(08-31-2017, 04:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (my material to which you respond in dark green)
Or you could just learn how to use quote tags or a change. But do carry on.
Quote:They aren't voting yet.
Let us assume that Dave Cullen is right for the sake of argument and that the oldest of the proposed generation were born in 1996. In that case they are 21 years old, and were 20 years old last year. I don't know if you've heard of this little thing I happen to call 26th Amendment of the constitution, but it is a real thing, and it says if you're 18 you can vote. So I'm willing to gamble here and say that at least some did do just that. That point is wrong.
Quote:They are not yet creating mass culture
Mass culture is not as limited as it is previously. There are people creating music and videos and posting them online from the age of 8 to the age of 80. Are they net producers of mass culture? I would say "not yet". The majority of the proposed generation are just now teenagers and that limits the scope of anything that they would produce as well as its appeal. So again this point is wrong.
Quote:So far they are getting the same mass culture as Millennial young adults.
Since your second point is wrong, this is only partially correct. I would say they consume some of the mass culture, just like everyone is ultimately forced to consume some of it. Believe me nothing is more disconcerting than listening to Nirvana being played on the Muzak system at the local shopping center. Or having one's kid refer to bands such as Pearl Jam as "the oldies".
Quote:In the 1970s the (then stupefied) mass culture produced for Generation X was clearly different from what Boomers bought. But for the time Generation X had no problem with it.
I would argue that in general mass culture is inherently stupid. Mass culture requires a mass appeal and thus caters to the lowest common denominator. At most you might be able to say that some generations were more crude or less crude. For X we're pretty crude and always have been. Deal with it, cause it isn't changing and we're all middle aged already.
Quote:Boomers to a great extent abandoned mass low culture not made for themselves and went in other directions unless the material was 'nostalgia'.
Every generation does this. So this is an irrelevant point. Xers abandoned mass culture not aimed at them, Millies the same, and I'm sure that the Silents did in their time. Hell even the GIs did with swing as the older Jazz was aimed at the Lost. As an interesting note while I do like swing music (seriously it still is good dance music) I far prefer the older Jazz that was aimed at the Lost and I don't have much memory of my Lost great-grandparents.
Quote:I am reminded of what the GI journalist Herb Caen had to say of the 'bubble-gum' rock that early-wave Generation X listened to with apparent relish: that this stuff was incredibly bad.
It was no worse than other mass culture. The difference was that the GIs tended to be less crude than X.
Quote:As the disco fad (and that dreadful, contrived music was intended to blend Boomers and X in a mindless hedonism) failed to redefine American mass culture as a lucrative conduit of record sales to its creators, performers, and hucksters, Boomers and X split.
This merely proves fads come and go. As for disco being dreadful and contrived apparently you've not heard the latest EDM tracks like I have. No, I don't particularly like it but the kid does. I expect him to grow out of that phase sometime around 30. I did. And that assumes that the fag bars still have dance floors and such like. I wouldn't know. I've not been to a fag bar in about 10 years. I gave up drinking, and FL hasn't legalized recreational use of my drug of choice yet so if I want to smoke a blunt I do it at home.
Quote:The GI's and the Silent did not have such a cultural split until about 1960.
So swing did not exist? R&B did not exist? And that's just music. Not to mention the literature both generations produced prior to 1960. Granted what they produced may not have been to your taste, but that doesn't mean that they did not produce it.
Quote:It was marginal.
That wasn't your argument. That is my argument. I'll even go further and say that in 1980 Xer votes to Reagan were statistically insignificant. Reagan won that election in a landslide.
Quote:Reagan was going to win over a President widely seen as ineffective and out of touch. Ronald Reagan was about as slick a campaigner as Obama would be 28 years later in running against the legacy of a failed President if not the incumbent. Both reached for visceral concerns, and at that Reagan may have been more effective. Or that could be race.
Well since you bring up race. I'm black. I voted for Obama. Did voted for him twice. Why. Because he is black too? No. Because he's a slick campaigner? No. Seriously you should listen to the guy himself. He has more stutters and ughs and ums than any other politican I've ever seen. Honestly while Reagan who I do remember quite well, though only clearly the second term, was poised and polished Obama was not.
Obama won both times out of shear luck. In 2008 Obama was running against an out of touch old man of the same party of a reviled president and a running mate who may or may not have be actually retarded. In 2012 he ran against a Mormon Trustfund baby who couldn't keep to a consistent platform, that is to say Romney was exceptionally weak as a candidate. Far weaker than John McCain.
In short Obama won both elections not because he was so great but because his opponents were exceptionally bad. It should be noted that both candidates were "my turn now" candidates of their parties, and those almost never win.
The only consistency between Reagan in 1980 and Obama in 2008 was that they were the "new" thing.
Quote:Analysts of the time expected Reagan to win, but not as big as he did. They also found that voters born in 1961 and 1962 were much more conservative in economics and had less ambiguity in supporting a right-wing foreign policy than voters born as late as 1960. That may have been a complete shock. The Carter campaign sought the votes of people born in 1961 and 1962 -- and got burned.
The Democrats expected to get the youth vote. The Boomers had reliably provided it to them but Xers are not Boomers. The same situation arose in 2016, and even if the vast majority of the youth vote are in fact Millies, indeed let us just say that Gen Zed are nothing more than the second wave of the Millies, the youth vote broke decidedly for Trump. What amazes me is not that different generations vote for different people, but that the DNC thought running an old woman who yells at the internet could possibly attract the youth vote. But then again I call them the Dim-ocrats for a reason.
Quote:Voters born as late as 1966 were voting in 1984. Voters in Generation X were still much more sympathetic to free-market solutions even at the cost of economic inequality through lower pay and through shifts from high-income income taxes to low-end consumer taxes. Of course Walter Mondale was a horrid campaigner that Democrats chose practically for long-standing, loyal and dedicated service to his Party. Almost like Alf Landon, and with much the same result.
I want to know, are you trying to make my point for me? If so you're succeeding because all that is an analysis of why I said what did happen happened.
Quote:If there is any tendency, it is that people tend to vote in accordance with the interests with which they develop rapport. But let us remember that Generation X was going to feel the brunt of sexual repression. A generation almost libertarian on economics was also libertarian on s-e-x. X was (and still is) largely secularist, and it disliked the agenda of the anti-secular Religious Right that sought to replace science with religious revelation. That was the pattern of the young-adult early Gilded and Lost.
The Republicans (generation) were also quite libertarian in regard to fucking as well. I've noticed a consistent pattern with Nomad generations, they tend to value liberty over control and even over equality. This is true in the economic and personal realms. As I pointed out the Evangelo-Con narrative was red meat to Silent and Boomer voters.
Non-religious boomers (and silents to a lesser degree) are really really non-religious. Religious boomers (and Silents to a lesser degree) are really really religious. Xers are and always have been of the opinion that religion is a personal choice and not a matter for the state. I'll give you an Xer example of opposition to gay marriage: "The state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all". Xer opposition to abortion sounds like this: "Yeah, it should be legal cause you can't stop it and well back ally abortions aren't good, but perhaps adoption should be promoted instead."
All you've managed to demonstrate with this paragraph is that Xers, like other Nomads before them, value liberty over everything else.
Quote:Generation X was also having children. X could tolerate lower real incomes and real higher prices in the name of economic growth... but they were starting to have children. Low wages and high costs were hurting the children of Generation X. Generation X started drifting toward the political center as it saw its children having to pay the price for the plutocratic, fundamentalist agenda of the GOP in the 1980s. Yes, there were loud X proponents of this agenda, like Ralph Reed -- but shrillness of a minority is not enough.
Or perhaps more accurately the Democratic party decided that in order to win elections they needed Generation X and as such decided to move to the center economically. I was 13 in 1992 and thus not eligible to vote, but having memories of the economic positions of Democrats from pre-1992 they shifted decidedly to the right (and since they were left since 1932 thus to the center). Your whole point rests on denying that the "New Democrat" thing never happened, even though it got Bubba Bill elected twice and was the coat tails that HRC attempted to use to worm her way into the White House just recently.
Since I'm fairly certain you're not stupid, I must conclude you are at least being intellectually dishonest here.
Quote:So X was willing to make economic sacrifices in the name of economic growth from which they could derive benefit in This World. The largely Boom Religious Right really did believe in Pie-In-the-Sky-When-You-Die as an adequate reward for misery in This World. X did not fall for that. It had its limitations, and the corporatist-fundamentalist coalition associated with Reagan and Bush I simply went too far. Sometime political reality goes that way.
Or perhaps and more accurately the Democrats shifted to the center on economics and stayed liberal to libertarian on social issues and managed to get Bubba Bill elected in a year where the economy wasn't doing well.
Quote:As I have noticed, politics do not drive technology, and technology has at most subtle and usually unforeseen effects upon social patterns. Few people thought that the telephone would change how people did business. Few people foresaw that the automobile would change the patterns of dating, often bringing people not in the same proximity by then-recent standards.
Politics, unless we're talking about war, does not drive technology because politics is a following indicator. Trump could not have used the campaign style he used in any time before the rise of social media as the primary means of communication.
Quote:Demographics may not decide things on the individual level, but in an economy of consumer choice, demographic reality can decide what succeeds and what fails. It can decide that obsolete models of business fail and that those in touch with economic reality succeed.
True, and it makes me wonder why it is so surprising to some people that a businessman managed to beat an out of touch old woman who yells at the internet and hasn't had a non-government position since the mid-1980s. And that is before we even get into the whole Anyone But Hillary that happened on the Left in 2016. Seriously she had to cheat to get the nomination against a 76 year old Jewish open socialist who often looked like he'd never heard of a comb.
I don't honestly think Sanders could have beat Trump, but he certainly could have beat Cruz, Rubio, or Jeb! Bush all of whom were at one time the darlings of the GOP Establishment.
Quote:The Millennial Generation has yet to unite behind one or two overpowering realities. For GIs that was the Great Depression and World War II. Millennial adults have yet to see anything at all analogous to either.
It is possible that not having something analogous might explain the lack of unity. That being said, there has been a great deal of unity around civic nationalism since Trump came on the scene--pink haired weirdos notwithstanding.
Quote:Watch the demographics. The line between GI and Silent did not emerge until the end of World War II, separating soldiers who stormed Okinawa and put Dachau under more humane management from those who might have expected to storm mainland Japan but instead did occupation duty. The difference between cohorts of 1923 and 1928 would be obvious in 1948 would not be as clear between cohorts of 1924 and 1926 until the 1950s. The difference between 1924 and 1925 is still subtle. Lots of people thought that Marlon Brando was the Silent (although born in 1924) and that Paul Newman was the GI (although born in 1925).
Part of the reason that I believe it is possible for what is being termed Generation Zed could be the second wave of the Millies. In S&H's works civic generations have a tendency to be long even if the reason for that is unclear.
Quote:The marginal voter of November 2016 who voted against Trump seems to become more proud of the choice. The marginal voter for Trump has drifted away, as shown in polling since the election.
Not quite true. National polls are absolutely worthless. State by state polls indicate that in Red States marginal voters for Trump have solidified behind him specifically, though they may or may not be more generally GOP leaning. After all if you listened to the polls in October 2016, Hillary should be president but she's retired now, hopefully. Personally I'd like to see her and Bill in Orange but that might be more trouble than its worth.
I won't bother with your unsourced polls because I don't know the source, nor the methodology. Methodology matters.
As for re-election, well a year is an eternity in politics so we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. Given the President's age he might not even seek re-election, though I can't think of a good reason not to. The left is still in its process of collapse so I would make hay while the sun shined.
Quote:In the old days, the idea behind college was that the callow student who went in would come out better, whether at a good secular school like Harvard or the University of California or a good religious-oriented school like Notre Dame or Brigham Young. But even at the lower level of educational matriculation (as a courtesy I will not name names) practical education that might get one a job as a schoolteacher or county agricultural agent would have some structure intended to change the mind of the youth to take away some of the rough edges.
Those days are long gone. As the Millies have demonstrated, Boomer dominated Universities and Collages have become little more than daycare for persons between the ages of 17 and 24. Perhaps this article will help enlighten you on why this is the case.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/06/yale-s...ace-video/
Quote:That is still a valid objective. It is better that we have people with ideas of how to live well other than to wallow in the base drives of the id and the unbending rules of a harsh superego. We need people who believe that there is more to life than consumerism, sex, drugs, booze, bureaucratic power, and mass culture so that leaders can contemplate the choices of their decisions. In view of the emptiness of the mass culture, the sophistication of our technology, the productivity of our economy outstripping the need for productive labor, and the ruthless cunning of our political bosses, we may need to rediscover the liberal arts. Add to this, our culture and even economy still promotes a focus on getting things now even at the cost of ruin later. A valid college education could promote a long-term focus that our society lacks so severely.
I'm fine with students learning the liberating arts. That isn't the problem. The problem is that Universities are essentially businesses and highly regulated ones. I would be all in favor of letting the whole matter go if they merely got rid of Title IX which is a governmental policy which results in the dumbing down of universities by forcing quotas on them. Unlike the days of yore, where universties were for trustfund babies and the talented, many many mediocre people are now admitted, and most simply do not have the capacity to finish. Furthermore this quota system screws over many people who are qualified from going but belong to the wrong sex or ethnic group.
Indeed in a meritocratic situation Harvard and Yale would not be monolithic-ally white, but would actually be dominated by Asians. Last I checked those were "persons of color" just as much as I'm a "person of color".
Quote:I think that you have the objective of most college students wrong. They do not go to college to get left-wing indoctrination (have you ever heard of Liberty University, founded by the late reactionary, traditionalist Jerry Falwell?)
Again, since I'm certain you're not stupid I have to conclude you're being at the least intellectually dishonest. Students may not go to university to get leftist indoctrination. Rather that is what they get when they go to university. Much like how one may go to McDonalds for what they believe to be all beef hamburgers, but what they get is actually mostly pink slime patties of mystery meat. And if at least most of the "meat" contained in this pink slime is beef the FDA says that they can call it All Beef--though McDonalds rarely uses that line anymore since they've been putting all sorts of other adulterants to their burger patties and I last worked for them in the 1990s. I expect they are worse now, not better.
Quote: For its flaws, I can think of people who would get some improvement in their character by attending Liberty University.
Probably, I wouldn't send my kid there but it might be for some people. That said, your example is only regionally accredited, so while you could transfer credits from it to say a university in New York or PA for example, a Liberty degree wouldn't mean a damn thing to University of Florida, and would be worth less than nothing to the likes of MIT or Yale.
Quote:Unless one gets into a skilled trade program, college is the best chance that most people have of avoiding becoming part of a permanent underclass
Then explain to me how half of my Millenial employees all have some degree or an other. We're talking about college educated people working at a Dunkin Donuts because it is the only job they can get! If one assumes that fast food workers are part of the underclass, then clearly a university education does not guarantee or for many even provide a chance for those to escape that underclass. Include the massive debt often associated with such degrees and that compounds the problem. Now, this person not only has a useless education, but also a massive debt which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy that they eventually must pay off.
Is it any wonder why so many Millenials have not bought houses, moved back in with Mom and Pop, and certainly haven't had brats of their own? I don't think so.
Quote:Although the economic reward for attending college and getting a degree is generally slighter and less certain, and the cost of college education has become higher in real cost, it is increasingly the only real chance that most people have. If one sees pushing papers in an insurance company better as a glorified clerk than being a farm laborer or a kitchen helper, then one now practically needs the college diploma.
Pushing papers at an insurance company is being a glorified clerk. Furthermore the Kitchen Helper and Farm Laborer have a distinct advantage that the college educated glorified clerk does not. Neither has indentured themselves to a banker for at least the first half of their working life, if not the entirety of it. There was a reason why I got my son an apprenticeship instead of pushing for college.
Those reasons are:
1. Instead of paying to learn a skill or how to do a job, he is payed by the master tile setter to learn this trade.
2. When he's done with learning his trade not only does he not have that debt to worry about, but he will likely have saved quite a bit of money and can move out (if he chooses to--I kinda hope he doesn't I like having him around but not everyone can stick around and he should have his own life too).
3. As a tile setter no matter how bad the economy gets he will always have that skill and someone will either pay him to use that skill or at the worst barter for it. I can't tell you about the times my uncle redid people's bathrooms for them and they couldn't pay him in money but they had other things he would take in compensation. In short having a skill makes one depression-proof. Just like I'm depression proof being an acredited chef (something I only got cause the GI bill would pay for it).
Quote:In a large college it is easy to evade the left-wing indoctrination that you dread.
Not really. Most of the professors are leftists to start with, not to mention a large number of worthless social justice required courses one has to take.
Quote:I have been a saver when I had the chance.
I smell a cop-out. Anyone can save money. Its really easy. My kid has managed to save over 10K and that was the last time I opened his bank statement on accident, and he works at a fucking burger joint!.
The key is to have your expenses as low as possible, keep your expectations of luxuries reasonable, and not to spend money you don't have on things you do not need. And that is before we even get into the more tight fisted ways of living, which I'm inclined toward. Believe me if I had the time I would take up the hobby of "extreme cuponing".
One can live quite frugally while denying themselves nothing that they desire they just have to be smarter than the powers that be wish one to be. Which thankfully is quite a low bar.
Quote: I am old enough to recognize that one of the most effective ways to save money is to not be an early-adapter. The ultimate late-adapter can buy stuff at Goodwill or Salvation Army for a fraction of what it was originally sold for.
That is true for some things and not others. Myself, I have only been an early adopter of one thing, vaping. In my case I felt that the harm reduction more than paid for the costs incured by being on the bleeding edge of the technology. Eventually I managed to get a system I was happy with and will likely provide me with what I want so long as I keep the tank filled, the wires clean and the batteries charged. Though I do expect to eventually have to replace my mods and batteries at a substantial cost, my operting cost is about 3 dollars per month now that I have such a system. It was worth spending thousand prior to getting that system, I figure when I'm elderly I'll be saving tons of money on NOT paying for COPD medications and oxygen therapy.
Recently I was told by my GP that he couldn't even tell I had ever smoked by listening to my lungs, though my lung capacity is likely permanently diminished from smoking for 20+ years.
Everything else, yeah I'm a late adopter though I don't think I'd ever by a computer or phone from Goodwill, I find your back to school sale laptop and burner phone works just fine for me. All the games I like to play are at least 10 years old anyway.
Quote: Even more, one can really save money by living in a place that is then unstylish -- like hick towns in the Midwest, where the local culture is church, high-school band, and whatever mass culture is available at Wal*Mart. It's not very satisfying, but on many respects life is not as easy as it was fifty years ago.
It is not very satisfying to you. Myself I have very little use for the cultural artifacts one finds at Wal-Mart unless you consider staple household products and socks & drawers mass culture. Most of what I buy from big box stores can be broken down into three categories: Eats, Hygiene Products & clothing that absolutely must be new (IE Socks & Drawers, to a lesser extent in my case hats and bandanas--but some folks have hair), household cleaning chemicals (though since I prefer ammonia and vinegar over all that fancy shit I mostly buy that at Sam's in the hugest container I can find).
The first time I used borax to treat a flea infestation it kinda shocked my boyfriend. The problem with having pets is they get fleas.
Quote:When Donald Trump offered the vapid slogan "Make America Great Again", he let people decide for themselves what that meant.
If you actually believe that, and are not being intellectually dishonest, then obviously you weren't paying attention when he was on the tee-vee speaking. He said over and over what had to happen to bring MAGA to life.
1. Trade had to be fixed. He's renegotiating NAFTA and CAFTA now and TPP died on the vine.
2. Immigration needs to be fixed. There have been lots of deportations lately and this year there was actually net emmegration from the US, mostly illegals crossing back into Mexico cause they figure he'll enforce the laws. Romney called it "self-deportation" but that doesn't sell well so Trump used "Enforcing our laws" instead which does sell well.
3. Build a wall. That is coming up in the defense budget this next month. If the Democrats try to block it, chances are it will be political suicide for them.
4. Repeal Obamacare (he said repeal and replace, but I'll settle for repeal). Rick Santorum is on the Hill now trying to hammer a deal out that McConnell and Ryan won't try to stymie.
Quote: I'm thinking that that meant 'easier' -- lower real rents, less suburban sprawl, lower costs of government activity, and shorter commutes.
All of that is doable, and the market will do it if it isn't being distorted by unsound governmental policies. Trump is ahead of schedule with deregulation.
Quote: But what is possible in a country of 300 million people isn't so easy in a country with a population of 160 million people. People expect miracles of improvement in their lives through technology. Sure, we get more entertainment cheaply -- but some things like housing do not afford any benefits from economies of scale.
Actually housing, and my grandfather was a housing contractor so I grew up around that business just as much as I did around health care, does benefit from economies of scale. If the goal is to have a suburban lifestyle (IE the GI dream) then the fastest, cheapest way to do that is to create large subdivisions of spec housing built in an almost prefabricated way. Akin to Levittown. If the goal is to have a much more dense lifestyle then that won't work and either mixed use zoning or high rises with densely packed mass transit must be used.
I would argue that part of the problem is that this is largely a problem of local regulations, which the president can't impact on. But he can maneuver federal regulations away from the GI dream to whatever the 21st century dream is--even if by doing that one simply needs get the government out of the way.
As for the expectation of miracles, well there are fools in every era. I do not believe in miracles, I do believe in cause and effect though. And in my experience stupid policies by the government (federal, state or local, doesn't matter) often cause stupid effects to happen. If government is a necessary evil then it is prudent that that government also not be stupid.
Quote:Deferred taxation. Government typically replaces old debt with newer and slightly larger debt, ideally growing no faster than absolute GDP (population growth and improving productivity). Government can borrow at a lower rate than can Best Buy or Sears -- not that I would buy bonds floated by either. But I would buy shares of common stock which has potential for growth and some defense from inflation (and inflation will return) and not corporate or even government bonds.
Are you trying to make my point? The government issues bonds because raising the money to do X through taxation would cripple the economy. However, at some point the population must be taxed to service the bond. Ultimately I would argue that the problems with the national debt is related to the fact that if the Sovereign State is the sole issuer of currency then a national debt is completely unnecessary. But that gets into MMT and my desire to replace the Fed with treasury issued debt free currency (otherwise called United States Notes). Otherwise all it is, is a scam for the banksters to bleed a living out of the productive people of the country.
Thomas Jefferson Wrote:If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Quote:Welfare goes back into the economy. You can trust that Wal*Mart, Safeway, and Kroger would rather get money from food stamps in profitable sales of sodas, chips, and meat than to lose money to people who shoplift such things. Given the choice between welfare and crime I prefer welfare. Prisons cost real money, and it is far easier to control people with welfare than with the police.
Or, and I know that this sounds like a radical solution, we could not import unskilled workers from other countries and depress the wages of the under class. Labor operates on a supply and demand equation just like all other things. It should be noted that in the 1800s in the US the country not only industrialized but also maintained the highest wages in the world for industrial workers.
If people are busy working they don't have time to commit crime unless they are professional crooks, and Leroy Jinkins stealing steaks from Kroger is not a professional crook.
As for the prision situation that can be dealt with not only economic changes, called get a job cause we ain't importing brazilians or whatever to do it any more, but also abolishing another failed government policy called the war on drugs. I like my pot sure, and it will be legal everywhere soon anyway, but I would go further and legalize the rest of it, or at least decriminalize it. Portugal demonstrates that HIV infection rates, crime, and a whole host of other problems go away when addiction to drugs, or even using drugs is treated as the medical issues and personal choices that they are.
In short to put Al Capone out of business Roosevelt ended the Big Government Liberal policy of Prohibition.
Quote:We cannot create enough jobs to solve all our social problems unless we were to commit to abysmal wages that would create social problems in their own right.
Only true if we insist on importing the working classes of the entire third world. Americans are just barely at replacement level as far as reproduction goes so without that importation wages will rise. As wages rise there will in the course of time be more demand in the economy and thus eventually there will be a labor shortage and we can consider allowing some immigration at that point in time.
That being said, unless the real unemployment rate is at full employment (generally considered around 4% unemployment) and workforce participation is in the low 80%s (some folks are going to be sick, women may be pregnant or with small children for example--I'm not counting people under 16 or over 65) we have no need for any immigrants.
Quote:Because your bald white gay partner is with you, I assume that nobody would confuse him with a Nazi who would murder both of you.
You would assume that, but we're talking about Antifa here and a Nazi is anyone that they don't like. Seriously a man got assaulted for having the wrong haircut the other day.
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/colorado-ma...46326.html
Also I don't go with him everywhere. For example I have absolutely no reason to go to the local high school apart from any sporting events the kid may be participating in. And wrestling season is long over. Largely what keeps him safe is being in a red area, of a redish-purple state and not some place suffering from a massive influx of immigrants from the People's Republic of California like Colorado. Also he's armed most places he goes too. Concealed carry is great I suggest everyone get a permit.
It should be noted that the hair cut in question is refereed to as a high and tight and is commonly worn in the USMC. But USMC standard haircuts are now somehow neo-nazi to these leftist morons.
Quote: Nazi Germany did not send black people into death chambers in the same way that they did to Jews or Roma because they had few blacks. (The blacks that there were were typically half-German people that the Nazis were satisfied to keep out of the gene pool through sterilization). Homosexuals in Nazi Germany were targeted for abuse and murder in the camps.
Irrelevant. Antifa isn't concerned with what real nazis did, or even with what neo-nazis do. They are concerned with displaying that they hate nazis and only concerned with that. They are better understood to operate like a cult than a political movement.
Quote:The San Francisco Bay Area is expensive because people want to live there and because high incomes are available to some fortunate people. But supply and demand in housing results in renters bidding up housing costs. Needless to say, that results in high rents, some of the easiest money that anyone can make -- so long as one has made the investments. Unlike bond income that has an obvious limit and whose value (and that of the bond itself if it is long-term) rent can keep up with inflation so long as the rental property is in a place that people want to live in.
Also irrelevant. There are cheaper places in Commiefornia than San Francisco. I'm given to understand that Eric the Ignoramus isn't exactly some Silicon Valley miltimillionare and he's in that state. Personally I wouldn't live in San Francisco because the city is absolutely disgusting. Yeah the Castro (well for fags anyway, straights aren't exactly welcome in that neighborhood) is nice, but it gets old really, really, really fast.
Quote:For obvious reasons, people do not want to live in Youngstown or Portsmouth in Ohio -- awful places with few opportunities. Owning rental property in such places is not a good way to make money. Were I a landlord I would not want Section 8 renters.
I would say that the problem with Youngstown and Portsmouth Ohio are related to a lack of opportunities for employment that pays beyond the bare minimum. Also were you a landlord you probably would take section 8 renters. Their rent is paid directly by the government, inspectors are bribe-able and the tenants are unlikely to have the resources to bring violations of their renter's rights to court assuming they even know that they have those rights.
Section 8 is great for slumlords. Thankfully I never had to live in such situations, but I know people who have.
Quote:More precisely, inequality is the result of the liberty -- of elites -- and the paucity of choices for others. That's how feudalism and slavery operated.
But this said, Donald Trump thinks much like a medieval aristocrat, and in America that is a gross anachronism. But if you think he is so wonderful, maybe his successors won't have it so great when the masses get angry
For there to even be elites there has to be the liberty for them to become elites. So we're stuck with a chicken or egg situation. Thankfully Prager has made a handy video on the topic. I think I'll leave it here since in spite of not being stupid, simply do not understand my point--I'm thinking willful ignorance (which is less pardonable than mere stupidity). I also doubt you'll bother to read anything that you don't agree with anyway.
[/quote]
It really is all mathematics.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out ofUN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of
