patrick.net

Bap33 says

I may be homophobic … and many many other phobics. For example, I am lazyophobic .. and they are “just born that way” (or chose to smoke dope and that made them lazy-er) …

Obviously a dope smoker is not born that way. Being gay is not a choice. Sure, you can be celibate by choice, but the attraction to the same sex is not a choice. In fact there is strong evidence that in some cases it happens during processes in the womb.

Bap33 says

how many times must one be part of a male+male sodomifucation to know if they are 100% homo or just perved? Is once enough? Is thinking about it enough? Can a person be a sodomite without another sodomite? These are just questions I have.

How about lezbos, Bap? What's your bigoted judgement about them?

Have you every thought what it would be like to be a gay person in this country?

Probably not.

While I don't have any gay friends there are gay people in my extended family.

Almost everybody in this country has gay people -- sodomites and carpet-munchers -- in their extended family, which is hopefully why your silly conservative bigotry is coming to the end of its days here.

Thanks for showing how conservatives simply lack any degree of empathy for their fellow man.

MarkInSF says

And do you know why so many come to San Francisco? It’s because they got sick of having to hide, and deal with the scorn the faced in their communities. If that’s not homophobia, I don’t know what is

They migrate to San Fran Freako because they are encouraged to live the lifestyle, as illustrated in what I believe is called the Castro Street Festival, where sodomy is practiced right out in the open. If that isn't sick and perverted, what is?

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

And do you know why so many come to San Francisco? It’s because they got sick of having to hide, and deal with the scorn the faced in their communities. If that’s not homophobia, I don’t know what is

They migrate to San Fran Freako because they are encouraged to live the lifestyle, as illustrated in what I believe is called the Castro Street Festival, where sodomy is practiced right out in the open. If that isn’t sick and perverted, what is?

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Castro Street Fair (and Gay Pride as well) is totally family friendly. Here is a video:
http://www.sfgam.com/15/index.php?option=com_seyret&view=video&id=13&videotitle=Castro+Street+Fair+2008&Itemid=13

Someone might get drunk and whip their shirt off, but I'm afraid thats it. You might be thinking of Folsom Street Fair, but thats a BDSM event, not even strictly gay.

bdrasin says

You might be thinking of Folsom Street Fair, but thats a BDSM event, not even strictly gay

Thank you for correcting me. That's the one I meant. There was some Catholic organization awhile back that posted photos of the perversion that goes on at this "festival," some of it in plain view of young children. They did this in order to expose what the mainstream media refuses to report. Nancy Pelosi even got in on the act referring to it as an "interesting example of diversity" and other such nonsense.

Do two wrongs now make a right?

Does anyone know how to contact the Warlock Charlie Sheen? I think he should be invited to this forum in order to express what liberalism means to him. I know he sends a lot of letters to Dear Leader Obama in an advisory capacity, to which it appears Dear Leader is listening intently, but I think it would be nice if he would take the time to articulate his liberal views here as well. If you know him (and I'm sure some of you do), send a shout out to Charlie and tell him to visit Patrick.net. Thank you.

Braaaaahh!! this is funny stuff...

RayAmerica, you show an absolute lack of ability to communicate and understand. First, I have indeed met homophobes and people who hate the poor and racists who don't like affirmative action. So it's not "betting." No, I don't have percentages, but I don't need a SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE to back up my claim that SOME exist.

But again, you miss my larger point: your main complaint is that one very VALID label is used in an over-general way. AND I agree with you. BUT this is a very weak answer to the "Rottweilers of the Right" argument that outright fabrications and tricks are used by conservatives - tricks and lies that have NO basis in reality, vs...."okay, maybe we called you a homophobe, sorry, I had a hard time telling you apart from the big gaggle of homophobes you run with...and you seem to like homophobic policies...one has to wonder."

Oh, and by the way, "homophobia" is not made-up bullcrap. Perhaps not a psychiatric ailment, no, but there are clearly people out there who are afraid of homosexuality, especially their own. Personal experience, buddy.

Divide by 2. Anyway. If you want a good laugh go to CNN money. Look for the article. HOW CHEAP HOUSES SPELL BAD NEWS. Watch them wind their way through a ton of their crap. The headline is hysterically funny though. I don't get it maybe they do on Mars. Like I say if you got forecloused on in a 200k loan and could get it for 75k tommorow or something even better. Their greed is way beyond.

If you don't understand someone hey. Like I say if your different. The real thing is most people on the streets get along. They really do no one shouts hey you nasty liberal in Wal-mart at you. Life just isn't like that. That's reality. Like I say El Grecko divides its what he does. I stay away from violent people. Always have always will.

There are some great U-tubes on California. Look at California depression. Vacant malls etc. I would like to see more about that. So would a whole lot of people. They documented Detroit fairly good. I don't see why you would live in a tent city near Sacramento. When you could move out into the countryside where no one is.

MarkInSF says

Obviously a dope smoker is not born that way.

I disagree. A person with the lack of intellect, or the "follower" personality, or whatever other mental or physical trait is required to be a dope smoker, comes to life already set up that way. Dope smokers were born to be dope smokers. And the same can be said of baby rapists and sodomites and regular sexual perverts ...... each was wired that way in the womb. How can that not be true?

@Troy - I didn't write anything that matches your attack on me. My best guess is you mis-read what I wrote. I did not say anything negative about sodomites. Do I get a free pass if I know a sodomite or have a family member that practices deviant sex?

Bap33 says

MarkInSF says

Obviously a dope smoker is not born that way.

I disagree. A person with the lack of intellect, or the “follower” personality, or whatever other mental or physical trait is required to be a dope smoker, comes to life already set up that way. Dope smokers were born to be dope smokers. And the same can be said of baby rapists and sodomites and regular sexual perverts …… each was wired that way in the womb. How can that not be true?
@Troy - I didn’t write anything that matches your attack on me. My best guess is you mis-read what I wrote. I did not say anything negative about sodomites. Do I get a free pass if I know a sodomite or have a family member that practices deviant sex?

Welcome to my ignore file. Those "deviants" happen to be friends, co-workers and family members to some of us. I don't have time for bigots.

PJ O'Rourke on liberals:

http://tinyurl.com/6xz9sfx

"The principal feature of contemporary American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things - war and hunger and date rape - liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.

The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors - psychology, sociology, women's studies - to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers."

O'Rourke is of Irish descent. I wonder if he's ever dared to run the gauntlet in oppressive and bigoted England. I suppose if he ever did he'd come back a progressive.

tomoeDave says

RayAmerica, you show an absolute lack of ability to communicate and understand. First, I have indeed met homophobes and people who hate the poor and racists who don’t like affirmative action.

We all live in, in relative terms, fairly small spheres. The fact that you have "indeed met homophobes, etc." does not constitute a majority. It may in your mind, but in real terms it doesn't. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone, outside of the crazies now and then expressing themselves on the net, that come right out and say "I'm a racist ... I hate poor people ... I'm a homophobe, etc." So how it is that you are able to determine that people that oppose affirmative action, homosexual marriage, give away social programs, are what you claim them to be is a huge stretch on your part. Also, I find it amazing, that liberals have this unique ability to look inside a person and determine what is in their heart.

Bap33 says

I may be homophobic … and many many other phobics. For example, I am lazyophobic .. and they are “just born that way” (or chose to smoke dope and that made them lazy-er) … and I’m “judging them” based on my view of productive … be being around lazy people bothers me, and lazy people are not good for a healthy society IMO …. fair example?

After many debates with you I too have become Lazyophobic. Seriously, we have to get all these lazy people off my motherlovin tax money because I just paid an additional 2k to the IRS after claiming ZERO motherlovin exemptions all year long. Let those bastards starve on a deserted island for all I give a darn. Ted Williams can be their leader.

Anyone not sane enough to want to work for their economic opportunity is not my kind of American.

Clarence 13X says

Debating with Shrek and Ray America is very difficult as each fails to acknowledge the lack of sympathy coming from the right wing.

Specifically, what "lack of sympathy" are you referring to?

Clarence 13X says

that is why I stopped coming here to debate

Sorry to add you to the list of extremists (on one issue) I won't debate, when I see the ridiculous generalizations you have been making in other threads about unions.

Bap33 says

I disagree. A person with the lack of intellect, or the “follower” personality, or whatever other mental or physical trait is required to be a dope smoker, comes to life already set up that way. Dope smokers were born to be dope smokers. And the same can be said of baby rapists and sodomites and regular sexual perverts …… each was wired that way in the womb. How can that not be true?

Bap, perhaps you're thinking of addicts when you disparage dope smokers and label them as lacking intellect or being a follower. Famous dope smokers include:

The Governator, Arnold
Bing Crosby
Bill Gates
Carl Sagan
Conan O'Brien
Dan Quayle
Diego Rivera
elliemae
Frances Ford Coppella
George Bush
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Ten oz Trout
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
Zachary Taylor

and many more. Most of these people wouldn't be labeled as followers (although dear sweet elliemae's been called many things). I would postulate that dope smokers weren't born to be dope smokers, they were born to be people.

As were gays. ;)

marcus says

Sorry to add you to the list of extremists (on one issue) I won’t debate, when I see the ridiculous generalizations you have been making in other threads about unions.

Clarence: Congratulations are in order sir! You have made the vaunted list of those that have been "deleted" by Marcus. No better compliment can be paid, well sort of. If you continue in your non rubber stamp ways of expressing yourself (also known as free speech), you'll also be added to the "deleted" list by any number of non-thinkers in this forum, in which case, you will receive compliments in the multiples. Again, congratulations and keep up the good work.

I wonder if transvestites were born "that way" too? Were the prisoners that entered prison straight, and became involved in homosexuality while in prison "born that way too?" How convenient it is to blame your deviant behavior on being “born that way.”

RayAmerica says

13X

REPUBS have always looked out for the top 1% and simply pissed on the poor. They have NEVER shown no empathy, sympathy for the plight of poor people. If I were to ask you to name one piece of legislation drafted by REPUBS aimed at improving the plight of poor people you would not be able to do it...I have tried many times. Since the passing of the Emancipation Proclimation REPUBS have done very little in support of Voting Rights Acts, Civil Rights of 64, etc. due to the fact that their constituency is made up of those who are against social progress. The Civil Rights act of 64 sent 25% of the Democratic party to the Republican party based on the benefit the bill gave to blacks.

Most Republicans are fine with leaving others (Blacks, Poor, Women, etc.) out of social progress, where as most Democrats want to include too many (Lazy, Un-educated, etc.) that dont deserve to be included in the social progress.

We need to find middle ground to where we can have social welfare for those that need it and keep the lazy folks off the system.

marcus says

Clarence 13X says

that is why I stopped coming here to debate

Sorry to add you to the list of extremists (on one issue) I won’t debate, when I see the ridiculous generalizations you have been making in other threads about unions.

I am not extreme on these issues, some comments have convinced me that the Wiscon REPUBS gave tax breaks to the top 1% and then stripped unions of their power. On that issue I have changed course a bit, however, I know from experience that unions thwart corporations from making progress and protect employees that should not be protected.

This does a disservice to them as it puts their policies in a bad light with those of us who have to manage these employees.

RayAmerica says

marcus says

Sorry to add you to the list of extremists (on one issue) I won’t debate, when I see the ridiculous generalizations you have been making in other threads about unions.

Clarence: Congratulations are in order sir! You have made the vaunted list of those that have been “deleted” by Marcus. No better compliment can be paid, well sort of. If you continue in your non rubber stamp ways of expressing yourself (also known as free speech), you’ll also be added to the “deleted” list by any number of non-thinkers in this forum, in which case, you will receive compliments in the multiples. Again, congratulations and keep up the good work.

If you, BAP33 and SHREK are right wing then I am middle ground, slight left....that may not sit well with Marcus on some issues where I go right. He obviously thinks unions are necessary and was put off by my remarks that they are no longer needed. Seeing that only 7% of private companies are unionized compared to 40% of state/federal employees I say that we dont need unions to disrupt the workflow of our government. I worked for both state/federal agencies and I do know that the union employees were paid top dollar and were braggarts about how much they had in their pensions. This is disrespectful seeing that most of their pensions are paid for by my tax dollars.

No one should be able to put in 8.5%, have the state put in another 8.5% and the fed put in another 2% then retire at 55 on my tax dollars....not even baby boomers on social security get that priveledge. Plus, seeing that most union employees at the state are paid 20% over what market rates dictate, they are raping the American tax payer.

Clarence 13X says

No one should be able to put in 8.5%, have the state put in another 8.5% and the fed put in another 2% then retire at 55 on my tax dollars….n

I'm still waiting for Marcus to explain why it's O.K. for CA state/local government employees have a retirement plan that guarantees their contributions, and the contributions of their government employers, will double in 10 years at tax payer guaranteed rate of return of 7-8%, when mere taxpayers don't get to buy into the same plan. Or how how they can even make such a guarantee with a straight face.

He's got a Masters degree in Math, so I'm sure he knows the answer, but he's yet to express his opinion on the matter.

MarkInSF says

I’m still waiting for Marcus to explain why it’s O.K. for CA state/local government employees have a retirement plan that guarantees their contributions, and the contributions of their government employers, will double in 10 years at tax payer guaranteed rate of return of 7-8%, when mere taxpayers don’t get to buy into the same plan.

It's hard to respond to an over simplified and false statement. Nothing is guaranteed. I fully expect my contributions to go up, fairly soon, and the state's too. It's a pension fund calstrs, you can research it if you want to understand better.

But the taxpayers aren't guaranteeing as much as you say.

Here's a guarantee. If the managers of the fund were to perform too poorly, and the fund didn't perform well enough for a long enough period of time, our benefits would be reduced. California's perpetual state of extreme deficit pretty much guarantees that.

The real cost of the pension plan, versus social security, is less than you make it out to be. Our pension is a benefit that costs the district and the state a total of maybe 5% of my salary more than if they were instead using social security.

By the way Calstrs has gotten an average rate of return of 7 or 8 percent for the past couple decades. But as I said, nothing is guaranteed.

marcus says

But the taxpayers aren’t guaranteeing as much as you say.

Yes they are. Define "defined benefit". The pension benefits of those nearing retirement, or already there based on assumptions of high investment returns, are already 100% Gold-Plated tax-payer guaranteed. Any additional contributions to the fund for anybody less than 10 years from retirement are almost irrelevant.

It's the younger staff that will bear the brunt of an increase in contributions. The public workers that already took advantage of boom times, and got politicians to lock in 100% tax payer guaranteed gains for them, will be laughing to the bank for decades.

marcus says

By the way Calstrs has gotten an average rate of return of 7 or 8 percent for the past couple decades. But as I said, nothing is guaranteed.

Yeah, well, if I had invested in a home in the Bay Area for the last few decades I could have pulled that off as well. When you have a multi-decade credit inflation, it's hard to not lose. But, do the math. Home prices can't double every 10 years in real terms unless the the economy does as well. Not unless you believe in magic. All investment returns above the growth in the overall economy are zero-sum, and frankly I don't appreciate a class of people that has legislated themselves to be on the positive side of zero.

MarkInSF says

He’s got a Masters degree in Math, so I’m sure he knows the answer, but he’s yet to express his opinion on the matter.

You have too much bias for me to be of any use to you. And I don't have time to pull exaggerated numbers out of my ass to counter yours.
MarkInSF says

All investment returns above the growth in the overall economy are zero-sum

What does that even mean ? Are you saying that if the economy stopped growing that interest rates have to be zero and corporations would no longer be able to pay dividends ? (or that the stock price would not recover from the dividend ?)

MarkInSF says

The pension benefits of those nearing retirement, or already there based on assumptions of high investment returns, are already 100% Gold-Plated tax-payer guaranteed

I'm not convinced of that.

MarkInSF says

I don’t appreciate a class of people that has legislated themselves to be on the positive side of zero

You're like Clarence. Why do you have to frame it compared to what you get. Why can't you just frame it as compensation. Maybe my salary is low enough to justify having a pension benefit that costs the govt 5% more than if it were giving us SS.

AS for the better return in a managed fund than what we would get in Treasuries ? There is a higher risk, but that risk is shared between members, what they pay in, and their possible benefit reductions and the state. And I guarantee there is a limit on how much the state would increase it's contribution, if the fund did really poorly.

Your view an quite an exaggeration.

Everyone has always known the benefits people get in public service jobs, as well as in other govt jobs. You were free to pursue such a career. Why didn't you ?

The honest answer to that would help you to understand.

marcus says

AS for the better return in a managed fund than what we would get in Treasuries ? There is a higher risk, but that risk is shared between members, what they pay in, and their possible benefit reductions and the state. And I guarantee there is a limit on how much the state would increase it’s contribution, if the fund did really poorly.

Risk to members? The is risk all on the taxpayers shoulders. Defined benefit, remember? You may not be convinced of it, but it's a legal reality. Benefits accrued cannot be revoked.

What would you think if the Federal Government announced it was getting rid of Social Security, and instead was opening up a retirement fund everybody was required to contribute to, but was guaranteed to return 7.5%, and you could start drawing benefits at 55? Do you think that's a workable plan?

marcus says

Everyone has always known the benefits people get in public service jobs

Actually, I had no idea until recently. I vaguly knew that cops and firefighers retired earlier than most, but I had no idea that age had recently been lowered by 5 years to 50, and the benefit had been bumped up to 3% x years served, from 2%. Same with the 55 retirement age for many others. I had always assumed it was more like 65 like SS. For public workers in skilled professions, I have no idea why we want them to leave at 55, when they are at the height of their skills.

marcus says

Maybe my salary is low enough to justify having a pension benefit that costs the govt 5% more than if it were giving us SS.

Magical thinking. Only 5% more, but the retirement age is 10 years lower, meaning 10 less years to contribute, and 10 more years to draw benefits. And higher benefits than SS to boot. All for just another 5%!

MarkInSF says

Magical thinking

Okay, so you don't know what that means. I'll call yours, not thinking, or maybe overly emotional thinking.

I was talking about the cost, the difference in the cost. You want to compare the difference in what I get vs social security. A government program that is way different. How long do you pay in to get full benefits with social security ? How much is it tied to income, or what you paid in. MY pension doesn't include disability, that SS pays. What does social security pay toward your children if you die after paying in just a few years ?

The difference between what the state and the district pays in, and what it would be with social security, WHICH IS THE COST TO THE STATE, was my magical statement.

If you want to say it actually costs more, because of risk, which I say is shared with members and is finite, you say it's all on the state, and is infinite, okay. I can't go on, with this. There is a political movement right now targeting the ignorant and resentful against unions and teachers, and you feel the need to do your part in "educating," these people. Have fun, I'm going to let you do your thing. I can't read this emotional bs anymore.

I'm not sure where this definition is from, but I got it from the link below.

ressentiment (is french but used in psychology):

Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, an assignation of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

http://trueslant.com/juliansanchez/2009/12/16/the-politics-of-ressentiment/?source=patrick.net#socialvotestarget

"the hate filled rant from Troy "

Troy has some biases, and I don't always agree with him, but he backs up what he says nearly always with research, tables, graphs, etc. Much better than some on this site.

I won't even go into Fox "News" and other "reprting"...

MarkInSF says

Clarence 13X says

No one should be able to put in 8.5%, have the state put in another 8.5% and the fed put in another 2% then retire at 55 on my tax dollars….n

I’m still waiting for Marcus to explain why it’s O.K. for CA state/local government employees have a retirement plan that guarantees their contributions, and the contributions of their government employers, will double in 10 years at tax payer guaranteed rate of return of 7-8%, when mere taxpayers don’t get to buy into the same plan. Or how how they can even make such a guarantee with a straight face.
He’s got a Masters degree in Math, so I’m sure he knows the answer, but he’s yet to express his opinion on the matter.

Apparently Marcus has put me on the ignore list according to his post in another thread. But he seems to be against anyone with an opposing view so much so that he only wants to communicate with those of like or similar viewpoints. Althought he had no prior knowledge of my voting record he has proclaimed on several other threads that I am watching Fox News too much to be able to make a educated statement.

I voted for Obama, and Obama is also for the same education reforms that I am supporting on Studentfirst.org.

If the state cannot afford to pay pensions then the plans must be cut to what is affordable. Period.

marcus says

If you want to say it actually costs more, because of risk, which I say is shared with members and is finite, you say it’s all on the state, and is infinite, okay.

To say it actually cost more is a statement of fact. That's why the pension funds are "underfunded" and will be requiring large contributions from the general funds of state and local governments. I have no idea where you are getting this "infinite" quote from me. All I am claiming is that your retirement benefits cannot be paid for with the contributions of you, and your government employer made without the assumption of high investment returns.

The $141-billion California State Teachers' Retirement System on Thursday reduced its long-term assumed annual rate of return on investments from 8% to 7.75%

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/12/calstrs-cuts-estimated-rate-of-return.html

And yes, that IS taxpayer guaranteed. Because your benefits are DEFINED, and do not go down a single penny if the fund does not perform as expected. If those returns don't happen, then who's going to pay? It's certainly not anybody that is has retired, or is soon to retire.

I've posed the question in many forms, but you keep dodging it. Are you for a retirement system that guarantees 7-8% returns for ALL Americans, and not just for employees of state and local governments?

True illustration of a government "worker:"

I happen to know a building inspector for a small suburban city (under 35,000) where for the last 8 years, there has been very little new construction projects (including additions). This inspector also had a side line business performing FHA compliance inspections (on city time) and was himself a sub-contracting home builder (also on city time). While visiting with his neighbors last night, my wife & were told the inspector retired recently and bragged to them that he received a check for over $40,000 for unused sick leave. As a side note, the inspector’s wife was also a lifelong "worker" for the court system. While employed there, she also managed to be a real estate broker and an interior decorator. She is now retired, enjoying the fruits of her no doubt extensive government labor.

I'm posting this as a microcosm illustration as to how government REALLY works. These people typically imagine themselves to be part of an elite that are entitled to get away with just about anything, and in most cases, they do primarily because they are protected by their union.
Getting rid of a bad government worker is about as easy as climbing a mountain with a 100 Lb. weight on your back.

Nomograph says

RayAMerica may be bitter after he lost his government job because, in his own words, he was “extremely lazy and ran a corrupt department.”

I heard said once that when your enemies resort to lies you know you've won. Thanks Nomo! I feel like Charlie Sheen ..... WINNING!!

RayAmerica says

I feel like Charlie Sheen ….. WINNING!!

Most people aim a little higher than Charlie Sheen for role models.

YMMV.