Bringing the election results back to the housing bubble, three post-election quotes today are worth repeating:
Stocks' fall deepens as investors look beyond Obama's historic win to the dismal state of the economy. - MarketWatch.com
Hope for change tempered by the mess before us.
They want to see us raise the white flag and concede that our principles of freedom, responsibility, and limited government no longer speak to the hopes and dreams of American families. - John Boehner, House Republican leader
Uh, it was you guys that conceded "responsibility" and "limited government" in the credit bubble, housing bubble, and massive bailouts.
If President Elect-Obama were the incoming CEO of a corporation, he would now be preparing for the first act of his tenure: A massive write-off of the mountains of rotted junk buried on the company's balance sheet and an announcement that recovery will take a long, long time. ...
In short, Obama needs to acknowledge reality, erring on the side of overstating the problems and challenges, and he needs to prepare the country for several tough years. Because if he doesn't, within six months of his taking office, the country will have forgotten all about the prior administration and will instead be blaming everything on him. - Henry Blodget
Hope he hears that.
42 comments:
Closer to home... the full SMRR ballot won. Even Prop T went down in flames.
Sorry. I'm going to start looking elsewhere. There's no way real estate will ever be cheap enough to put up with the local socialists.
Herb Katz and Bobby Shriver aren't SMRR.
People love to say there is a Westside Bubble. Running a computer repair business on the Westside PC Fixer( www.lapcfixer.com ) I often hear that we are also in a business bubble and that the computer business is a recession proof business. Time will tell. Right now things are a bit slow but my business has always ebbed and flowed.
One more thing...I dont think there is a such a thing as a bubble for real estate or any kind of business.
Obama is going to save the economy from the "bottom up". He's going to give 95% of the people a tax break or if they don't pay income taxes, he's going to give them a check.
He's going to reinvigorate the economy by expanding health coverage to everyone who lacks health insurance.
And then he's going to help homeowners stay in their houses with a subsidy check.
This will bring back confidence in America and the world. Barack in the first President of the World!
As soon as Wall Street figures out that Barack the Magic ***** is our saviour, then the market will start going up again.
This is a great day for all of us "spread the wealth around" capitalists!
And what about Prop 8! Isn't it just great how the people of California decided that marriage really means one man and another man--oh wait, the people said....
Never mind.
I'm with you...10:15
Can't BELIEVE Santa Monica voters voted in all bond measures and the increase in utility tax! Do people want to pay more taxes in SM?
Do they want MORE traffic (took me 25 minutes to go from 14th and OPB to 30th and OPB tonite)
Guess they do....big time socialists!
increase in utility tax
No, Prop. SM just continues the existing utility tax.
Avoid traffic. Move to Mar Vista or Culver City. Culver City gives you better schools. As for prop 8, marriage is between a man an woman. If you can get all the benefits in a same sex union, why the fight to redefine the word marriage? Do you want to teach same sex unions to our children? Do you want to justify in your own minds what you are doing? As for Obama being the savior...I voted for Obama but think home prices vs incomes are not in a substainable ratio...anything anyone tries is USELESS. Home prices will recede.
"As for prop 8, marriage is between a man an woman. If you can get all the benefits in a same sex union, why the fight to redefine the word marriage?"
How is this argument any different from the "separate but equal" arguments that were used to oppose the civil rights movement?
"As for prop 8, marriage is between a man an woman. If you can get all the benefits in a same sex union, why the fight to redefine the word marriage?"
It's not a fight to redefine marriage, it's a fight to have gay marriages recognized by the state. Gay people will still get married, they just won't do it in California (for the time being).
Just because you happen to believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because that's what the state currently decrees, doesn't make it a truth. There's a difference sometimes between the LAW and the TRUTH.
Slaves were once considered 3/5ths of a person. That was what the state recognized as the law, and as some believed, the truth. Now, how many people do you think argued that as a truth (and still do!)
You are not God, even though you play one on the internet.
Why is government even involved in a silly semantical argument over the term marriage? It's so stupid. All the government should see are civil unions between party A and B. If some bigoted church wants to refuse ceremonies because of their beliefs than I don't really care about that. They will feel enough pressure eventually, but for the pro-prop 8 crowd to hang their hats on the term "marriage" is just so lame. Couldn't they find a better rationalization for their disapproval of gays than the definition of marriage.
Why the need to redefine the term marriage? Is it for acceptance? To justify deep down in places you don't like to admit that what you are doing isn't right? Why the need for approval in redefining a word? What words are next to redefine? What is stopping someone from marrying their dog? It is a Union between A and B? Or why not a Union between A, B & C? Where is the end? There will be none. Morals will continue to decay...lines will tried to be blurred...just like what we see on TV today vs 40 years ago...just the clothes people where...study ancient civilizations...and thier falls...MORAL DECAY...a common denominator
"Morals will continue to decay...lines will tried to be blurred...just like what we see on TV today vs 40 years ago...just the clothes people where...study ancient civilizations...and thier falls...MORAL DECAY...a common denominator"
Yes, it all started when they let those black folks and women vote. Is that what you're saying??
Apparently, proper grammar and spelling are also decaying precipitously, as witnessed by this highly civilized post.
So you think redefining marriage is progess? Towards what equality? Do you really think that marriage between a man and woman is the same as marriage between two men or two women? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Proof is anatomical. Ability to reproduce.
If we only had same sex unions we would have no society in no time.
"MORAL DECAY...a common denominator"
If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny: this probably coming from someone who doesn't see it morally wrong to have thousands of people living on the streets of Los Angeles. You Republicans with your morality. Focus on your own family.
Agreed completely -- don't you have bigger things to worry about than what's going on in other people's bedrooms? Let's fix our schools and try to make the world a better place for our kids. I bet whichever deity you believe in cares a lot more about that than whether Joe and John are having sex.
---"I bet whichever deity you believe in cares a lot more about that than whether Joe and John are having sex."---
That's right, WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO! We didn't bash in the door to the State Capitol and DEMAND that the State become involved!
GAY PEOPLE INTRUDED on the rest of us and demanded things from the government!
Gay marriage proponents are the ones that are demanding that government get into THEIR BEDROOMS!
The rest of us were just sitting around minding our own business!!
We slapped down this ridiculous demand and intrusion on OUR privacy and one of the oldest social constructs of society.
So go ahead and do it with ten guys at one time--I could care less. But quit trying to tell the government and the rest of us what marriage is!
Actually I (and my diety) do care about the eternal souls of everyone. Our actions on earth will effect our eternal life. The people have spoken (Yes to Prop 8) why all the protesting? Let democracy work. This isn't a religious issue nor is it a freedom issue. It's classification issue. Great argument to redefine marriage - http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/10/17/the-real-argument-on-prop-8/ and a great arument to keep marriage sacred - http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballot-arguments I think the real anger is beacuse Californians voted to give factory farmed pigs and chickens new rights under Prop 2 but voted to take rights away from its gay citizens with Prop 8. I guess I'd be pissed too.
God was created by uneducated people to comfort themselves about dying and was propogated in this country to help slaves deal with their lot in life. To make legislation based on what God thinks is silly.
"Actually I (and my diety) do care about the eternal souls of everyone."
As do I and mine.
Cthulhu is hungry and one of his sacraments is the love that dare not speak its name.
The beauty of this nation is that my religion and it's beliefs hold precisely the same value in political discourse as yours does. None whatsoever. And, given some of the crazy shit I believe... you probably should be pretty thrilled by that.
I love listening to navel gazing monotheists professing to want to introduce god into the public life of this country. That'd be great. I can't wait for the 2012 debates between the Kali worshipers, the pastafarians, the Christians, and the Jedis.
God is not simply one thing to all people; and pretending that there is one god, and only one, just because that's what your religon tells you is ignorant and dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is trying to impose your gods morality on others while hoping that they don't do the same to you. Whether you're touting Sharia, the 613 Mitzvot, or the Ten Commandments, it has no place in the public discourse in this country.
Just remember: Jesus saves, Allah protects, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
"Actually I (and my diety) do care about the eternal souls of everyone. Our actions on earth will effect our eternal life. The people have spoken (Yes to Prop 8) why all the protesting? Let democracy work. This isn't a religious issue nor is it a freedom issue. It's classification issue."
If it isn't a religious issue, why thump your bible? And, why all of the involvement of the Mormon church in campaigning and fund raising?
I agree with the person who said let the state call it a civil union, period. We can treat people equally regardless of sexual orientation, and get the state out of what is truly a religious debate. If a church won't marry a gay couple, fine. But that should not be a basis of decision for the state.
"God is not simply one thing to all people; and pretending that there is one god, and only one, just because that's what your religon tells you is ignorant and dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is trying to impose your gods morality on others while hoping that they don't do the same to you. Whether you're touting Sharia, the 613 Mitzvot, or the Ten Commandments, it has no place in the public discourse in this country."
Then what is the role of government? Our legislatures? What do you think is the basis for many of our laws (thou shall not kill, steal). Who determines what is a freedom (freedome to kill, expose ourselves in public, marry animals) and what should be legislated as illegal/improper. Whether you believe in one God or not, that is the values that this country was founded upon. If you want to get away from our forefathers vision of this country...then let the people decide by voting. The people have spoken.
"Whether you believe in one God or not, that is the values that this country was founded upon."
Nonsense.
The Founding Fathers were principally Deists and Unitarians who rejected the Incarnation. Though the topic of a religous basis for our freedoms and rights was widely debated at the Constitutional Convention it was eventually dismissed and there was intentionally no mention of God included in the Constitution. It was the first establishing document of its kind without reference to any religon whatsoever.
Not only were pains taken to avoid the establishment of an official religon US soil. Disestalishment itself was a central precept of the Founding Fathers who believed that our rights and organizing pricipals were inate rather than theistic. Jefferson dismissed popular religon as "incomprehensible jargon."
Incidentally, other nations saw the drafting of our founding documents as a formalization of the "death of God," in public life.
Of course, none of this matters today. Today religous consevatives use terms like "strict constitutionalist" as though they believe it means something utterly different than it actually does.
Oh, and, all hail Cthulhu devourer of souls.
Thomas Jefferson "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ" - from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
or "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man" same source page 383
Ah, a fellow Jeffersonian.
Obviously you are well aware that, in his letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson further specified that:
"...the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible."
further:
"They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust..."
and finally:
"The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to my present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines."
Jefferson was excusively interested in Jesus the philosopher, he was sypathetic to the Unitarian perspective on Christian logia, and had little interest in him as a figure of religious worship.
And, it should be pointed out, he was a relative moderate in the debate over the wall of separation. Madison, Franklin, and even Paine were, if anything, more stringent on the topic.
"Then what is the role of government? Our legislatures? What do you think is the basis for many of our laws (thou shall not kill, steal). Who determines what is a freedom (freedome to kill, expose ourselves in public, marry animals) and what should be legislated as illegal/improper. Whether you believe in one God or not, that is the values that this country was founded upon. If you want to get away from our forefathers vision of this country...then let the people decide by voting. The people have spoken"
So what were the ideals/moral principles the nation was founded upon. The ideas of "Jesus as a philosopher" or the Golden Rule? AGAIN WHAT IS THE BASIS OUR LEGISLATION...IS THE A MORAL COMPASS OR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (VOTE) OR WHAT????? Whether
Monotheists like to pretend that morality derives from religion, when it is obvious that the opposite is true:
Religon derives from morality.
Religion is nothing more than an effort to dogmatize and schematize ethical decision making in a manner ensured to promote maximum compliance (ie. You'd better be good or my big invisable friend... who, incidentally, watches everything you do... won't be nice to you... and you certainly wouldn't like that... would you?).
"What do you think is the basis for many of our laws (thou shall not kill, steal). Who determines what is a freedom (freedome to kill, expose ourselves in public, marry animals) and what should be legislated as illegal/improper."
Are you so morlly corrupt that you need a god or a law to not kill or have sex with animals? Do you think the bible is the only thing that stands between your neighbor and your stuff? Do you really think that the christian bible is the only place where morality is derived?
Listen. There is no god. We do not go to heaven when we die. And you know what I still don't want to kill you.
so where does morality come from? where should the basis for our laws come from? lot's of people attacking God...still no answers
>>>"Listen. There is no god. We do not go to heaven when we die. And you know what I still don't want to kill you."<<<<
Ah, the naive and the young. When you are young, have your health and all of your needs taken care of, it is easy to be an atheist.
Funny though, have you noticed aging baby boomers turning to God like Jane Fonda?
The other phenomena that is sweeping white formerly Judeo/Christian America is that many of these people are tuning to Eastern religions. There's been an explosion of converts to Buddism, etc. I've seen several friends and acquaintances "convert" in the last decade.
What is happening? It seems that people have begun to find an EMPTY HOLE in their souls--wait a second, these folks didn't used to believe in the human "soul".
With all of the unprecedented wealth and prosperity of these well heeled yuppies and gen-Xers, something is still missing.
Just wait until your 5 year old kid gets cancer. Or your wife finds a lump on her breast.
And the doctor says that neither has 5 years to live.
I'm sure you'll say, "Hey, that's the breaks and bye-bye!"
It's easy to be without God in the good times.
This string of comments shows that the whole debate over prop 8 stems from religion. And religion doesn't belong in politics, either according to our strict constructionist friends quoting Jefferson, or those who think that the constitution and our government should adopt to modernity.
If you want to believe in g-d, that's your (and my prerogative), but why impose your religious will on others? I fundamentally do not understand how the state's recognizing one person's right to marry harms the rights of another (who, incidentally, already has the right to marry).
This is not a zero sum game, in which we recognize gay marriage and all of a sudden traditional marriage disappears. To the contrary, we recognize gay marriage, we continue to recognize straight marriage, and we've simply given MORE people MORE rights. What's so wrong with that?
Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion or God. Gays don't have a constitutional right to have a California State recognized marriage. Nowhere in the State or Federal Constitution does it say that gays have a "right" to marry.
Four judges created the gay "marriage" right.
The people of California were outraged by this act of legislating from the bench and now the constitution has been amended to define marriage in the way it has always been defined.
The issue is closed since traditional marriage is now concretely defined in the constitution.
"Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion or God. Gays don't have a constitutional right to have a California State recognized marriage. Nowhere in the State or Federal Constitution does it say that gays have a "right" to marry.
Four judges created the gay "marriage" right."
No, four judges interpreted the constitutional concept of equal protection to mean... literally... that all citizens deserve... well... EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.
No new rights needed.
"so where does morality come from? where should the basis for our laws come from? lot's of people attacking God...still no answers"
Morality is applied and codified ethical behavior. Ethics themselves are nothing more than shared interpersonal mores.
To behave in a moral fashion is to subscribe to the dominant ethical mores in a given societal group. Period.
Arguing that morality was created by some all-powerful diety is as stupid as saying that life itself, or the universe was created in its current form by some all-powerful diety. Both arguments deny the essential evidence of our senses.
Now, you can chose to substitute faith for the empirical evidence of your senses, and it might make things easier for you to understand, but it makes you sound both ignorant and intollerant.
"Just wait until your 5 year old kid gets cancer. Or your wife finds a lump on her breast.
And the doctor says that neither has 5 years to live.
I'm sure you'll say, "Hey, that's the breaks and bye-bye!""
Flip your perspective for a moment and THINK about how you sound. You're arguing that you'll find comfort in religion when you discover that your wife and child have a limited time to live....
What a profoundly inhumane and borderline sociopathic position to hold.
If my father or spouse smiled beatifically at me upon hearing of my imminent demise and thanked the lord for the solace that he found in the knowledge that I was soon to be with god... I'd kick him in the nuts.
I would want someone who will rail at the injustice of my fate along with me. Someone who will never fully be consoled of my loss. Someone who understands that my death is final, irrevocable, and tragic.
Your religion may make you feel better, but it doesn't make you a better person. On the contrary, the very example you've chosen is an apalling illustration of the coarsening effects of religious belief.
wow...intolerant...that is quite a leap...and very aggressive. I am merely asking questions. So do judges decide "ethical mores in a given societal group" or do the people?
At some point is it government’s job to protect people from themselves or just to protect freedoms? What is argument against polygamy? Is anyone getting hurt? Who cares if the union is between 2 or 3?
This is what makes our country great. The freedom to intelligent debate. As far as what the afterlife is like...only time will tell. Probably none of us will be right, but some will be more wrong than others. Only time will tell...hopfefully it will be a long time so we can keep this debate going. Does anyone think that the loss of 'conforming' $729,500 loans 12/31 will have a great impact on home prices? It is my understanding that most escrows should close by 12/15 if the mortgage company has any hope of selling by 12/31. I was quoted 6.0% vs 7.5% if I didn't close by 12/15. Quite a difference in price.
--"No, four judges interpreted the constitutional concept of equal protection to mean... literally... that all citizens deserve... well... EQUAL PROTECTION under the law."--
The judges were wrong and the people have corrected their mistake.
The Constitution is now clear on the issue.
My suggestion is that gay marriage proponents should try to put up their own amendment making gay marriage legal. However, given the deplorable behavior and anti-religious rallies of the past few days, any attempt to resurrect the issue will only fail.
America is basically a Christian nation and most people believe in traditional values. The Founding Fathers put the power in the people and gay marriage is an issue that really isn't very important to the vast majority of Americans.
Besides, gay couple have all of the legal rights as married people right now in Cailfornia. There is no need for gay marriage.
>>>I would want someone who will rail at the injustice of my fate along with me. Someone who will never fully be consoled of my loss. Someone who understands that my death is final, irrevocable, and tragic.<<<
What? Who do you think you are? Why would your death be so tragic and important since ALL of us are going to die?
You are one conceited, self-centered and immature person. Death is part of life and your reaction speaks volumes of a person who believes the world revolves around you. You must be a spoiled 20 or 30-something.
If you got an incurable disease right now your impending demise would hardly be tragic. It happens everyday to people.
You obviously don't understand anything about tragedy or suffering or injustice. You also don't understand anything about religion.
"God is Dead" has been yelled a trillion times throughout time--people today are so stupid that they actually believe that they are the first ones to utter this phrase.
"If you got an incurable disease right now your impending demise would hardly be tragic. It happens everyday to people.
You obviously don't understand anything about tragedy or suffering or injustice. You also don't understand anything about religion."
actually, you seem to be the one who doesn't understand religion or tragedy in this discussion.
there is nothing more precious and irreplaceable than life in the eyes of god. therefore, one who saves a single life is counted as if he had saved the entire world.
you treat it as if religion teaches the opposite. my religion certainly doesn't.
"Ah, the naive and the young. When you are young, have your health and all of your needs taken care of, it is easy to be an atheist."
I am no stranger to pain and suffering. I am not old. I am an athiest, and I don't need a bible to live happily or give my life meaning. I also don't need it for morality. And I definitely don't need your interpretation of it to define morality.
How many countries have been destroyed in the name of the bible? How many wars fought? How many people killed? How many people enslaved? How many rights subjugated? How many times are the baptists and the pope going to apologize? You know what, save yourself the next apology and stop legislating from a piece of fiction.
Post a Comment