The not that bad guy and society.

[pettertb]

The landed gentry has never let me down, it's only the leftists who are destroying the sense of community, supplanting it with a nanny police state uber alles, if you jump into the river to save someone, no doubt some kneedipper is going to call for your head, because you weren't a public sector unioized employee having filled out the paperwork in triplicate and then got it stamped by some poltical appointee mandarin before you took the plunge.

Champagne Socialist Physician, heal thyself.

Is this the general idea?

1. Home-owners (or well to do?) are this-kind-of-good.
2. This is a lesson that mostly leftists need to learn.

Both are interesting viewpoints.

I it is a measure of stability, and investment into your area, right? I can think of counter-examples (lived with two of them), but an interesting angle to look at it through. They don't have to be right wing, tho.

I disagree that it is only the leftists, doing this. The left is the worst at it, is a more palatable way to put it.

I do think the idea that you might disagree with someone, perhaps not even like them much, and still value their existence in society is a good thing to keep in mind for both sides. I am an atheist, renting in an apartment complex owned by this Christian real estate company, next to a bunch of churches. Seems to be no problems with them. They hog parking spaces on sundays, tho.

As I said, the landed gentry, be they in Downtown Toronto, or out here in Wellington County, have never let me down, my neighbors of property, be they urban or be they rural, have always been there for me in a pinch, and I for them as well, the landed gentry sticks together, the only ones who would fuck you over and not give a damn, are the filthy tenants being usefull idiots for the kneedippers, and the champagne socialists who enable the nanny police state to nowhere therein.

I am a union member in unionific Norway. Getting in trouble simply due to helping people doesn't sound like a thing that would happen.

[Smitty-48]

Fuck Norway, Norway is Champers Bolshies on steroids, Norway is what these champagne socialists want to impose on us here, I'd kill them all before I'd let that happen, including DrY, he comes at me with Norway, I'll blow his ass away without any hesitation, two in the Norge sweater, one in the face.

[apeman]

Fortunately this forum does not have any rules about threatening cartoonishly hilarious violence against DrY.

Take that, DCF.

[pettertb]

You are quite fond of the picture of shooting people you disagree with. I have already heard that

Get to work on that with the internet freedom thing, wouldya?

[Smitty-48]

You are quite fond of the picture of shooting people you disagree with. I have already heard that

Only where they would incite an Apprehended Insurrection against the Crown of Canada, which, trying to impose Norway on us, would just about do, make no mistake, the NDP goes there, they no longer have the protection of the Commander-in-Chief, Her Majesty defends the right, to not be Norway under any circumstances, if you want to be Norway, go to fuckin' Norway, there's the door.

[pettertb]

My ass is firmly placed in Norway as we speak (chain from Ikea, tho, so perhaps a bit of borkborkbork). The internet is good that way.

The limits of Canadian democracy is not something I know in detail

(Surely you could drift left in a generation or 3)

[Smitty-48]

We're as far left as we're going right now, next comes the right wing populist backlash to steady the ship, lest we incite an apprehended insurrection against the Crown by Champers Bolshies run amok.

[pettertb]

Ahh. Ship is moving roughly in the direction of the majority. All is well within reason then.

Perhaps that is a problem of our time. Politics is always so complicated, boring, reasonable or flat our difficult. Come on man, people just want to be mad as hell and fight for some nice, big ideal against the horribleness of the situation. Like the highschool text book summaries showed us. It's just that things are fairly reasonable.

We have a silly stupid "party" in Norway that is pretty much the essence of this ("Tjen folket"). They feel like a live action role play (LARP) group of the commies in the seventies. Use silly codenames for people like "grapefruit object to this interpretation of the rise of the proletariat" and managed to get infiltrated and laughed at by the (fairly reasonable people) in the youth group of the Red party.

I am sure reality is too boring for them.

[DrYouth]

Or maybe Smitty is saying that unless I know people who are lower class personally I am not entitled to refer to them at all.

I must abstain from any discussion on the topic unless some of my homies are from the lower class.

But because Smitty got roughed up by the boys in his hood - he has the jurisdiction to pass judgement on the matter.

Maybe that's it.

I was middle class, I went to school, I had a job, my parents worked for the gubment, I didn't roll in the ghetto for the money, I was just slummin' for the action, I was an adrenaline junkie, seeking out danger for its own sake.

That being said, the lower classes did indeed have more cash on hand than I did, more than my managerial class father did in fact, lower class is high risk, but there's plenty of cash floating around therein.

It's like, I knew this hooker, and she was most definitely lower class, she came from some mining town up north, she had a drug problem, she was into the blow, and she had a criminal record, so she couldn't get an honest job, but she was smoking hot, and so she made $500 a night, on a good night, $1000, probably about $250,000 a year, she blew a lot of that on coke, but she was lower class after all, that's how they roll.

Notice that nowhere in this post does Smitty refute my claim.
So he concedes the point that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the lower class because I have not dated a hooker.

[Montegriffo]

Or maybe Smitty is saying that unless I know people who are lower class personally I am not entitled to refer to them at all.

I must abstain from any discussion on the topic unless some of my homies are from the lower class.

But because Smitty got roughed up by the boys in his hood - he has the jurisdiction to pass judgement on the matter.

Maybe that's it.

I was middle class, I went to school, I had a job, my parents worked for the gubment, I didn't roll in the ghetto for the money, I was just slummin' for the action, I was an adrenaline junkie, seeking out danger for its own sake.

That being said, the lower classes did indeed have more cash on hand than I did, more than my managerial class father did in fact, lower class is high risk, but there's plenty of cash floating around therein.

It's like, I knew this hooker, and she was most definitely lower class, she came from some mining town up north, she had a drug problem, she was into the blow, and she had a criminal record, so she couldn't get an honest job, but she was smoking hot, and so she made $500 a night, on a good night, $1000, probably about $250,000 a year, she blew a lot of that on coke, but she was lower class after all, that's how they roll.

Notice that nowhere in this post does Smitty refute my claim.
So he concedes the point that I am not entitled to have an opinion on the lower class because I have not dated a hooker.

Can you prove you have not done so or do we have to take your word for it?