap of "everything is bad, nothing is good" that is prevalent in these days of the internet.

Well, you're wrong about that.

And no offense taken.

 

[VaughanJB]

Well, you're wrong about that.

And no offense taken.

 

[Irishdude]

Oh, I'm well aware of corporate welfare. The lobbying system, etc.



Yes, but I don't for a second think we'd be better off with pure capitalism. I think a lot of us would be dying sooner, if not dead already. Ultimately, capitalism is a theory, and I think it requires controls and regulation for it to do what it should do - provide for citizens.



I have been countering posts that seem, to me, to suggest there should be little to no controls and regulation. I suppose the number of controls and regulation depends on the industry. Pollution poured into a river will travel downstream, would I trust a corporation in self-governing how much is too much, how it should be monitored, and the consequences of it going wrong? No. Not a chance.

But yes, of course, rules and regulations exist. Some are effective, some not. Some were good when written, but no longer matter. It's all about the effectiveness to whatever end it's trying to address. I just think, in many instances, corporations need regulation if they are to serve society and not do harm. A lot of people don't trust government these days, but I trust corporations "doing the right thing" far less.

Well, firstly, we're in a mess here in the UK.

You and I are also, largely, in agreement.

I advocate capitalism with adequate controls and regulation. I am not anti-capitalist, and in fact spent my entire working life exploiting the system. I am also aware that there is no fairness in bare bones capitalism. There is no caring. There is no conscious.

Now your first point there is true, that is why they moved these things abroad. But again we know, it doesn't necessarily mean things are cheap. For example, it apparently costs about $500 to build an iPhone. The best iPhone is around £2500 to buy (which most people cover through the contracts they sign with their providers). That's a chunk of money added for various stages of the resale trade.

The system is (supposedly) at work. But honestly, iPhones could be cheaper at retail, but at the same time, why would Apple do that? People are essentially paying this much, what's the incentive to lower prices? Clearly, competition alone isn't doing it - and so it goes. We accept things as just the way things are done, when in reality we are simply following a mindset.


All that said - jobs in the UK and US were/are a big part of the election process, so yes, all these things matter.

I'm all in favor of rules and regulations. I'm also sort of anti-Apple in that I think everything they sell is grossly overpriced. But I can walk into any phone store and buy a perfectly good alternative to an iPhone for half the price or less. No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, or to buy Starbucks coffee or a hundred other overpriced luxuries.

Healthcare, housing, food, and some other necessities are a different story and require a different regulatory approach IMHO.

 

[VaughanJB]

I'm all in favor of rules and regulations. I'm also sort of anti-Apple in that I think everything they sell is grossly overpriced. But I can walk into any phone store and buy a perfectly good alternative to an iPhone for half the price or less. No one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, or to buy Starbucks coffee or a hundred other overpriced luxuries.

Healthcare, housing, food, and some other necessities are a different story and require a different regulatory approach IMHO.

Yes, there are alternatives to the iPhone. But it's not really that simple. Marketing, deals Apple do with providers to get them to prioritize their product, and so on. It all factors in. The goal seems to be to persuade people they need an iPhone, when there's nothing Apple can do that others can't. But let's not get too hooked up on Apple, there are many examples. Apple is just an easy target because most people are familiar with them.

Healthcare , housing, food..... good grief. Yes, yes, yes. Housing is a great example. People will tell you that it's all supply and demand - but that's a nonsense. People in the UK have had stagnant wages since 2007, so how have they kept afloat and enjoyed themselves, gone on holiday, etc. By using the property as a personal bank, that's how. Mortgages are debt, but we've decided it's good debt. So, get some equity, borrow against the equity. Blah blah blah. That sounds good, except for it to work house prices must continue to grow. This is achieved by allowing banks to do all kinds of terrible things.

When I was buying my first home, you got - at worst - a 35 year mortgage. Today? You can, literally, half a house. Then you can get short term mortgages, which require you to renegotiate your mortgage every five years or so, ensuring you never get your head above it. Mortgages are a game.

The net result, obscene rise in the cost of a property. Also, for first time buyers in the UK, the % of net income to mortgage repayments rose to almost 40%. This is a legacy we're going to leave behind for our grandchildren, and their children.

 

[papa tiger]

Again, we disagree, I'm afraid. Capitalism is what made your health system what it is. We could all name instances of profit before care. The issue you have is that public health is a for-profit business. You have TV commercials for new drugs so you can go ask your doctor for it - something banned in the UK, for example. It's often money first, care later.

Legislation didn't cause this - a mindset of capitalist principles above all else, did. Without some kinds of legislation, who knows how many people would be dying from poor drugs, mistakes, and goodness knows what else.

Not that I want to get into a healthcare discussion, because that would require a whole other thread!

You know, I have not listened to one Drug Commercial that the list of harmful effects doesn't far outweigh the beneficial ones.
Just drinking a Bottle of Water from plastic harms you. All the High Caffeine refreshments harm you. Society is killing itself. Most
anything pre prepared are harmful. Canned, Bottled, precooked goods, Wines, Fast Foods, etc. Processed Cheeses, etc.
Basically if it tastes great, smells great, looks great, its harmful to you. If it prepackaged in Plastic or you use plastic stuff its harmful to you.
The Western USA smells great, Asbestos does too.
Ancient Romans loved Urine.
--------------------
the basic secrete to life is learn to Play & Sing Country music backwards.
1. you get your ex wife back.
2. You get your money back.
3. You get your great high paying Job back.
-------------------------

 

[JustDave]

Again, we disagree, I'm afraid. Capitalism is what made your health system what it is. We could all name instances of profit before care. The issue you have is that public health is a for-profit business.

Legislation didn't cause this - a mindset of capitalist principles above all else, did. Without some kinds of legislation, who knows how many people would be dying from poor drugs, mistakes, and goodness knows what else.

Any ideology unrestrained, political or economic, only works as advertised in a perfect world. I would never go "whole hog" on any ideology without some kind of oversight. The greedy and self serving will find infinite ways to undermine even the most well intended ideology.

 

[VaughanJB]

You know, I have not listened to one Drug Commercial that the list of harmful effects doesn't far outweigh the beneficial ones.
Just drinking a Bottle of Water from plastic harms you. All the High Caffeine refreshments harm you. Society is killing itself. Most
anything pre prepared are harmful. Canned, Bottled, precooked goods, Wines, Fast Foods, etc. Processed Cheeses, etc.
Basically if it tastes great, smells great, looks great, its harmful to you. If it prepackaged in Plastic or you use plastic stuff its harmful to you.
The Western USA smells great, Asbestos does too.
Ancient Romans loved Urine.
--------------------
the basic secrete to life is learn to Play & Sing Country music backwards.
1. you get your ex wife back.
2. You get your money back.
3. You get your great high paying Job back.
-------------------------

It's not the job of food makers to ensure you live a long happy life. Once they have something that tastes good, smells great, and sells, then its job done.

That might sound overly cynical, but consider - these companies could make healthier foods, they simply choose not to. Think of cigarettes. We know the harmful effects - why are they still made? The ultimate answer is - for profit. They're made for profit. And the only reason their sale has been in decline is public health policies.

 

[papa tiger]

You are wrong if you believe that politics and industry aren't bedmates in the US. Politicians create legislation that favors billion-dollar industries because it's literally rewarding. It isn't the capitalism model that's causing issues, it's greed among policy-makers.

That isn't supposed to happen, but legislators have also created laws that give them the right to take "donations" from billion-dollar industries and that gives billion-dollar industry lobbyists a key to the front door. Elected officials retire with billions of dollars and acquire billions in real estate while in office.

That isn't how capitalism is supposed to work. Like the separation of church and state, a separation of the market and state was capitalism's original intent.


You keep saying "controls and regulation." Controls and regulations do exist; there are industry standards for all existing industries and even some developing ones, and some people say it's too much control and there are too many regulations.

So, what do you mean by controls and regulations, specifically?

In Illinois many poling, voting places are on Church Properties.
But there are also Trans meeting kids in Libraries, programs.
Where has, keep to yourselves stuff gone?

------------------------------

 

[Murrmurr]

In Illinois many poling, voting places are on Church Properties.
But there are also Trans meeting kids in Libraries, programs.
Where has, keep to yourselves stuff gone?

------------------------------

Personally, I don't care who people are attracted to, and I feel extremely fortunate to live in a society where people aren't tortured, imprisoned, or tossed off a tall building because they aren't heterosexual. But even members of the lbgtq community roll their eyes at lbgtq extremists.

Like my dear friend, Justin said, "We don't like being lumped in with fringe queers. It kills me when straight people judge regular queer folks based on the outrageous actions of a few insane freaks who are literally causing a regression that will probably take us decades to recover from."

 

[papa tiger]

Personally, I don't care who people are attracted to, and I feel extremely fortunate to live in a society where people aren't tortured, imprisoned, or tossed off a tall building because they aren't heterosexual. But even members of the lbgtq community roll their eyes at lbgtq extremists.

Like my dear friend, Justin said, "We don't like being lumped in with fringe queers. It kills me when straight people judge regular queer folks based on the outrageous actions of a few insane freaks who are literally causing a regression that will probably take us decades to recover from."

Well that was a really heavy pile of----