patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,125 comments by 15,056 users - Blue, DhammaStep, krc online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 65 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
freak80
2013 Oct 16, 10:22am
My favorite childhood propaganda was Sesame Street!
One! Ah ah ah! Two! Ah ah ah! Three! Ah ah ah...
leo707
2013 Oct 16, 10:26am
My favorite childhood propaganda was Sesame Street!
One! Ah ah ah! Two! Ah ah ah! Three! Ah ah ah...
Hmmm...and they did always have those two gay characters cohabiting.
Like it or not the Pledge is an insignificant drop in the deluge of propaganda people are subject to these days. How many Americans today have greater loyalty to a corporate brand, religion, or political party than they do to the United States of America? This is of course because they are buying into the propaganda -- which is often heavily steeped in lies.
I think that the values in the American Pledge are, for the most part, good. And as propaganda guides behavior I would encourage its use; while as the same time I think it should be a "safe" ground to open discussion about the validity of it and other propaganda. If the American Pledge has similar pronouncements of love and blind obedience as some of the other loyalty pledges I cited I would be telling a different story.
I agree completely.
Again, as a teacher, I preside over kids saying the pledge a couple times a week, in a high school. And a very small number opt out. Currently I don't have any in my 9th grade "homeroom" that opt out. To me opting out feels like hating on America.
Why ?
Because, the pledge is really about pledging allegiance to what we want America to be. If we have some serious issues with where the country is, that doesn't take away from "and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
You aren't just pledging allegiance to America. You're pledging allegiance to what America is supposed to be,...to what it strives to be.
freak80
2013 Oct 16, 11:12am
- explain in detail how we know evolution is a fact and how it works right down to the molecular level
- explain the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Relativity
All of those things are myths created by Libruhls.
- accurate state how big and how old the Earth is
The earth is only big enough for white people to inhabit. The earth is less than 10,000 years old.
- show mankind's immigration paths out of Africa
The first humans were white and lived in the Garden of Eden. Everybody knows that.
- point out the following countries on a world map: U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, U.K., France, Span, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Italy, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Japan, Mongolia, Brazil, and Panama. This list can be expanded, but that's a start.
The U.S. is the only country in the world that matters. There's no point in learning where other countries are located.
- explain how the American Civil War was about slavery and human rights, and not about states' rights
The Civil War was really the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln just wanted to prove he had a big dick.
- explain why the Magna Carta is important
Why do we care about magnetic carts?
- describe the progressive movement and the benefits it created
Evil Socialists!
- explain how a microwave oven cooks food
- explain how the Internet works
- explain the various technologies that allow digital video to be distributed all over the world
God does it.
- explain the difference between iron and steel and why one is stronger than the other
God makes one stronger than the other.
- explain why Reaganomics is bullshit
Reagan IS God.
- disprove the existence of any omnipotent being using only a priori logic.
Of course Allah is fictional. Every good Christian knows that.
Look at all the Tea-publicans who -- probably with moistening eyes -- have recited the pledge sense their youth. The venom and hate that they spread, and the division they seek in our country runs entirely counter to the pledge.
so you think Tea Party members are hateful ?
Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/06/black-tea-party-activists-called-traitors/
ALBANY, N.Y. – They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.
"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.
Black Tea Party Leaders Accuse Obama Of Racism: 'Democrats Have Re-Enslaved America'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/black-tea-party-leaders-a_n_670560.html
The black members said the racism that has been attributed to the tea party movement came from outsiders who infiltrated the groups to discredit their work and it should be rejected.
"These people do not oppose Barack Obama because of his skin color. They oppose him because of his policies," said Lloyd Marcus, a spokesman for the group.
The NAACP last month approved a resolution condemning racism within the tea party movement and called on activists to "repudiate the racist element and activities" within the political movement.
At the news conference, several members assailed Obama and the Democrats, often in harsh terms.
"Democrats have re-enslaved America," said Kevin Jackson, president of the Black Conservative Coalition. He said tea party activists, if successful, would reduce the size of government and set in motion another Emancipation Proclamation, the document that President Abraham Lincoln signed that effectively ended slavery.
"This time, even the white folks get freed," said Jackson, who accused Obama of viewing fellow blacks as "mongrels."
Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan declined to respond to the tea party leaders' criticism. The White House also declined to comment.
The American Pledge of Allegiance, like all pledges of allegiance to anything, are inherently wrong. Allegiance should be constantly earned, not given for the simple matter of being born into a tribe. The very concept of a pledge of allegiance is repugnant to any free thinking person. Ironically, the American Pledge of Allegiance is entirely Unamerican in every principle it demands others to pledge. What a disgusting work. I've always hated it.
AND YOU CALL YOUR SELF A CONSTITUTIONALIST ... OH THATS RICH !
Sounds like your against the US Constitution and therefore would not uphold our laws.
Your at odds with the founders of the this country..
NO..... ITS YOU WHO IS UNAMERICAN...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office.
The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.â€
For a little perspective...
Compare this to the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty in 1934 Germany:
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
your not being truthful here...
Although the popular view is that Hitler drafted the oath himself and imposed it on the military, in truth it oath was the initiative of Defence Minister General Werner von Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the chief of the Ministerial Office.
Indeed, Hitler was surprised by the oath.[1] Before Hitler took office, the military swore the Reichswehreid to the German constitution and president. The intention of Blomberg and Reichenau in having the military swear an oath to Hitler was to create a personal special bond between him and the military, which was intended to tie Hitler more tightly towards the military and away from the NSDAP. Years later, Blomberg admitted that he did not think through the full implications of the oath at the time.
When George Washington and all other presidents were taking the OATH of office,
were they also doing a Sieg Heil ? you so called Progressive Liberals are really screwed up ...
your not being truthful here...
Why hello again here Thomas. Say, when you are done telling everyone all about hitler & such, you might want to circle back around to the "republican party in 10 years" thread since the ball is in your court. As a refresher:
1. You said SF suffered economic declines from 1960 til 2000, while SJ experienced economic gains during the same (1960-2000) timeperiod.
2. Your chart shows that from 1975-2000 home prices in both SF and SJ moved in lockstep. If home price is tied to economic performance, how is this possible? How can this be?
It was refreshing to see you initially respond to me in an honest and direct answer. However, as (i believe) you realized how at the end of the day you are going to have to back off of item 1 or 2 above, you went to your usual well of responding with tangential non-issue after tangential non-issue.
Thusfar, I have put each and every tangential non-issue into the asked and answered column and will continue to do so if necessary. That said, can you now address the central issue here? Feel free to respond to me here or in the original thread -- but in either event, good luck!
1. You said SF suffered economic declines from 1960 til 2000, while SJ experienced economic gains during the same (1960-2000) timeperiod.
2. Your chart shows that from 1975-2000 home prices in both SF and SJ moved in lockstep. If home price is tied to economic performance, how is this possible? How can this be?
very simple SC/SJ didnt have a bubble mentality from 1960 to mid 90s.... you know of any bubbles in stock wages or home prices ?
Your stuck in this notion if someone made an extra 5-10% it went to housing when it actually went to savings..
its no surprise SF economy was declining since the 50s..and that continued into the early 90s.
normal jobs kept the prices flat adjusted for inflation. a home was just another home in SF and it wasnt anything glamorous !
very simple we didnt have a bubble mentality from 1960 to mid 90s.... you
know of any bubbles in stock wages or home prices ?
I am willing to concede that too - put that too into the "asked & answered" pile, but again, sadly I think you are deliberately trying to skirt the issue here. In case that's not really whats going on -- in case you truly do not understand, lets try this a little bit differently below is part 1 of 3 yes or no questions.
1. Going back to your precious FHFA housing chart, home prices in San Francisco and San Jose move pretty much in lockstep from 1975 to 2000. Basically, when one went up, so did the other -- and when one went down, so did the other. I think this is painfully obviously correct, but I have to ask do you agree with this? Yes or No?
1. Going back to your precious FHFA housing chart, home prices in San Francisco and San Jose move pretty much in lockstep from 1975 to 2000. Basically, when one went up, so did the other -- and when one went down, so did the other. I think this is painfully obviously correct, but I have to ask do you agree with this? Yes or No?
they were all pretty much flat up to 1998..didnt matter if you were a Govt paid Civil engineer or a Tech HW/SW Engineer. Home prices were not that radically different across much of Bay Area.
Would it surprise you to see a home of equal size in SF or SJ at around 150K ?
they were all pretty much flat up to 1998
OK, so I think we are on the same page here, you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both flat for the 1975-1998 period. Yes?
OK, so I think we are on the same page here, you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both flat for the 1975-1998 period. Yes?
and how long have you been in SFBA ?
I am not in the SFBA.
Again, if this is really really important to the overall discussion or theme of what you are trying to convey to us, I promise I will come back to this once we finish with my items 1-3. But in the mean time lets consider this asked and answered and move on.
So again, I think we are on the same page here, but I want to be sure. When you say, "they were all pretty much flat up to 1998" you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both flat for the 1975-1998 period. Yes?
Arlington, VA.
Is that enough? Are you now ready to answer the yes or no question (part 1 of 3)?
Y
2013 Oct 16, 1:03pm
I wanna answer parts 5 & 6, but then again i've always been a day early and a dollar ahead....
Arlington, VA.
Is that enough? Are you now ready to answer the yes or no question (part 1 of 3)?
Arlington, VA.
Is that enough? Are you now ready to answer the yes or no question (part 1 of 3)?
the answer for SFBA is the same as the answer for your region...mid Atlantic.
what can you tell us about your region..... same old song and dance..
Arlington, VA.
Is that enough? Are you now ready to answer the yes or no question (part 1 of 3)?
the answer for SFBA is the same as the answer for your region...mid Atlantic.
what can you tell us about your region..... same old song and dance..
Actually, no. Not in the slightest. See, I would never, never, NEVER suggest that any one of those areas was going through 50 years of economic decline, while one or all of the others were enjoying economic prosperity. Not with the way all those trendlines were moving in lockstep (basically all flat up til 1998). Granted, you could say some are underperforming or overperforming relative to the others, but they are all experiencing some modicum of economic prosperity. But again, we are getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves.
So again, just for absolute clarity, when you say, "they were all pretty much flat up to 1998" you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both flat for the 1975-1998 period. Yes?
So again, just for absolute clarity, when you say, "they were all pretty much flat up to 1998" you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both flat for the 1975-1998 period. Yes?
take a look at the numbers... what do you think ? browse through the bottom of the chart and see the indexed numbers since 1975...
http://web.archive.org/web/20110722135954/http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/Major/NorCal.html
Actually, no. Not in the slightest. See, I would never, never, NEVER suggest that any one of those areas was going through 50 years of economic decline, while one or all of the others were enjoying economic prosperity. Not with the way all those trendlines were moving in lockstep (basically all flat up til 1998). Granted, you could say some are underperforming or overperforming relative to the others, but they are all experiencing some modicum of economic prosperity. But again, we are getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves.
over 50 years... of course many large cities saw a decline and continued seeing declines as many fled the cities for suburbia. no surprise to anyone.. has SF-Oakland done as well
as Santa Clara - SJ where money flowed for new construction and jobs..
drive down parts of SF and Oakland during the 80s-90s.. pretty dismal... not much in demand.
and yet in all of this.. prices were not out of sync...
we simple did not have this irrational mentality regarding Real Estate..
did people think and expect prices to appreciation double digit in decades past pre 1998.. certainly NOT.
Re: post #88, I say yes. In 1975 both SF & SJ index values were in the 40s and the differential between the two was approx. 4%
In 1998 both were in the high 200s and the differential between the two was about 6%. Granted they flip flopped (SF higher in 75, SJ higher in 98, but that's a pretty tight relationship between the two considering we are talking about a 23 year period here.
And in any event, looking at their values as shown on your chart. I think its fair to say they are both "pretty much flat". But honestly, this isn't about me. It is not my contention that SJ went through a 50 year period of economic prosperity while SF simultaneously went through a 50 year period of economic decline. But again, we are way ahead of ourselves here.
So now, again, one more time Thomas, just for absolute clarity, when YOU said "they are pretty much flat up to 1998" you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both pretty much flat for the 1975-1998 period. YES OR NO?
Anyway its now midnight out here on the east coast so off to bed for me. And as you can see I have been more than accommodating answering question after question from you in an honest and straightforward manner. So it is now your turn. Are you ready?
If so I expect to turn on my computer tomorrow AM, log into Patnet, and see an entry from you that says either
YES
or
NO
And once done, congratulations! You will then be 1/3 of the way through all the while displaying some (TBD) level of intellectual honesty and cognitive capacity to answer a question in a straightforward manner. So until the AM Thomas, good luck!!!
If so I expect to turn on my computer tomorrow AM, log into Patnet, and see an entry from you that says either
YES
or
NO
And once done, congratulations! You will then be 1/3 of the way through all the while displaying some (TBD) level of intellectual honesty and cognitive capacity to answer a question in a straightforward manner. So until the AM Thomas, good luck!!!
You will need less patience waiting for the sun to go supernova than waiting for thomas wrong to give a yes or no answer.
So now, again, one more time Thomas, just for absolute clarity, when YOU said "they are pretty much flat up to 1998" you are saying in sum, yes, home prices in SF and SJ were both pretty much flat for the 1975-1998 period. YES OR NO?
I do so much detest lawyers and govt bureaucrats..
you have your data.. and you came to the same conclusion.
You dont need my answer on that... you already figured it out.
its all about the irrational thinking...
You will need less patience waiting for the sun to go supernova than waiting for thomas wrong to give a yes or no answer
it doesnt take much to see many on PNET are just locked into the RE bubble mentality...
and of course many others who are are in the RE industry...
perhaps "Y2K Bug" wasnt about some computer program spitting out gibberish..
it may well have been about the insanity of public greed which led to financial bubbles.
2. Your chart shows that from 1975-2000 home prices in both SF and SJ moved in lockstep. If home price is tied to economic performance, how is this possible? How can this be?
you mean incomes to prices.. affordability index.. go look one up for that period...
You will need less patience waiting for the sun to go supernova than waiting for thomas wrong to give a yes or no answer
it doesnt take much to see many on PNET are just locked into the RE bubble mentality...
and of course many others who are are in the RE industry...
perhaps "Y2K Bug" wasnt about some computer program spitting out gibberish..
it may well have been about the insanity of public greed which led to financial bubbles.
Do we take that as a yes or a no? I do have to say I admire someone who can take gibberish to an art form.
Do we take that as a yes or a no? I do have to say I admire someone who can take gibberish to an art form.
No gibberish.. No one in my area will benefit from higher home prices but only the vested interest... Realtors.. as if they ever gave a rats ass about anyone else... y
perhaps you and CDon need to look over this as well..you should ask why
Carl used the term "alarm" and "plague" to describe high home prices..
Q: So are those really challenges?
A: Unequivocally, yes. Not only to the CEOs in the boardroom, but to any family you talk to in their living room. What we hear time after time from CEOs as well as frontline employees is how incredibly difficult it is to come here and stay here. That truly does have an impact on a company's bottom line when the cost differential is so much higher here than it is in other regions around the state, nation and globe, or the ability to recruit top talent is also impacted.
You mentioned housing. It probably is the top concern we hear about in Silicon Valley from both CEOs and employees in terms of local issues. Does that have an impact? Let me put a finer point on it.
Hewlett-Packard and Dell are the top two computer-makers in the world. Corporate headquarters for HP are located in Palo Alto and Dell is in Round Rock, Texas. Obviously, they both have people and facilities around the globe.
In those two communities where their corporate headquarters are and where a lot of research and development takes place, the median resale price for a home in Palo Alto is about $1.6 million. In Round Rock, Texas, it's about $180,000, except the home and property are bigger.
We hear from HP all the time that a huge deterrent to the ability to recruit and retain people anywhere near Silicon Valley is the housing issue. We don't hear that from Dell, which is also a member company, about their operations in Round Rock. It does continue to plague us and we will continue to sound the alarm.
perhaps you and CDon need to look over this as well
Thanks, but no thanks. I have slightly less interest in bay area and/or CA real estate than in the epidemiology of toe nail fungus.
you have your data.. and you came to the same conclusion.
You dont need my answer on that...
But I do. You see Thomas, in a lot of ways the data is secondary. In a lot of ways this is a simply proxy on your capacity for intellectual honesty. In this particular case, there appears (to many of us) to be a potential flaw in your logic - so in an effort to flesh that out, we ask you questions.
Thusfar, you seem either unwilling to address it, or (perhaps) unable to understand it. Thusfar, you flit between periods of calm rational discussion (now), and anger induced flailing (earlier) -- but at no point have you ever come close to answering the most simple questions asked of you.
So in this test for your capacity for intellectual honesty, you are failing -- and badly I might add. The reason why I have been so patient with you was because I figured you would either (a) eventually answer the question, in which case we get a bit closer to resolving some facts about the performance of housing prices in the bay area or (b) do exactly what you are doing, thereby further exposing you as someone unworthy of engaging in the hopes of having a real and honest discussion about anything.
Anyway, ball is back in your court Thomas. Part 1 of 3 is out there. If you want to address it by answering either YES or NO we can proceed to part 2. If you don't, we can continue to dance around it, as we have for the past two days, that's fine with me too.
freak80
2013 Oct 17, 12:08am
But I don't really understand the reason behind employing an argument style that looks to any third party who reads it as gibberish. Why would you take a position that makes you look so, for lack of a better term, dumb?
But I don't really understand the reason behind employing an argument style that looks to any third party who reads it as gibberish. Why would you take a position that makes you look so, for lack of a better term, dumb?
LOL. Someone else sent me the exact same link today!
in the end .. all they say is... Hey Look at Me .. its About Me..
You know, there may be a modicum of truth to that. But what I find more interesting here is your response. It was direct - it was to the point. Why cant you always be like that?
Tell you what, we are pissing on a lot of threads here (you are currently back on the "republicans in 10 years" thread) so im gonna let you go here in the hopes you answer what I ask you on that other one.
Either way, I think I have proven my point here about who you are and what you are all about. Of course, that being said, if you want to actually try and build back some semblance of an honest responsible individual, go back and answer the simplest of "yes" or "no" question I asked you above.
freak80
2013 Oct 20, 11:15pm
The REAL Pledge of Allegiance should end like this:
One Nation, Under the Dollar, with Liberty and Justice for Those Who Can Afford to Buy it.
« First « Previous Comments 65 - 101 of 101 Search these comments
Little factoid I learned today.
The Pledge of Allegiance that I grew up with, was originally written by a Socialist! Guy name of Francis Bellamy, spearheaded the move to turn private schools into public. And in my parents day the salute to the flag was an outstretched arm.....
I've long been uncomfortable with this pledge, but I usually stand and try to avoid the stink eye from the Pledge Nazis.