HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Zalatix » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Zalatix

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:30 PM
Number of posts: 8,994

About Me

I'm a liberal looking to make a difference in politics.

Journal Archives

The next time the youth of America say they have it harder... they're right.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/2012-vs-1984-young-adults-really-do-have-it-harder-today/article2425558/

PERSONAL FINANCE
2012 vs. 1984: Young adults really do have it harder today

All young adults who think they’re getting a raw deal in today’s economy, let me tell you about how it was back in my day.

In 1984, my final undergraduate year of university, tuition cost more or less $1,000. I earned that much in a summer without breaking a sweat.

When I went looking for a new car in 1986, the average cost was roughly half of what it is now. It was totally affordable.

The average price of a house in Toronto back in 1984 was just over $96,000. I wasn’t buying just then, but it’s worth noting that the average family after-tax income back then was close to $50,000. Buy a first home? Easy to imagine for new graduates of the day.

Home Depot won't let woman pay for appliances.

If I were her, since Home Depot did give a discount for her honesty, I'd donate the remaining money to charity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/trish-jarvis-home-depot_n_1477896.html?ref=canada-business&ir=Canada%20Business

rish Jarvis Begs Home Depot To Let Her Pay For $2,500 Worth Of Appliances (VIDEO)
Posted: 05/04/2012 1:38 pm Updated: 05/05/2012 4:05 am

We've all experienced the moral dilemma that accompanies a finished Coke not making its way onto your bill. Do you consider it a drink on the house? Or say something to the waiter?

Well one California woman would likely do the latter, and then some.

Trish Jarvis received more than $2,500-worth of appliances she ordered from Home Depot, without ever paying the bill, CBS Sacramento reports (h/t Consumerist). Jarvis called the home improvement giant repeatedly asking to pay, but the company wouldn't let her because, thanks to a computer glitch, officials thought she already paid.

Not that Home Depot exactly needed the extra cash. The home-goods seller saw profits jump last quarter, thanks in part to warmer winter weather. Overall, the company earned $774 million over that most recently reported three month period.

Jarvis ultimately did get a bill, but only after CBS Sacramento contacted the company while reporting their story on the mixup. Home Depot gave Jarvis a discount for her honesty.

A hypothetical question for anyone who supports the use of drones/summary executions

Let's say you have long supported the concept of summary executions without a trial, and one day the Government decides that you're a terrorist. Let's say it happened because you opposed a future Republican administration and are at least at the level of a community activist. Or hell, let's just assume that you were mistakenly identified. Some other idiot with your name has a stockpile of bombs ready to assassinate a Republican president and the wrong address (as in, YOURS) got put into the targeting database.

The drone strike is coming in 5 seconds and your family is with you. Then a miracle happens: you suddenly have a go-back-in-time button at your disposal. If you hit the button then some timefuckery happens and the drone goes away, and you and yours are saved, but in exchange a Constitutional amendment occurs to forbid summary executions.

Which choice do you make?

By the way, while time travel is hypothetical, but drones killing an innocent person by accident, along with their whole family, is NOT hypothetical. It is real. Irrefutable FACT: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=662605

Edit: This isn't a slam on President Obama. This is a slam against summary executions in general and drones in particular.

Now I understand what Occupy Wall Street's problem is. It isn't their message.

In Europe, laid-off Sony workers in France held the French branch's CEO hostage in response to the layoffs. France had some large scale protests over Sarkozy's austerity program. The cops tried to smack down the protests and they exploded into riots and then strikes. As of now, Sarkozy has been voted out of office, and the very survival of France's austerity programs is at grave risk.

In Greece, anti-austerity protests broke out. The riot cops came out and tried to handle the protesters and things just got worse. Buildings were set on fire and even the police were caught on camera, on fire because of molotov cocktails. Strikes then followed. What has happened to Greece? The pro-austerity parties have lost power. The future of austerity in Greece is dim, to say the least.

In Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, freedom was gained only by a whole lot of fighting back. The integrity of Egypt's rebellion is at risk primarily because the Egyptian military is kicking ass without repercussions.

In America, nobody fights back beyond standing outside of the halls of the Plutocrats and protesting. Protesters get their asses kicked by the police and things stay the same. A notable exception is Wisconsin, where two major conditions occurred: the protesters numbered over a hundred thousand, and even the police were on the protesters' side. Things would be far worse in Wisconsin now if the public had not seen all those people, in force, with even the police acting like they were itching to join in.

The problem is that people do not respect an organization that never fights back, even in the face of outright brutality and violence. But America stands alone in the world in that when protests are suppressed and they escalate into riots, the public now favors the police. As of late, they favor the police as if they were gods. When the police turn on you, in America, that's a very big nail in the coffin. This is a fairly recent turn of events; police brutality used to earn them a bad reputation; now it's called "getting tough on crime".

So the problem with Occupy is not their message or their behavior. It's that they can't go out and kick ass. Sure, molotov cocktails would not be the way to go in America, but Occupy has other ways to kick ass: such as a concerted effort to deprive the police gangs of funding, which would be about just as devastating. Or bills that would outlaw their brutal actions during protests; or laws that strengthened free speech. Also, time will have to tell if the strikes on May 1 had any noticeable impact. Occupy has to find a way to handcuff the police thugs, ESPECIALLY the 7th largest army in the world, aka Bloomberg's NYPD.

President Obama accused the Republicans of being social Darwinists. What does that mean to you?

First I will establish where President Obama did this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/obama-accuses-republicans-social-darwinism-budget

The president painted the Republicans as serving the rich over the middle class by proposing "more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year".

"That's an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country," he said. "It is a Trojan horse disguised as deficit reduction plans. It is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity."

I believe I have fully communicated my interpretation of social Darwinism and its implications for society.

Logically and emotionally speaking, how does it come across to you?

Do you think President Obama was exaggerating, or was he being careful and precise?

If he was exaggerating, what differentiates the GOP policy from true social Darwinism?

If he was being careful and precise, would you not take this as a major threat to the survival of a civilized society?

For everyone who opposes bringing a weapon to school for self-defense

what solution do you have?

Ignoring a bully never works. Edited to add: ESPECIALLY when you are confronted with a GROUP of them.

Letting them just keep beating on you usually ends in suicides or a lifetime of trauma.

Whatcha got for a solution, if self-defense is not acceptable?

Really... whatcha got?

Education, access to birth control, and prosperity are the keys to population control, not coercion.

Say it loud, say it proud.

To hell with pro-force, anti-choice people who want to control people's bodies.

Let them move to China and enjoy their utopian dreams of forced population control.

Ladies and Gentlemen, America's unemployment levels are due to a giant skills mismatch problem.

Americans lack the skills to survive while working at lower than subsistence level wages, or for free.

It's not the economy's fault that you want to be able to eat after you leave work!

(WARNING: SATIRE!) Anyone who believes China's 1-child policy is the smart way to go

ought to also embrace Capitalism.

If you embrace Free Trade, austerity and the shock doctrine, combat drones and Homeland Security, you have in your hands the ultimate tool for population control.

Such a system starts the ball rolling by sending jobs out of the country, then accelerates the ball by cutting all support for those who lose their jobs, forcing them to starve. Without access to affordable health care, many will die before they get old enough to reproduce. A rising infant mortality and maternal mortality rate actually works for you in that regard.

To deal with those who conspire to fight back, or even gather to protest, you just take them out with drones. Be sure, of course, to accuse them of terrorism and get supporting statements from two Generals and the State Department, etc., so that the patriotic people will justify it by saying "hey, this is war, what do you want, to send troops in to die fighting these guys???" Drones, of course, can kill innocent bystanders, too. More population control!

And remember, the police have no Constitutional duty to protect anyone. Pull them back to protect your rich enclaves, or better yet, fuck it, get rid of the facade, lay off the police, and hire private contractors to protect you, wherever you can't simply send in a drone.

Remember to keep the poor population divided with your trusty Swiss Army Knife collection of dog whistles - black against white, Christians against atheists, gays against straights, and so on. If they start reconciling their differences, send in a few private contractor troops under disguise to kill a few people and get them back at each other's throats. I suggest you read up on colonialism in Rwanda and other nations for more in-depth strategies for keeping populations at war with each other. A little false flag never hurt anyone. Anyone important, that is.

Meanwhile, make sure to buy up clean water access rights, and confiscate those effing food forests that the poor might start growing. Remember, these food forests are unregulated, poorly handled, and are loaded with dangerous pests that might endanger the world's food supply. Plus they're unlicensed. And you have a vested interest in purchasing and owning the land under those food forests. Find whoever owns it and saddle them with liabilities until they're forced to give it up through liens.

Food supplies, including all the prime good stuff, come to YOU and your enclaves first, and what's left gets sold to the 99% at food shortage prices. (Read: horribly inflated.)

Dump your toxic waste in their drinking water or near their neighborhoods, not yours. If they protest, remember to follow the above-mentioned protocol for declaring them to be terrorists, then send in the drones. Be sure to tell the media to explain that said terrorists are plotting to cause a huge toxic spill, and if the toxic waste slowly leeches into the soil or water supply, find a lowly waste disposal worker, or maybe his manager, and throw him under the bus for incompetence. Sure, this will lead to a few environmental disasters - but it'll be disasters for them, not you and your enclave, where your water is protected and your soil is carefully managed! And in due time, they'll get sick and die of various cancers and you can simply clean up the mess and move in.

In due time, if you follow these guidelines, you will achieve the Georgia Guidestones' great goal of reducing the population to 500 million in a few generations. Then you can fulfill the Great Rmoney American Dream: Mansions for everyone!

Now it's okay to advocate outright discrimination against men on the DU?

No, I won't waste my time reporting it, because it'll certainly go 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Why? Because calling for the mass sterilization of a percentage of men (and men only), "as administered by any government" (read: coerced), is not discrimination. If you replace "men" with "Jews", however, it is discrimination because magically "it's not the same thing". So basically Hitler got that one wrong: he should have sterilized only the males.

Fuck it. What's the point? It's "not the same thing" no matter how I cut it. Men bad. Snip a third of them.

Here's the post I'm referring to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=648172


And on a side note it's also apparent from that thread's OP that reproductive rights doesn't mean shit anymore, either. Pity, that nadinbrzezinski's perfect and tried and true solution got no response on there.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »