The Goat Pen

aTm wrote:It is worthless to discuss how good of an investment a home is without much more analysis than simply price when you bought it and price when you sold it.

The rental market alone is a huge factor. I could lose money on my condo when I sell it, but based on the current rental market in my area I am coming out way ahead. The rent on a comparable apartment (or to be even more exact the rent that I could charge by renting out my unit based on what others go for) is roughly $500/month higher than what I'm paying in Mortgage/HOA/Taxes. Every month I live there is an invisible $500 gain that is simply what it would have cost me to rent my place if I didn't own it. And that value may or may not show up in the value when I sell, depending on economics when that occurs.

More obvious things are how much does it cost you to borrow the money, how much did you lose in the transaction costs, etc which many ignore.

It's the opposite here in Charlotte. Even though rent is high, it is still about $700 less than mortgage/HOA/taxes. I was thinking about buying a condo uptown and rent it out until my kids get out, but when I did the analysis I decided it is better to wait before I decide.

Either way, there is an intangible about home ownership that nobody can make you move before you want. So, I will probably buy anyway.

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/chris ... 23445.html

Christians no better than Islamists.

The first four on the left are from your secular liberal hagiography. The first guy on the might as well be. They were all pretty much the same.

You cannot seriously be calling Stalin, Lenin, and Adolf Hitler...liberal.

Stalin and Lenin, yes. They are liberal in that they believe in the almighty power of the State over individual liberty, they have a utopian vision of the future that justifies any means to achieve it, and they tend to suppress dissent. Stalin and Lenin are just liberals on steroids.

You're certifiable.

So I guess you're saying that Stalin and Lenin WEREN'T all about the power of the State over the individual, DIDN'T use harsh means to achieve their egalitarian utopian dreams, and DIDN'T crush dissent? And that liberals don't have the same tendencies, just without the concentration camps, for now?

if liberals in the U.S. are attempting to "crush dissent," they are failing miserably.

And, as a follow up, are you not scared to speak your mind? Will the liberal mobs be knocking at your door tonight to whisk you to the gulag? Why, I'm sure you've had to hide your bibles and flags and keep all of your opinions to yourself, haven't you....wait, no, unfortunately, you have not.


The belief of some Stalin-esque attempt to stifle your speech is astounding. Especially considering this administration has been fairly moderate.

hedge wrote:

Your Grandpa was Hitler?

I slept like a dead man last night. Didn't have a single egalitarian utopian dream.

Ah yes, the liberal belief in school lunch programs over individual liberty pretty much makes them just like Stalin. Prof nails it

In other news, Sepp Blatter promises to "forgive but not forget" his enemies. John Kerry breaks a leg in a "cycling accident" the very next day. Coincidence?

Unions that supported the rise in minimum wage in Los Angeles now want an exemption for union workers. Why? so that businesses will use Union members. Yeah, we are really looking out for the employees...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/lo ... .html?_r=0

Union workers suck. I'd never hire one.

AlabamAlum wrote:if liberals in the U.S. are attempting to "crush dissent," they are failing miserably.

And, as a follow up, are you not scared to speak your mind? Will the liberal mobs be knocking at your door tonight to whisk you to the gulag? Why, I'm sure you've had to hide your bibles and flags and keep all of your opinions to yourself, haven't you....wait, no, unfortunately, you have not.


The belief of some Stalin-esque attempt to stifle your speech is astounding. Especially considering this administration has been fairly moderate.

So there is no Stalin-esque attempt to stifle free speech? The IRS - newly weaponized political arm of the moderate Obama administration - blatantly harrassed applicants for non-profit status whose names included "Tea Party" or "Patriot" but never names like "Union" or "Green." Nobody was ever punished for it either. That was some straight up Nixon stuff, Stalinesque minus the gulags.

Then there's Brendan Eich, who was fired from Mozilla because he once supported Prop 8 in CA.

Then there's Dan Cathy, Christian owner of Chick-Fil-A, and the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby. They failed to subscribe to government-approved theology on abortion and/or gay marriage. The liberals tried to shut them down.

Then there's the government's attempt to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control and abortifacients in their insurance policies - which is like demanding that a Hindu restaurant sell beef or a Jewish deli sell pork or a Muslim grocer sell beer.

Then there are the religiously conservative Army and Navy chaplains who are being reprimanded for daring to use the Bible in their counseling.

Then there are all the speech codes on college campuses which get religious groups kicked off campus for having the same position on gay marriage that president Obama had 3 years ago. They also get conservative commencement speakers disinvited because they are offensively conservative according to liberal students.

Then there's the jeweler who provided excellent service to a lesbian couple. But they found out he disapproves of gay marriage. So they sued to get their money back because he had conservative thoughts while making their custom wedding ring.

So yeah, there are widespread liberal attempts to silence and/or shut down conservative free speech.

You're really making the move toward IB territory.

Which of the above are untrue?

Which of these is not a liberal attempt to stifle conservative speech?

If a Republican administration had used the IRS to harass political opposition, he/she would have been impeached. That was one of Nixon's articles. Even he didn't have the audacity to destroy the tapes like Lerner and Hillary did with official emails.

Without really trying....

1. Eich resigned. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/ ... osition-8/ but even if he were fired, this had nothing to do with the federal government. Employees can be fired for anything in many states (except federally protected things like age, sex, race).

2. Chick fil-a was never harmed by the federal government. There was a weak boycott that lasted about a day. People that spoke about Cathy's view on gays were engaging in freedom of speech. And chick fil-a has now supplanted KFC as chicken King and is growing at a very fast rate.

3. Hobby Lobby has over $3 Billion in sales. They took a controversial stand with what they covered with insurance. How were they harmed by the federal government? In fact, the government affirmed Hobby Lobby's right to be primitive, knuckle-dragging troglodytes: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235277

4. I can't answer for army chaplains. I personally think that MOS or whatever should be eliminated. But if a superior officer sets a rule, that's part of what the military stands on, following orders, and telling others how to do their jobs. Blind obedience reigns, and freedom of speech is often muted there. Should military personnel be granted full free speech rights in their jobs?

5. We've talked about this before. Some colleges have inclusion rules in that you have to include all students in groups. Students can, and do, speak out on (pro and con) gay rights at many schools.

6. Re: the jeweler. I heard about this last week. First, it was Canada, not the U.S., second, there is no lawsuit, the jeweler agreed to give them the money back (if the story I heard is true). Regardless, this isn't the federal government (Canadian or American) People can sue for anything.

AlabamAlum wrote: 4. I can't answer for army chaplains. I personally think that MOS or whatever should be eliminated. But if a superior officer sets a rule, that's part of what the military stands on, following orders, and telling others how to do their jobs. Blind obedience reigns, and freedom of speech is often muted there. Should military personnel be granted full free speech rights in their jobs?

Don't know about the Army, but the constant complaint I hear about Navy & Air Force chaplains is that 90% of them are to the right of Jerry Fallwell (that's what I hear from my members who are active duty USN & USAF, as well as from friends in my denomination who are active duty chaplains).

With respect to the case that Prof referenced: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... moval.html

"Military chaplains' duties include conducting religious services and counseling military personnel of their specific denomination in the tenets of their faith.
They also provide counseling to all service members, regardless of beliefs, in private sessions that are requested by a service member. In these one-on-one meetings, chaplains are required to take an interfaith approach and not press their own religious views. The sessions can walk a fine line because a chaplain's counseling is guided by his or her own beliefs, but unless a person asks directly, a chaplain is not to offer judgment on the person's actions.

This part of military chaplains' duty is what differentiates them from civilian ministers, priests, rabbis and imams, said Christianne Witten, a spokeswoman for Kibben.
They must treat each person with "dignity, respect and compassion, irrespective of an individual's beliefs," Witten said. Navy chaplains offer military members and their families "a safe place to talk, free from judgment and shaming, with unbreakable confidentiality."

In correspondence with Modder, Capt. Fahs wrote that he was recommending the chaplain's "detachment for cause" -- meaning he could be forced out of the Navy -- because he found multiple allegations against Modder to be credible.

Modder failed a chaplain's "core capabilities," Fahs wrote: to be "sensitive to the religious, spiritual, moral, cultural and personal differences of those you serve." The disciplinary action, he told Modder, came from a failure to comply with counseling standards and "not the exercise of your religion."

In addition to complaints from sailors, investigators assigned by Fahs also gathered sworn statements critical of Modder from another chaplain at the South Carolina command and staff in the chaplains' office, according to Navy personnel familiar with the investigation."

Seems like a fair stance - don't use the Bible on non-believers unless they request it.