patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,257,332 comments by 15,004 users - keeprubbersidedown, Patrick, RandalRay, SunnyvaleCA online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 84 - 90 of 90 Search these comments
Rin
2015 Feb 21, 3:45pm
It's hard to be proactive when it feels like 95% of the population could care less if we become a plutocracy police state. Plus both parents working, sometimes two jobs, and all our money going to a mortgage or rent, some days it's hard to have any steam. I hear you. It's actually helpful to know we are not alone with our readiness to revolt conflicted with our readiness to go back to bed.
Just wait till 2025, when automation of more than half the work out there starts to steamroll. And then, neither parents will have any sort of career stability.
However, if you're not conservative, don't be an idiot like the 500-odd Nader voters in Florida who played their critical part in swinging the national election to Bush in 2000
Don't be a whiner who blames folks who voted their conscience for your candidate's inability to get elected. The dominant two party system has got to go.
Bellingham Bill
2015 Feb 21, 6:49pm
Don't be a whiner
personalizing this like you do above -- playing the man and not the ball -- is what happens when people run out of support for their argument.
My point about Gore in 2000 could equally apply to the 20M Perot voters in 1992, if 25% of them had preferred GHWB remain in the WH instead of Clinton taking over for the rest of the 90s.
The dominant two party system has got to go.
Not really. Politics can be divided into two general camps on every issue -- progressive and conservative.
Progressives want more government intervention in the Holy Market, more forcible redistribution from rich to poor, more personal freedom from top-down behavioral control (pro birth control, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-recreational drug use, freedom from forcible religious indoctrination, etc), less militarism and overseas military adventures, greater respect and protection for the natural environment, more secularism and just less ideological bullshit overall.
While conservatives want more bullshit -- more military waste, less government interference in how businesses operate, more 19th century social conservatism, more defense of the wealthy from the tax exactions of government, more religious bullshit in the public square, etc. etc.
We could have 535 parties but the polarity of our political discussion wouldn't change a whit in any majoritarian system. Two coalitions form, the majority and the minority.
Nothing much would change if we had more parties -- where the population splits on the issues will determine the policy.
We're just a really divided polity now. There are splits among social and economic axes -- the GOP right has a pro-business typology that is much more socially progressive than their idiot bible-thumper contingent, while the Dems have a sizable urban black protestant / R.C. Hispanic contingent that is much more socially conservative than the across-the-board liberal base. But overall people chose their side that is closest overall to their preference.
All this also doesn't get into the issue that our current electoral system isn't even structured to functionally support a multiparty system, in that it is designed to filter out the minority positions.
Protest-Voting third party -- effectively throwing your vote away -- sure as hell isn't going to change that!
Protest-Voting third party -- effectively throwing your vote away -- sure as hell isn't going to change that!
Americans can vote for who they want to vote for. It is none of your business. If you don't like it, too bad. Multi-party systems can work. Now, we have a Republican party beholden to the financial industry and a Democrat party beholden to financial industry. Time to break the mold.
Protest-Voting third party -- effectively throwing your vote away -- sure as hell isn't going to change that!
Americans can vote for who they want to vote for. It is none of your business. If you don't like it, too bad. Multi-party systems can work. Now, we have a Republican party beholden to the financial industry and a Democrat party beholden to financial industry. Time to break the mold.
Agreed - it's about time for a second party.
Progressives want more government intervention in the Holy Market, more forcible redistribution from rich to poor, more personal freedom from top-down behavioral control (pro birth control, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-recreational drug use, freedom from forcible religious indoctrination, etc), less militarism and overseas military adventures, greater respect and protection for the natural environment, more secularism and just less ideological bullshit overall.
What personal freedom is left if one is not allowed to make individual choices, as in a free market place. Religion is irrelevant if everyone is brainwashed into believing the BGASG: Big-Government as Savior God. It's the same bullshit as Stalinist and Maoist religion: replacing existing religious faith with personality cult and government worship.
While conservatives want more bullshit -- more military waste, less government interference in how businesses operate, more 19th century social conservatism, more defense of the wealthy from the tax exactions of government, more religious bullshit in the public square, etc. etc.
19th century was a much more liberal and pleasant place for the world than the 20th century was. Disparate religious practices among the population is a strong antidote against the rise of the far more destructive government-worship. Even the sharia regimes can not hold a candle compared to the genocidal socialist regimes of the 20th century.
Progressives want more government intervention in the Holy Market, more forcible redistribution from rich to poor, more personal freedom from top-down behavioral control (pro birth control, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-recreational drug use, freedom from forcible religious indoctrination, etc), less militarism and overseas military adventures, greater respect and protection for the natural environment, more secularism and just less ideological bullshit overall.
Absolutely not. Less militarism is a Libertarian trait, so has been advocating legalizing recreational drug use. In fact the Obama administration raided far far more weed dispensaries than Bush who left the states mostly alone. Also progressives depend on the heavy use of force inside their own country to push through their agenda of cultural marxism which is far more dangerous than any conservative fringe group could ever be.
« First « Previous Comments 84 - 90 of 90 Search these comments
I was wondering if everyone over forty could please stop calling exorbitant home prices a "recovery," or hailing prices as "stabilized" only when prices are almost as high as the year that brought us the bubble burst. Since most of you over forty bought your home when a median home was twice the median income, I find your euphemisms patronizing, at best they reek of propaganda or spin doctors at play.
Great, most boomers feel house rich and secure, and those of you in California with Prop 13 feel like you won a lotto. I'm happy for you, truly, but if you get pleasure from this feeling of security than maybe you will understand my plea for understanding.
I know you all worked hard, but we have too. Consider that we are not only expected to pay for a median home with three or four times the median income, but closer to six times in most areas and in the Bay Area ten times that. If someone under forty owns a home they are probably in the 1%, received money or an inheritance from family, or they got into a loan that could possibly make debt slaves of them, or cost them the loss of the home and their savings. There are a few people under forty who owe home ownership to anything but the above three scenarios, and when we hear about the few who didn't follow the above it feels like hearing about a unicorn sighting.
Also, consider that statistics show that a the majority of boomers over 55 bought their home with ONE income. No one under forty can do that without being in the 1% or family money. We also have far higher student loan debt. We are also not expected to receive a pension in most jobs and unions are being outlawed, along with our other civil liberties, so we have few ways to fight back. There is talk that we will not receive social security. We also inherit a trillion dollar debt, that is mostly to China; an evil communist/plutocracy and a private bank (called the Federal Reserve) which is the very institution helping the demise of the middle-class and turning our republic into an oligarchy. We are also going to have to do something with the landfills, pollution and general environmental destruction we are left to clean up.
We are humans just like you. We want the same things: security, safe living spaces, a living wage for work, a quality education, real food, clean water and air.
The middle-class is dying, and this practice of exorbitant home prices is shoving the middle-class right out the door. The middle-class in America is going to die with the boomers if we don't make changes.
All I am asking is that people take responsibility and simply admit that the housing "recovery" is for the boomers, the mega rich, real estate agents and foriegners. Admit that's what you mean by "recovery" and admit we have it tough. Go ahead keep up your "grab all" living, I am not asking you give up your high standard of living in sacrifice for the next two or three undeserving generations, all I ask, with a heartfelt plea, is that you admit people under forty have it rough, give us some credit, and stop using the term recovery or stabilized.
Sincerely,
Someone who cares about the future
#housing