May 17
Seattleblues commented on Bigot Florist Files Countersuit.
@17
Shorter version-
If we give up most of our liberties, we can save one tiny corner of personal freedom.
Good idea! You go first and the sane among us will see how that goes, m'kay BB?
Shorter version-
If we give up most of our liberties, we can save one tiny corner of personal freedom.
Good idea! You go first and the sane among us will see how that goes, m'kay BB?
May 17
Seattleblues commented on What Kind of Cars Do I Like?.
@5
Objection counselor. Assumes a fact not in evidence; to wit that Schmuck Mudede has a brain. I mean, there's not one shred of support for that conclusion in anything he's ever written so far.
The truly frightening thing is that this sub-moronic clown is a lecturer at PLU, which is otherwise a fine university. Personally, were I footing the bill for a kid there I'd be demanding a refund for any course involving Mudede.
Objection counselor. Assumes a fact not in evidence; to wit that Schmuck Mudede has a brain. I mean, there's not one shred of support for that conclusion in anything he's ever written so far.
The truly frightening thing is that this sub-moronic clown is a lecturer at PLU, which is otherwise a fine university. Personally, were I footing the bill for a kid there I'd be demanding a refund for any course involving Mudede.
May 16
Seattleblues commented on Occupy Offshoot Blockades Home to Save South Park Man From Eviction.
Nope. There aren't victims. There are people or financial institutions who made poor choices and must bear the consequences.
For what it's worth, I was opposed to the terms under which banks were bailed out. It was blackmail to banks who hadn't screwed up but were forced to take the bailout to make the thing look halfway legitimate. These were told to take the money or have the government persecute them through various regulatory agencies. For banks which made poor financial choices it should have been given conditional on the resignation of the banks management and losses to shareholders.
But homeowners who failed to meet their contractual obligations aren't victims. They are deadbeats.
For what it's worth, I was opposed to the terms under which banks were bailed out. It was blackmail to banks who hadn't screwed up but were forced to take the bailout to make the thing look halfway legitimate. These were told to take the money or have the government persecute them through various regulatory agencies. For banks which made poor financial choices it should have been given conditional on the resignation of the banks management and losses to shareholders.
But homeowners who failed to meet their contractual obligations aren't victims. They are deadbeats.
May 16
Seattleblues commented on Occupy Offshoot Blockades Home to Save South Park Man From Eviction.
@24
Well that's one way of looking at it.
Of course, the business banker I deal with sees it a bit differently. For one thing, rules about how a loan can qualify are tighter now than pre-crisis. So to whom do you sell a house? Well, to those who have money.
Additionally, banks are keeping back foreclosed houses to keep a boom/bust cycle from happening again. That is, they're releasing only so much inventory into the market to avoid just the problems about which everyone here is whining.
Yes, the net effect is that investors and refinancing are the biggest share of the mortgage market, but that isn't an inherently unhealthy thing. How many New Yorkers do you suppose own their place in Manhattan for example? Renting isn't a death sentence. If someone has the gumption and discipline to get a house, congratulations, but it's far from being a right.
Well that's one way of looking at it.
Of course, the business banker I deal with sees it a bit differently. For one thing, rules about how a loan can qualify are tighter now than pre-crisis. So to whom do you sell a house? Well, to those who have money.
Additionally, banks are keeping back foreclosed houses to keep a boom/bust cycle from happening again. That is, they're releasing only so much inventory into the market to avoid just the problems about which everyone here is whining.
Yes, the net effect is that investors and refinancing are the biggest share of the mortgage market, but that isn't an inherently unhealthy thing. How many New Yorkers do you suppose own their place in Manhattan for example? Renting isn't a death sentence. If someone has the gumption and discipline to get a house, congratulations, but it's far from being a right.
May 16
Seattleblues commented on Occupy Offshoot Blockades Home to Save South Park Man From Eviction.
@11 and 12
While I'm sorry for people whose investments didn't pan out, I fail to see how that becomes the banks problem.
Know how to avoid foreclosure? I know it seems counter to liberal logic, but it's as easy as PAYING YOUR DAMN MORTGAGE.
I've heard all sorts of stories about apparent stubborn stupidity on the part of banks that turns a performing loan into an expensive default. Making a simple concession that costs the bank a few thousands of dollars to save the bank tens of thousands seems a no brainer. But if they're acting within their contractual rights, it's their money to lose and none of my business.
If someone signed a loan for between 10 and 20 years of their annual income without doing a bit of research I have NO sympathy. Default will be one of two things for them: a lesson in what not to do next time or (if they're liberal) one more of their multitudinous reasons to whine about how 'it isn't FAAAIIIIR!!!!'
BB, you're supposed to consider loss of income, expensive home/medical/vehicle costs and so on BEFORE buying the house. If someone doesn't- see above paragraph for the results.
More...
While I'm sorry for people whose investments didn't pan out, I fail to see how that becomes the banks problem.
Know how to avoid foreclosure? I know it seems counter to liberal logic, but it's as easy as PAYING YOUR DAMN MORTGAGE.
I've heard all sorts of stories about apparent stubborn stupidity on the part of banks that turns a performing loan into an expensive default. Making a simple concession that costs the bank a few thousands of dollars to save the bank tens of thousands seems a no brainer. But if they're acting within their contractual rights, it's their money to lose and none of my business.
If someone signed a loan for between 10 and 20 years of their annual income without doing a bit of research I have NO sympathy. Default will be one of two things for them: a lesson in what not to do next time or (if they're liberal) one more of their multitudinous reasons to whine about how 'it isn't FAAAIIIIR!!!!'
BB, you're supposed to consider loss of income, expensive home/medical/vehicle costs and so on BEFORE buying the house. If someone doesn't- see above paragraph for the results.
May 14
Seattleblues commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
@29
Yes. So they presumably understand that the Feds could spend/borrow taxpayer money much more intelligently.
If a person wants to commit a crime with a firearm background checks won't stop them. It isn't as though having a weapon whose ballistic signature can be traced to me is useful should I wish to kill someone with it. Nor will background checks stop suicides. If the most basic instinct, that of survival, is so weak I don't think that the presence or absence of a gun will significantly alter the drive to self destruction.
What liberals simply can't get their tiny little minds around is the human element. Suicides and mass shootings aren't primarily a gun problem. Anymore than building a house is a saw problem. They are a mental health issue. Didn't you know even that?
Yes. So they presumably understand that the Feds could spend/borrow taxpayer money much more intelligently.
If a person wants to commit a crime with a firearm background checks won't stop them. It isn't as though having a weapon whose ballistic signature can be traced to me is useful should I wish to kill someone with it. Nor will background checks stop suicides. If the most basic instinct, that of survival, is so weak I don't think that the presence or absence of a gun will significantly alter the drive to self destruction.
What liberals simply can't get their tiny little minds around is the human element. Suicides and mass shootings aren't primarily a gun problem. Anymore than building a house is a saw problem. They are a mental health issue. Didn't you know even that?
May 14
Seattleblues commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
@35-6
I refused to renew their lease, yes. Just as I refuse to do business with any suppliers or subcontractors who are owned by or hire fags or dykes. If they wish to make war on decent people, marriage and family, I refuse to make it easier for them with my hard earned money.
Oh. See, to hear infanticide supporters tell it all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape, and most of those were incestuous rape at that. I mean, it could NEVER happen that some girl and her boyfirend/husband/stranger in Capital Hill unisex bathroom just didn't bother with contraception! Never! I'd have thought the baby murderer supporters would have cheered Castro's amateur abortions.
@24
Good. Glad to hear that Californians had at least that grain of sense. Between that and Prop 8 there's hope for you folks yet.
Actually friends from California tell me not to judge by the whacked out urban lefties on the coasts but by the sensible Americans in the rest of California. Kind of like my own state that way....
I refused to renew their lease, yes. Just as I refuse to do business with any suppliers or subcontractors who are owned by or hire fags or dykes. If they wish to make war on decent people, marriage and family, I refuse to make it easier for them with my hard earned money.
Oh. See, to hear infanticide supporters tell it all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape, and most of those were incestuous rape at that. I mean, it could NEVER happen that some girl and her boyfirend/husband/stranger in Capital Hill unisex bathroom just didn't bother with contraception! Never! I'd have thought the baby murderer supporters would have cheered Castro's amateur abortions.
@24
Good. Glad to hear that Californians had at least that grain of sense. Between that and Prop 8 there's hope for you folks yet.
Actually friends from California tell me not to judge by the whacked out urban lefties on the coasts but by the sensible Americans in the rest of California. Kind of like my own state that way....
May 14
Seattleblues commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
@28
In which regard does reality stand at odds with anything I wrote?
You might look up the definitions of words with which you're unfamiliar before using them. It will help you look a little more informed. A little.
In which regard does reality stand at odds with anything I wrote?
You might look up the definitions of words with which you're unfamiliar before using them. It will help you look a little more informed. A little.
May 14
Seattleblues commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
@26
The standard has been that a right may be curtailed when due process is followed, the law is evenly applied, and a compelling government interest overwhelms an individual right. For instance, controlling illicit drugs is thought (in my view erroneously) to present a compelling government interest in controlling the negative side effects of drug abuse. In Oregon tribal use of Peyote was asserted as essential to a religious ritual. The court ruled in this case that religion came second to the need to control crime and the negative health effects of using mind altering drugs.
With the 2nd Amendment proposed law should have to prove that some compelling public gain comes from the limiting of an individual right to bear arms. Background checks don't to anyone capable of understanding statistics.
@27
Actually, since we now have SC precedent establishing an individual right to bear arms (as opposed to something contingent on the militia clause) I think I WILL count on it staying that way.
Thanks.
The standard has been that a right may be curtailed when due process is followed, the law is evenly applied, and a compelling government interest overwhelms an individual right. For instance, controlling illicit drugs is thought (in my view erroneously) to present a compelling government interest in controlling the negative side effects of drug abuse. In Oregon tribal use of Peyote was asserted as essential to a religious ritual. The court ruled in this case that religion came second to the need to control crime and the negative health effects of using mind altering drugs.
With the 2nd Amendment proposed law should have to prove that some compelling public gain comes from the limiting of an individual right to bear arms. Background checks don't to anyone capable of understanding statistics.
@27
Actually, since we now have SC precedent establishing an individual right to bear arms (as opposed to something contingent on the militia clause) I think I WILL count on it staying that way.
Thanks.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
First, the idiotic comparison to inter-racial marriage is just that, idiotic. My wife had no choice in the color of her skin, nor did I. Under common justice we as a country decided that penalizing someone for something over which they had no choice is unacceptable. Faggots and dykes choose the sole thing that they're claiming differentiates them, their aberrant sexual choices. In common justice we should accord them the right to be deviant perverts with other consenting adults. But claiming protection from the consequences of those choices is the act of a petulant toddler, not a mature adult.
Second, show me one area of life in which fags and dykes are substantially punished for their deviancy. Jobs? Nah. Statistically fags and dykes do as well as their sexually healthy peers. Ability to buy or rent a home? Again, nope. Even the best neighborhoods often have a faggot or dyke in them. Can a faggot or dyke travel, eat out, obtain medical care? Well, yes, with no restrictions based on the sick pervs they are in any of those classes.
So a couple pervert faggots can't buy flowers from this one florist for their pretend wedding. Big deal. Grow up and get over it fags and dykes and their pansy assed supporters.