patrick.net

E-man says

Sad.

Indeed.

I think you both have so many intelligent and thought provoking threads and comments. Why must you two fight? It's boring.

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

How about fighting with facts instead of name calling?

Call it Crazy says

While overall debt rises.....

Obviously. Until the deficit is zero, the debt will rise.

Salt Lake City - police enter the home of an elderly woman and scare the shit outta her. The address on the search warrant was for the house next door, but they surveyed and filmed her home (never noticing that the house number was different than that of the dude named on the search warrant). this cost them $75k, a small price considering it came out of the dept budget and not the stupid cops' pockets:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57494843-78/lake-police-salt-landvatter.html.csp

The above link has the wrong music, not that the popular music added didn't work, but here is the original: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU5wuUdtMZs

Call it Crazy says

Another little small detail, you need a job and income to pay for it and be able to qualify for a mortgage!!

You also need job security too. If you can't count on your job being there in 10 yr then you can't reasonably buy a house.

That sort of job security is vanishing throughout the nation and most new jobs treat workers like crap and have no benefits or retirement options. Oh and they pay like crap as well.

No one sane is going to buy a house in that situation. And the younger generations have largely wised up to that fact.

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Are you implying that the cops should have shot the homeowner first? I thought so. Yeah, call it crazy.

ZZYZZX, that's another example of retarded republicans living in their fantasy world bubble.

Not that you have any respect for facts or truth, but...

18)
FACT: The budget was balanced when Clinton left office in 2001 (in fact, he left Dubbya with a $300,000,000,000 surplus).

Eight years later, Bush left Obama with a $1,413,000,000,000 deficit and a 9.8% deficit/GDP ratio. Most of which was due to Bush’s deficit-spending on the Iraq War, Medicare Part D and the two tax cuts that largely went to the wealthy.

2010 — $1,294,000,000,000 8.7% deficit/GDP
2011 — $1,300,000,000,000 8.4% deficit/GDP
2012 — $1,087,000,000,000 6.8% deficit/GDP
2013 — $680,000,000,000 4.1% deficit/GDP
2014 — $560,000,000,000 3.3% deficit/GDP

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/anti-obama-propaganda-debunked/

mmmarvel says

Nonsense!!!! The way this system works is called LIFE. The system doesn't owe you ANYTHING. I got my teeth kicked in, more than once. And I did what I had to do to pick myself up off the ground and face life and take it on again.

So because you got the crap kicked out of you everyone else should too?

Just because you were able to get out of the hole that'd been dug for you by economic circumstances that were out of your hands doesn't mean everyone else will be able to either you know.

There are plenty of people who work there ass off in this economy/country and go nowhere their whole lives.

There are more of them every day too. That is why the increasing wealth inequality issue is such a big one: most all the money being made is going to the rich while everyone else gets poorer or churns water for all of their efforts.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112397/one-percent-gobbles-economic-recovery

No good can come of defending the broken economic system we're currently living with.

tts says

No good can come of defending the broken economic system we're currently living with.

True, a true patriot would be fighting this digression away from our democratic republic in every moral way available.

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Only an asshole with no grasp of reality or my writings would suggest that I take any pleasure in the death of another human being. Nor have I ever said that all cops are crooked or deserve death. What I have written is about how our system protects criminal cops when they harm us and how that is wrong. I've also advocated upholding the police to the same laws we must obey. I stand by everything I've every written on this subject.

As for the story you posted, and I'm only going on the article posted, I have to agree 100% with the innocence of the man who shot the cop in defense of himself and his family.

It is perfectly lawful and reasonable to assume that people breaking into your house unannounced while your family is there are a danger to your life and the lives of your family. This is why self-defense and the defense of others is a legal defense to attacking another. This is also the rational behind various stand-your-ground and home-invasion laws, as well as a rational behind the Second Amendment and all gun rights.

It is also a reason why there should be no such thing as a "no-knock raid". Such a raid not only violates the Fourth Amendment, but makes it perfectly reasonable for the cops to be mistaken for armed assailants or for a person legally cleaning his gun to be mistaken as a threat to the cops. It endangers both the lives of the cops and (more often) the lives of innocent men, women, and children. Furthermore, it violates human rights as a person may be undressed, taking a shower, taking a crap, or making love at the time of the no-knock raid. A no-knock raid is, by definition and by nature, a sudden and dangerous home invasion.

I agree completely with the jury and with the pro-gun rights community that the man had a legal right to lethally shoot the cop in defense of himself and in the defense of others. It is bad that the cop died, but it would have been worse if the home owner, his pregnant girlfriend, or his children had been killed.

Cops exist solely to protect the public. They should not be endangering the public. No-knock raids are completely unacceptable in a civil, lawful society.

While they did find him growing marijuana, all his guns were owned legally, so all they got from their armed invasion was some pot, which incidentally most Texans want to be legalized.

So, the only crime the man committed was something that should not be a crime and, in fact, is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. All anti-pot laws are violation of freedom of religion as pot, and other psychotropic drugs, are the prime cause of all the "religious" and "spiritual" experiences throughout history including ones that formed the basis for Christianity and Judaism, not to mention Native American religions.

So really, the man committed no crime. The police and the legislators who made Unconstitutional (i.e., illegal) laws committed all the crimes in this situation.

In conclusion, this situation has affirmed the following.
1. People have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and others from cops.
2. The Second Amendment does serve an important purpose. This story is the best justification for citizens possessing any weapons available to police that has ever been made. The pro-gun rights crowd should rally in support of this man. Perhaps that's the only reason he wasn't convicted; in Texas, they value their guns more then police.
3. No-knock raids should be banned.
4. Any judge that issues a warrant like this for a man simply growing pot, should be disbarred. His stupid and Unconstitutional action cost a cop his life and endangered many other cops, innocent children, a pregnant woman, and a good man.
5. The War on Drugs should be stopped right now. All those imprisoned because of it should be released immediately. All the politicians who supported it should be imprisoned for life for all the lives they ended.

Feel free to debate me on any of these issues. But try to keep the discourse at the level of a mature adult.

Okay, fair enough. I just think you both have a lot to contribute, but I tend to leave when the match gets started, like a lot of readers. I think both of your insights are too valuable to be ignored, and when the pissing starts everyone else tunes out and then they miss out out on the quality parts of the discussion. :-)

marcus says

Not that you have any respect for facts or truth, but...

marcus says

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/anti-obama-propaganda-debunked/

That's a mighty fine example of some effen retarded propaganda, non-facts and twisted truth.

Call it Crazy says

justme says

Call it Crazy says

Here's an article that should appeal to Dan....

Are you implying that the cops should have shot the homeowner first? I thought so. Yeah, call it crazy.

I know you haven't been following along.... Typical...

Dan rails on cops who shoot "innocent" citizens all the time.... In this case, the citizen shot the cop... This should provide pleasure for him... Please pay attention next time!!

A citizen shot a cop, justifiably, in self-defense. Is that supposed to be a justification for the numerous innocent people shot by police?

Yeah, yeah. Where's Sean Hannity when you need him ? Perhaps Rush could help get you through this.

People who work niche skilled labor jobs or own their own business are probably safe for now.

Everyone else...nope.

The population as a whole isn't rational so there will always be some buyers but I think its safe to say that there will be less in the future then there are now.

Its estimated about 47% of jobs are at risk of being automated away over the next 10-20 years.

http://ourfuture.org/20130926/the-robots-are-coming-now-what

Even the barristas aren't safe.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/10/briggo_coffee_robot_should_starbucks_replace_baristas_with_machines.html

Call it Crazy says

Is this related to just pot or all drugs??

All drugs. Now I'm not saying that all drugs should necessarily be legal, but the War on Drugs should be ended for all drugs because the methods that war uses are far worse than the impact of the drugs being fought.

Now one can make the argument that drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a legal one. But in any case, I would not support No-Knock raids and shoot first policies for any anti-drug law.

bob2356 says

Police departments all over are going to a policy of using a swat team for all felony arrests, even things like check kiting, fencing, credit card fraud, etc.. Good way for even more cops to get killed.

I say it should be legal to use land mines to prevent home invasions including No-Knock raids. If you want me to come to court, subpoena me. If you come into my home with any weapon, you forfeit your life and the lives of everyone abetting you.

If that's not ok with my government, I reserve my Second Amendment right to violently overthrow my government and replace it with a socially just one, even if it means killing every single politician, cop, and military personnel who sides with the despotic and Unconstitutional government. Anyone who disagrees with me disagrees with the validity of our government, which was founded on exactly such a violent revolution.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

Now one can make the argument that drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue rather than a legal one. But in any case, I would not support No-Knock raids and shoot first policies for any anti-drug law.

Well, wouldn't it be simpler if you were afraid of No-Knock raids to just not do anything illegal???

Nah, that's too simple...

Tell that to the family of Kathryn Johnston, the innocent 92-year-old woman who was shot to death by police who No-Knocked barged into her home as part of a drug bust they based on false information given to them by a drug suspect they were torturing. Funny thing about people being tortured, they'll say whatever they think their assailants want to here regardless of whether or not it is true.

This is just one of thousands of documented instances where innocent people have been murdered by the police. Doing nothing wrong is no defense from an out-of-control police force with zero legal accountability. It was no defense against the Gestapo. America is no different. The exact same lesson applies to all nations in all times: power corrupts and both transparency and accountability are critical to maintaining a free and safe society.

Call it Crazy says

tts says

You also need job security too. If you can't count on your job being there in 10 yr then you can't reasonably buy a house.

Very true, but in reality, does anyone really think they have 10 yr job security today? Corporations today chew up and spit out employees all the time.

Does that mean no one in the future, young or old will buy houses??

Prices will simply drop, and far more people will rent.

From the perspective of economic efficiency, this is a good thing: more mobility of labor.

Some countries do quite well with high rental rates. Some Swiss rent in one place for 50 years, and most Swiss rent.

Of course I'll believe this tripe without seeing financial statements & supporting documents.

"You can't put anything on the internet that isn't true."

"Where did you hear that?"

"On the internet."

Actually I think you'll see more "kids" living with parents, and in some cases vice versa.

The rent market is pretty screwed up too and will be for a long time.

A large increase of supply of rentals OR a large increase in wages would have to occur (which would spur the former) first to fix that problem.

The builders and property owners know there isn't much of a market for more rentals right now and a large increase in wages requires Congress to sign off on a big min. wage increase...or corps/businesses to suddenly decide to pay people lots more.

Call it Crazy says

Very true, but in reality, does anyone really think they have 10 yr job security today? Corporations today chew up and spit out employees all the time.

Does that mean no one in the future, young or old will buy houses??

Houses will have to be bought by someone. Jobs and marriages becoming shorter in duration would just mean more renters, with landlords supplying the statistical stability to cover the mortgage and pay for construction / maintenance cost. That will make a more mobile work force, precisely what the rapidly changing economy needs. With more people renting, there will also be political motivation to enact tax deduction on rent payment, so that people can choose between buy vs. rent on personal economic reasons instead of tax reasons.

BTW, this theme also means the bidding of the nothing-special apartments and SF houses into the stratosphere is nutty: the rental income stream is just not there to support the valuable. When the cars are self-driving, a half-hour to one-hour commute would be nothing.

tts says

The rent market is pretty screwed up too and will be for a long time.

A large increase of supply of rentals OR a large increase in wages would have to occur (which would spur the former) first to fix that problem.

I'm confused. Do you think there's current too much supply or too little?

tts says

The builders and property owners know there isn't much of a market for more rentals right now and a large increase in wages requires Congress to sign off on a big min. wage increase...or corps/businesses to suddenly decide to pay people lots more.

A big minimum wage increase would actually reduce the total amount of wages paid out, due to a segment of the work force being banned from working. The rental market would likely suffer disproportionately more because the renters at the lower income scale are more likely to be losing jobs as a result of the ban.

marcus says

Yeah, yeah. Where's Sean Hannity when you need him ? Perhaps Rush could help get you through this.

Perhaps if you got on some better psych meds you'd feel happier and get rid of the stupid icon you've used for so many years.

zzyzzx says

One, comparing money in nominal terms over the past two hundred years is utterly meaningless due to currency debasement.

Two, the vast majority of Obama's spending was paying the bill left by G.W. Bush. In fact, the vast majority of the expenses of Bush's illegal and worthless wars won't even occur for another 30 to 40 years.

Did you know that peak spending on WWI veterans occurred in the late 1960s / early 1970s? That's right, World War ONE not two. And the peak spending due to health benefits was about 50 years after the war ended. Same thing happens for all wars including Bush's wars. We're going to be paying for them for the rest of your life and beyond.

Don't know if it's 100 percent, 90 percent, 50 percent or 0 percent, since I read 0 percent of his posts.

They won't close the govt. again.

Call it Crazy says

Do you think it will hold together until then??

Well, I am not the one to ask.
I never imagined they could keep their crooked charade up for anything like this long. My lack of faith in their relentless racketeering and manipulations cost me money. Turns out there was a buck to make before the world ends.
So what happens next, and when, is beyond my ken.

rooemoore says

They won't close the govt. again.

They didn't close it the last time.

Dan8267 says

One, comparing money in nominal terms over the past two hundred years is utterly meaningless due to currency debasement.

Which is why the debt will continue to get worst regardless of who the next president is. The system is setup that way, we've dug ourselves so deep in the hole that the only thing we can do is dig deeper.

Unless we make some serious reforms which I doubt will happen, so the system will go on until it collapse on itself.

marcus says

18)

FACT: The budget was balanced when Clinton left office in 2001 (in fact, he left Dubbya with a $300,000,000,000 surplus).

how we soon forget...

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget

By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

hrhjuliet says

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

Try building more houses, a LOT more houses.

We don't need more land hungry sport stadiums, nor more commercial space. We need more quality residential housing and more efficient transportation infrastructure.

thomaswong.1986 says

the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Uh-huh.

zzyzzx says

The debt was 11 trillion when Obama was inaugurated. Where is the missing 5 trillion debt accumulated by the 43 presidents combined? Debt went from 11 to 16 trillion first term. Last time I checked that's 5 not 6.5

New Renter says

hrhjuliet says

Want first time buyers? Lower the cost of the house. Yes, it's that simple.

Try building more houses, a LOT more houses.

We don't need more land hungry sport stadiums, nor more commercial space. We need more quality residential housing and more efficient transportation infrastructure.

Exactly! What do people think will happen to the million-dollar apartments in city centers when self-driving cars arrive?

thomaswong.1986 says

October 8, 1998

Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink

Nice to read something from someone who knows less than nothing. Two someones if you include twrong. What 30 years of red ink was that? There has been debt since 1790. Other than WWII it has been small. It didn't really grow until 2 years after Reagan took office. Do the 10 years of Reagan and Bush I where the debt exploded count as part of the 30 years of single minded crusade? How do you subtract 1982 from 1995 and come up with 30? Great work twrong. Maybe you should visit planet earth once and a while.