Careful! They are coming for your freedom and next your life!

Best Post!

 

Now you have had 20 minutes to read the article, perhaps you could tell me how these half a dozen or so people were NOT killed by the riot?

My bet is that they were already weak and the riot put too much stress on them...if there had not been that stress they would possibly still be alive. The riot killed them. The idea of a huge mass of rioters attacking the capitol building, forcing entry, invading private offices and generally running around with weapons would cause tress in anyone human. One guard was trapped behind a door being crushed when seemingly hundreds of out of control, possibly drugged up people (admitted at further court trials) were brandishing spears, flagpoles and god knows what. WEAPONS.
Guarding the Capitol doesn't take super fit people...likely nearly retired older personnel. They may have had imperfect health and why not?
They may also still be here if they didn't have to face that irrational and out of control mob.
Now you prove the opposite. You prove the riot didn't kill them.

 

So you're just parroting and regurgitating the same claim that the propaganda outlets do.

Just like them you have no evidence linking their deaths directly to the event all you can say is the stress likely caused it.

So you've proved nothing except that you have a biased opinion and that you consume propaganda and now you want us to prove you wrong....lol

First you must be proven right.

I bet you even believe that fire extinguisher lie too, if I remember correctly it seems you liked that post.

The only death we know for certain was caused that day at the riot was caused by a police officer shooting a rioter under questionable circumstances.

That's cute though so now you're trying to paint most of the security personnel present at
the capital that day as elderly people... Picture show otherwise.


People goe through stressful events every single day in their life and it doesn't kill them

 

Just like them you have no evidence linking their deaths directly to the event all you can say is the stress likely caused it.

and you have no evidence it didn't.
I asked you to prove the riot did not kill the dead.
I suggested it did.
You have nothing with which to disprove my suggestion.
My post said "some people were killed by the intruders".
Now disprove it.
Some died of heart attacks.
Some committed suicide.
MAYBE coincidence?
Whatever. Je m'en fou.

Either play the game and stop slithering around or just let this obsessive, irrelevant pursuit of something paltry, drop. It is getting seriously tedious.

 

Look dear, if it's getting so tedious feel free to respond to someone else instead.

Here come your insults and aspersions you normally cast at this point.

The fact of the matter is no one can prove that the events caused the stress that caused their death.

You have no evidence of that yet you're asking me to prove it wrong.

First you need to prove it right and I don't just mean saying well it likely was the cause.


You really don't like it when people point out that you're promoting a falsehood

 

I think it's pretty neat that here at PF we have an expert no matter what the topic is.

We even have armchair medical examiners that know more than actual medical examiners.

 

Yeah, that's exactly the modern dissolution of community I've been talking about. There's no such thing as a mutually interdependent collective when its members don't cohabit. Just as there's no such thing as community just because people live in the same area. Community strong enough to provide strength and independence, requires both proximity AND stable relationships of mutual trust and familiarity.

I don't think I've mentioned American politics, have I?

 

1) I never said they weren't capitalists. Of COURSE they are.

2) Capitalism is a financial model, not politics.

3) Only in so far as the elite who want us all to be life-renters, don't give a **** which political side they have to play to achieve their ends. And at the moment, in the early 21stC, they're playing the Left hard.

4) No, the confusion is a result of your ideological blindness to the arch capitalism of the Progressive Left. You're paying attention to the dangling carrot of carefully couched 'kindness', and ignoring the actual effects of it. IOW, the increasing disempowerment of the working and middle classes.

 

Then your idea of the definition of the terms left and right are not mine.
Maybe that is why you are conflating and fuzzing the edges.
True the left can and do become "elite property owners (whatever that means) but those of the left ideology do it more often for social conscious reasons...to provide shelter for those who cannot afford high cost housing.
The right do it for hard cold profit.
I cannot reconcile you assessment that only one side divides families. The decision to "leave the bosom of the family" is the renter's, not the property owner's.
And whether the property is owned by a "lefty" or a "righty" the result is the same.

Therefore I still don't support your proposal that the left divides families and communities.

 

I appreciate your willingness to engage on this, but with the greatest respect ... it's like discussing quantum physics with a hairstylist. In regard for your input, I'll try once more to explain in alternative terms:

1) I'm aware of that. I'm a Lefty who's chosen to remove the blinders and earplugs, and really examine the politic ... AS IT ACTUALLY IS (as in, the actual outcome of policies and ideologies), not on philosophies and selling points. When that basic examination is done, it's no longer possible to hold the belief that they're motivated strictly by 'good'.

2) Corporate property investors are those who buy up large numbers of residential properties, with the end goal of removing private property from the hands of individuals, so that those individuals can be 'forced' into rent slavery for life. The corporations and mega rich individuals who are doing this are not doing it 'because they care' - that should be obvious. Though of course they'll happily play that role if it helps people like yourself agree to this hand over of power. Remember that dismantling the power structures of the common man - one of the key structures being property - is ALWAYS an act of either malice or avarice. You cannot justifiably claim to want to empower the people, while destroying their access to power. They're mutually exclusive propositions.

3) All corporate property investors do it for profit. See above, point 2).

4) You missed the crucial information on how family/community is dismantled, and it appears you can't figure it out by simply considering the mechanics. When a Welfare State fosters the idea that family and community are not needed for survival, people take risks they would never take otherwise. We become hubristic risk takers, averse to the obligations of mutual interdependence. We become truly, 'every man for himself', and for most of us that means highly vulnerable, and horribly dependent upon our overlords (those who sell us our survival). That's EXACTLY what they want. They know that without community we are theirs - for life.

5) You missed the point. Individual private property is the common man's bullwark against poverty and dependence.

6) You don't have to take my word for it - the reality is all around you. Increasing dependence - driven by falling levels of home ownership and the loss of stable families/communities - all fostered by the Welfare State's very clear message that those things are not needed for survival. The end result is a people seduced into accepting lifetime enslavement to consumerism - on their overlords' terms, aka the market - and the loss of the independence and power their common man forebears enjoyed. The power to choose.

 

2) First property owners do NOT have some malevolent purpose in buying up property. They do it to make money, not create some enormous social change. I doubt very much if they say "I want to erase private property owners so I'll buy it all up and keep it for myself. For one thing, THEY become private property owners! No one is forced to become rent slaves for heaven's sake. They choose to rent. They could part share, live at home or ask family for support to buy a home. Let's not get too dramatic here.

The rest is a discussion of many elements of economic decisions based not on malevolent evil people but on national and international price determination.,

and please do not assume I do not know what I am talking about. I have lived at over 50 addresses in my life, both renting and buying. Your Grand Theory is a cobbling together of certain (absolutely not all) facets of the economy in order to criticise property owners. I sense this is personal issue, not a competent socio-economic theory.
The right to own property is a fundamental human right, yes sometimes used by capitalists to make profit, (not destroy a social system) but it is NOT some socialist plot. SOCIALISM does not destroy communities...capitalist corporates and investors may do. You have attached the word "socialism" to the wrong people.
Now since you are repeating yourself again, I shall leave this , and you will have to agree to disagree.

 

1) Corporate or megarich buyers of large numbers of residential properties do it to secure long term income. They more renters there are, the more money they make. They would much rather see you become a life renter (paying them a wage for the rest of your life), than property owner they have no control over. They don't need to 'erase' anyone. They want to see a change from ownership to life-renting.

2) I never said people were forced to become renters .. I very clearly used the word in quotes to indicate that it wasn't actual force. It's a slow seduction into diminished responsibility and obligation, which leads to inadvertent life-renting. As discussed.

3) I own several properties. I am an absolute champion of private property, and despise the culture of life-renting (because it plays directly into the hands of those who profit most from it - ie, not the people).

 

I don't hold such strict views as some either or proposition.
People rent for many reasons, chief among them is flexibility. Another is waiting to be able to afford a private home in expensive areas. Another in the UK is the very old but still extant system of leaseholding particularly in London when you pay to live in property but can never own it. My parents moved a lot and rented in a new location until they could find a house they wanted.
Simply put, I don't see any nefarious, planned deprivation built into property owning or into renting. No one is trapped in some spider's web when they rent. What they may be trapped in is an economic system that plays against them, not the system of rentals, but given the right circumstances, they can get out of.

 

As much as I appreciate you, Pixie-Person .. talking to you remains frustratingly difficult. You don't seem to grasp what's being said at all. Either that, or your ideological blinders are so teflon coated that it all just bounces off ... to form into some simplistic but digestible trope.

1) Short term and 'purposeful' renting is always a choice, obviously.

2) Life-renting is also a choice, but it's a choice predicated upon an unwillingness to 'endure' the hard yards of acquiring property when you are not born rich. Because it IS very ****ing hard. Many instead choose the precariousness of life-renting. For those people, precariousness is more comfortable than security (at least in the moment of choosing). It has nothing to do with 'spider webs' or 'economic systems' .. it's purely and entirely a personal and freely made choice.

The caveat to this second point being that prior to the advent of the Welfare State, far fewer of us believed we could opt out of private property. There was no alternative source of security, and so we retained our self-reliance. This plague of life-renting is a direct result of the WS, in other words. The 'social programs' you no doubt champion, are the very reason people first make the terrible decision to avoid the work of property, and then subsequently complain when they find their insecurity unpleasant. It creates an infantalism .. a state in which the concept of 'be careful what you wish for' is as yet unknown.

 

So you are not now talking generally, as you have been.
I don't see a plague of life renting. In fact it has been the norm in Germany for years and it is a very wealthy capitalist country.
Let me tell you what makes buying hard where I am familiar.
Wealthy Arabs and Russians who buy up property in large cities and between themselves, push up property prices.
and in the UK, Thatcher sold off its social housing to buyers and didn't replace them, so the prices escalated, because renters had then to buy.

What you may find difficult with me is that your grand theories which you use to define socialism don't work.
The housing market is not a direct supply and demand issue when owning second homes is so popular and pushes up house prices even further. I am aware of half dozen people who live in France and own another home in the UK. Even moreso now they are only allowed to stay in one country for maximum 90 days. No wonder those at the foot of the property ladder are struggling. It isn't because they don't make an effort, it is because there aren't enough homes for sale ...and it isn't because of socialism...it is far more to do with capitalism, investment and profiteering.
Finally I find your equating renting with destroying community values odd. People rent for all sorts of reasons, not because they don't make an effort. The ideas are not cause and effect...they are in fact disconnected.

 

1) Life-renters are increasing faster in the Western World than at any time in history. It's at crisis point now, and getting worse. Significantly, when we were actually poorer - last century - more of us owned our own homes. What does that tell you? And no, it's not just about value/wage ratios, because there are still huge swathes of our nations in which working class people can afford to own property. Germany's situation is already hopeless, so not relevant to this particular discussion.

2) Yes, CORPORTATE investors are buying up thousands of residential properties .. in readiness for the permanent underclass (created by the Welfare State doing their bidding) of life-renters. Mom & Dad investors are to be championed. For many, that second investment property is the only means they have of avoiding becoming a burden on the State. They are showing integrity and decency in spending their lives working towards that end. More importantly, anyone can become a small time property investor. It just takes commitment and determination, and in some cases pooled resources.

3) There are thousands upon thousands of cheap houses on the market, all over the Western World. The people you're saying 'can't' buy them, are the people not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to buy this cheap housing. Almost always, they'll say it's because the house is in the wrong location - though some also try the 'it's too old' kind of BS.