Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
ParticipantI don’t know the answer to this question, however, it would be interesting to know who applied for the home equity loan and whether there was any community property left over after the theoretically separate property was removed. If it is spouse 1’s contention that the equity is his/hers, it would not seem that spouse 2 could sign a loan agreement identifying that equity as collateral.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]
…….They are providing a service because they make it more convenient for people to obtain the goods they need and also make it easier for the farmers/producers to sell in large batches to a few buyers vs. having to sell onsie-twosie to every individual purchaser. That being said, some would argue that it’s better for everyone to simply buy at farmers’ markets, but most of us like the convenience of having a grocery store that is open more hours/days. Speculators don’t provide any similar benefits.[/quote]
I find this interesting, because, as I recall, this description is almost identical to the reason for the “corn exchanges” and similar markets that grew into the mercantile/stock exchanges.
There will always be speculation with respect to things that are limited – and no one is making any more land. Almost every new tract house is built on spec. Is this really what you are talking about?
Participant[quote=CA renter]I totally agree that the cops in the Garner case were out of line (IMO), but the cop in the Brown case was not.
If you haven’t seen this video, it shows why cops sometimes have to act in ways that many of us would think are over the top.
And another one showing what cops have to deal with, even during regular traffic stops (which happen to be when many officers are shot/assaulted/killed).
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyTVgYdUTgYAYBIPxQt.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZAM4Rlo0S3l6S1Q5YV9CNkUxWDJMVHNBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzU2BHF1ZXJ5A3ZpZGVvIG9mIGNvcCBiZWluZyBzaG90IG1hbiBmdXIgY29hdCBkdXJpbmcgdHJhZmZpYyBzdG9wBHRfc3RtcAMxNDE4MTY2NzU4?p=video+of+cop+being+shot+man+fur+coat+during+traffic+stop&fr2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
This is more in response to the claim that Officer Wilson shouldn’t have shot Michael Brown because he was unarmed.
Cops have to make split-second decisions that often have life-or-death consequences. In the vast majority of cases, cops have no idea if someone is armed or not.[/quote]
I agree with you in many ways. One difference, though, is that Officer Wilson intended that Michael Brown die (or be grievously harmed) whereas I do not believe the officers in the Eric Garner case intended, or had a reasonable belief that Eric Garner would die. Chokeholds are not a walk in the park (and I know they are not allowed by the NYPD), but I would say that the level of force used was less than with Michael Brown. It’s similar to the question of whether it’s worse to try to shoot someone and miss or to smack someone in the head who dies due to having an “egg-shell” skull.
Call me naive, but I’m not sure that either of these situations were racially motivated – I think there are a lot of power crazy police officers out there.Participant[quote=CA renter]
We should not conflate the desire to “do the right thing” with empathy.
[/quote]CA Renter – people wouldn’t consider it “right” if they didn’t have empathy. As I have mentioned earlier, I am on the fence politically. There are conservatives who are like you who find self interest in kind acts performed by liberals. What I can’t understand is the belief, on both sides, that the other side is basically wrong (along with a bunch of other bad qualities). It’s similar to the battle of the sexes I’ve seen played out in other threads. We’re all a lot more alike than most are willing to believe – note the statistic in the article that showed that when religious donations were removed, the two parties contributed equally (I don’t think that applied to blood and volunteer hours). I think a lot of people take pride in not being (a) as closed-minded/intolerant/uncaring as the conservatives or (b) as irresponsible/unmotivated/immoral as the liberals. I think a lot of people need to demonize the other side in order to feel superior. I tend to think bad people (and good people) come in all genders, political affiliations, nationalities and yes, Brian, sizes (among other characteristics).
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]
being empathetic brings benefits regardless of whether you receive empathy in return.[/quote]Of course. But empathy is limited, no? As a limited resource, maybe we should withhold it and direct to where we get highest ROI.[/quote]
I don’t completely accept the “liberals as empathetic” stereotype. Some are, some aren’t. I think you need to look more at actions more than words. As far as charitable generosity goes (money, blood, volunteering) conservatives are more generous, according to this article in the NYT:
Participant[quote=spdrun]If it allows me to marry someone 10-20 years older and retire early with her, then probably. 20 and early 30 somethings are boring and mostly disgusting to me. I’m an old man at heart, so I want to be with someone of the same age.[/quote]
Harold and Maude? Is this what you’re talking about?
Participant[quote=spdrun]Sadly, I had the great misfortune of being born in the US. Fortunately, I’m a dual citizen so this will be corrected next year.
I don’t need drugs. I need a one-way plane ticket, an apartment lease in Berlin or Prague for a half year. Every day spent outside of the US is like a breath of fresh air.
Most Americans have never stuck their noses outside of North America — only something like 35% even hold passports, so they don’t know what they’re missing being stuck here.[/quote]
Happy people are happy wherever they are, and the opposite is true, too. I, for one, have stuck my nose out many a time. My husband worked for a large French company and has travelled more than most. Both of us prefer it here (by far). Europe is interesting for a visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there, as the saying goes.
Participant[quote=spdrun] fuck-loser … fuck about having more “stuff” …..[/quote]
Judging from the increasing prevalence of expletives in your posts, this doesn’t seem to be the happiest time of year for you, spdrun. I thought being European came with a guaranty of being happy. None of the Americans on this board seem to be as angry as you. Maybe you need some good American made pharmaceuticals ;).
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
In talking to conservatives, I often hear arguments like “I’m successful, so why should I feed losers who don’t have the discipline and force of character to take care of themselves. I started from nothing, and I made it. So can they. They live pretty well already, so they have nothing to bitch about.”
[/quote]
I’m sorry, Brian, but the conservative you quote above sounds just like you!!! You just have to change the object of disdain from a welfare recipient to a fat person. Do you talk to yourself?
Participant[quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.
[/quote]
Wait – you can’t really be making the sweeping generalization that conservatives are less empathetic (are you? maybe I am misunderstanding). In fact, the heightened sensitivity among conservatives identified in one of the studies above would probably suggest the opposite. I have voted for presidents of both political parties and consider myself an independent. I don’t think there is a difference in ultimate goodness between members of the two parties. I do think there is a difference in terms of perspective. I also think that each party has its share of bad eggs, and when it comes time to criticize, those bad eggs make good targets.
ParticipantThis sounds a lot like a discussion of the theology of John Calvin. He believed in predestination, as did those who followed his teachings (such as the Presbyterians – whose fun filled lifestyle would have appealed to Brian). People spent their lives trying to figure out whether they were the good ones or not (and also liked pointing out the ones who were “bad” because it improved their own odds – sound familiar Brian?).
December 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM in reply to: ot. the life changing magic of tidying up: the Japanese art of decluttering #780509Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Blogstar, I don’t really believe like it that way. By “you” I mean people in general. You like it that way because it’s easy to live, and doesn’t require much effort. It seems decent enough so you don’t want to exert the effort. You’d rather hang out, watch TV or whatever. You’re not going to clean up if your home pretty much conforms to your peers’ houses.
I think that people generally demand perfection, and love it, if it doesn’t require effort on their part, or other people do it for them. I observe how people fuss over little things when they pay for services, even though at their own homes it’s much worse.
Messy people who can afford it just hire people to clean up for them because they know full well that messiness is not “normal.”
If you have the discipline to put thing away immediately, then there’s not much of a tidying up effort.[/quote]
Brian – you must be a hoot at parties. I’m glad you’re here to let Blogstar know how he feels about things. And just to clarify – by “discipline” I assume you mean “raging OCD.”
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic] Otherwise, vote for the peace and freedom partay.[/quote]
Re: Peace – I guess that would be the Republicans . . Here’s some interesting data (haven’t looked at it very closely, but interesting):
.https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061003172851AAZgpzV
Freedom – do you mean freedom from the government or other citizens?
ParticipantAlso, possibly, because people’s choice of political party is looking less and less like a choice and more like an inborn trait (such as introversion and extroversion). Recent studies show that people prefer the body odor of those who share their political leanings:
Data also seem to show that you can guess a persons political affiliation with something close to 95% accuracy by looking at a brain scan conducted while the subject is viewing a disgusting image (conservatives respond more intensely):
http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/
So, it could be that like hair color and eye color, genetically related groups are more likely to share political opinions. It also suggests that no matter how much we think we’ve chosen our politics, we probably haven’t.
-
AuthorPosts
