Liberal Forum

GHETTOBLASTER » 02 May 2024, 7:59 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 7:59 am

I'll just leave you yearning to swim shoulder to shoulder in your vast Sea of Humanity while I continue to enjoy my preferred lifestyle where any man can still afford to live on acreage thanks to the lack of competition.  

When your "win" involves depopulation, you belong in Davos. 

You are siding with those who forced the clot shot on us. 
 

Cannonpointer » 06 May 2024, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 7:57 pm

When your "win" involves depopulation, you belong in Davos. 

You are siding with those who forced the clot shot on us.

I'd like to see more people able to live like I did while growing up and as I do now.
I side with having a gradual reduction in population that doesn't require man made weaponized viruses or forced weaponized vaccinations.
I side with a gradual population reduction that brings the cost of housing down dramatically and that eliminates the need to convert more and more unspoiled land into spoiled land.
I think 1.5 children per couple is a realistic pace to get it done. 
The [[[JWO]]] will do what they want as far as their population control agenda is, regardless of what either you or I wish for. 
What I want or what you want has zero impact...we've got no say in the matter.
In the meantime I'll continue to hope that a gradual, drama free population reduction is what is in our future.

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

I'd like to see more people able to live like I did while growing up and as I do now.

You presume they want to. Millions prefer to live in an urban corridor. Woody Allen has never owned a car.

But let's not get side-tracked with WHY you support the elites' intention to depopulate. The fact is, you do.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

I side with having a gradual reduction in population that doesn't require man made weaponized viruses or forced weaponized vaccinations.

Right, right - a kinder, gentler genocide.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

I side with a gradual population reduction that brings the cost of housing down dramatically and that eliminates the need to convert more and more unspoiled land into spoiled land.

You appear uncorrectable. You were JUST INFORMED that competition is not the primary driver of real estate prices. Americans' sick view of home ownership, the legal environment, speculatively buying more house than one needs - these are the drivers. And receiving that information, you blithely restate your debunked thesis without even bothering to respond to the generous correction.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

I think 1.5 children per couple is a realistic pace to get it done. 

Which **** on millions of peoples' faith, gets all up in your neighbors' business, butt **** our Constitution, and echoes Chairman Mao.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

The [[[JWO]]] will do what they want as far as their population control agenda is, regardless of what either you or I wish for. 
What I want or what you want has zero impact...we've got no say in the matter.

You could cleanse your brain and soul of their mind control.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:28 pm

In the meantime I'll continue to hope that a gradual, drama free population reduction is what is in our future.

Limiting the number of children that mormons are allowed to have and "drama free" don't belong in the same brainwashed drivel.

Cannonpointer » 06 May 2024, 8:42 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 8:42 pm

 You were JUST INFORMED that competition is not the primary driver of real estate prices.

Are you claiming  that most Americans are happier living in rented sardine can style apartments and rented houses on 1/4 acre lots in  Sardincanistan  as opposed living in more affordable houses on acreage that they could afford to buy outright...?

oops I keep forgetting your number one rule ......"Having twice as many houses for sale as there are people looking for houses to buy wont have a dramatic effect on making houses more affordable".
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 9:19 pm

Are you claiming  that most Americans are happier living in rented sardine can style apartments and rented houses on 1/4 acre lots in  Sardincanistan  as opposed living in more affordable houses on acreage that they could afford to buy outright...?

Is that what you need me to claim in order to justify siding with the Davos elites?

Just so you know, a lot of metropolitan housing is owned by the residents, not rented.

Tell me, are YOU claiming that every American who rents is a renter by necessity and not by choice?

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 9:19 pm

oops I keep forgetting your number one rule ......"Having twice as many houses for sale as there are people looking for houses to buy wont have a dramatic effect on making houses more affordable".

If that is what you need me to argue in order to justify misanthropy. That actually IS happening in Detroit. Perhaps you might find your happy place after all. I hear Flint, Michigan has some real steals. Heck, there are THREE times as many houses as buyers.

Cannonpointer » 06 May 2024, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 9:35 pm

Is that what you need me to claim in order to justify siding with the Davos elites?

Just so you know, a lot of metropolitan housing is owned by the residents, not rented.

Tell me, are YOU claiming that every American who rents is a renter by necessity and not by choice?

If that is what you need me to argue in order to justify misanthropy. That actually IS happening in Detroit. Perhaps you might find your happy place after all. I hear Flint, Michigan has some real steals. Heck, there are THREE times as many houses as buyers.

I think most people dream of owning their own property. 

 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/real ... urvey.html
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortga ... vey/"While owning a home has always been a major dream of American consumers, rising home prices have made homeownership even harder to attain — but perhaps more attractive.Though most consumers (88%) would rather own their home than rent, nearly half of those who currently rent fear they’ll never own a home."
Your   example of the nigfuxated ruins of Detroit.
This is  a case where there is surplus of unwanted homes, thanks to high crime, the Auto Makers fleeing from the underperforming    Negro work force and  now the resulting broken infrastructure makes things unlivable. 
If you were to wave a magic wand  and move 1000s of manufacturing jobs into those areas  I can guarantee that competition for those abandoned properties would increase tremendously...Blacks would move back in for sure. The problem with this fantasy scenario is, Blacks would move back in. 

If the ENTIRE USA POPULATION was cut in half, then more places than just  the nugfuxated ruins of Detroit would have more homes than buyers.

 

GHETTOBLASTER » 07 May 2024, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

07 May 2024, 8:33 am

I think most people dream of owning their own property. 

 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/real ... urvey.html
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortga ... vey/"While owning a home has always been a major dream of American consumers, rising home prices have made homeownership even harder to attain — but perhaps more attractive.Though most consumers (88%) would rather own their home than rent, nearly half of those who currently rent fear they’ll never own a home."

How many times must your misperception that population drives housing costs be corrected before you take the correction? Population makes building homes EASIER AND CHEAPER - not harder. Try building a home with no help and see how long it takes and how much it costs.

GHETTOBLASTER » 07 May 2024, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

07 May 2024, 8:33 am

If the ENTIRE USA POPULATION was cut in half, then more places than just  the nugfuxated ruins of Detroit would have more homes than buyers.

Is artificially dropping home prices REALLY worth the murder of half your neighbors?

I mean, OBVIOUSLY, killing off half the potential home buyers is going to artificially - but nor organically - drop home prices. So did Chernobyl. Lots of calamities drop home prices - wishing for them is kind of sick, though.

More people = more wealth, not less. That FACT has been repeatedly elucidated for you with hard numbers that you have blithely ignored in favor of your myth that population drives home prices.

GHETTOBLASTER » 06 May 2024, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 May 2024, 9:19 pm

Are you claiming  that most Americans are happier living in rented sardine can style apartments and rented houses on 1/4 acre lots in  Sardincanistan  as opposed living in more affordable houses on acreage that they could afford to buy outright...?

oops I keep forgetting your number one rule ......"Having twice as many houses for sale as there are people looking for houses to buy wont have a dramatic effect on making houses more affordable".

It's funny, but I live on a 6.6 acre plot with a small no public access lake. I was over at a coworker's new home in town years back with the neighbor's homes 10' away on both sides...I freaked....  
 

ROG62 » 14 May 2024, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:10 pm

It's funny, but I live on a 6.6 acre plot with a small no public access lake. I was over at a coworker's new home in town years back with the neighbor's homes 10' away on both sides...I freaked....

65 acres. LOL no body near me here. nice neighbor across the street.
But i enjoyed renting a big ol farmhouse in town. That was the most Fun house i ever lived in.
 

Cannonpointer » 14 May 2024, 10:03 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 10:03 pm

How many times must your misperception that population drives housing costs be corrected before you take the correction? Population makes building homes EASIER AND CHEAPER - not harder. Try building a home with no help and see how long it takes and how much it costs.

Is artificially dropping home prices REALLY worth the murder of half your neighbors?

I mean, OBVIOUSLY, killing off half the potential home buyers is going to artificially - but nor organically - drop home prices. So did Chernobyl. Lots of calamities drop home prices - wishing for them is kind of sick, though.

More people = more wealth, not less. That FACT has been repeatedly elucidated for you with hard numbers that you have blithely ignored in favor of your myth that population drives home prices.

We have 150MM housing units in the USA shared between 350MM people..so that averages out to  2.33 people per unit.
Let's lower the population by 50%...so  175MM people divided by 2.3 means that the housing demand drops to 75MM housing units .
This makes 75 Million housing units, vacant and  totally useless.
Prices will drop in a race to the bottom accordingly.
Nobody needs to be mass murdered, no nuclear plants need to erupt  to see our population return to what it was when I was 10 years old...if  the reduction happens due to fewer people interested in having kids. 
A gradual reduction of 1% of the population annually stretched out over 50 years would make a sizeable dent in our current figure of 350MM and the reduction   sure would make the homes in the less desirable areas lose value first.
This would help reduce people's average commute times with no more ridiculous stories about people living in Sacramento commuting to San Francisco

"More people means more wealth"...yeah just look at India and China for proof of that.
 

sootedupCyndi » 14 May 2024, 11:20 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:20 pm

65 acres. LOL no body near me here. nice neighbor across the street.
But i enjoyed renting a big ol farmhouse in town. That was the most Fun house i ever lived in.

wow...nice....would prefer more land, but alas....no interest in starting over after 35 years seems as we got it how we want it ...pd 4....  
 

ROG62 » 15 May 2024, 12:07 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 12:07 am

wow...nice....would prefer more land, but alas....no interest in starting over after 35 years seems as we got it how we want it ...pd 4....

I'd sell it- to get rid of it-
Nobody wants land stuck in the middle of no where. After a while- trees become less exciting.  just taxed on it.
 

ROG62 » 14 May 2024, 11:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:10 pm

It's funny, but I live on a 6.6 acre plot with a small no public access lake. I was over at a coworker's new home in town years back with the neighbor's homes 10' away on both sides...I freaked....

6.6 and a private lake..!!    
If you sold out  to  CP I'll bet he could easily cram 100 houses in there priced at $1,5MM each.]  
There are so many high density neighborhoods being slapped up all over like your co-workers.. 
I should take a rolling video of one such neighborhood that is so jammed packed with two story McMansions spaced 10 feet apart and with a "lattice work" of intersecting streets that require stop signs and speed bumps every  100 feet.......  
These neighborhoods  resemble "ANT FARMS" with a steady stream of ants moving in and moving out. 
You bet there is plenty of Section Ape Housing going on too.
An unexpected consequence of the massive influx of wonderfully diverse  City Folk are frequent power outages due to all of the clueless and witless  Libtard Newcomers flying off our narrow, shoulderless country highways and slamming head on into power poles....  
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

We have 150MM housing units in the USA shared between 350MM people..so that averages out to  2.33 people per unit.

Are all of these SRO's? Or are maybe a handful of them two, three, or even four bedrooms?

Cuz it seems to ME that 2.33 persons per housing unit is UNDER-population. We have too MANY homes in the market - not to few.

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

Let's lower the population by 50%...so  175MM people divided by 2.3 means that the housing demand drops to 75MM housing units .
This makes 75 Million housing units, vacant and  totally useless.

And this does not strike you on its face as a very very stupid idea? Getting rid of people in order to make half the nation's housing stock redundant? Why the **** would we do something that tar-ted?

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

Prices will drop in a race to the bottom accordingly.

Should we kill half the drivers to make cars cheaper, too?

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

Nobody needs to be mass murdered, no nuclear plants need to erupt  to see our population return to what it was when I was 10 years old...if  the reduction happens due to fewer people interested in having kids.

Are you pandering for Planned Parenthood?

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

A gradual reduction of 1% of the population annually stretched out over 50 years would make a sizeable dent in our current figure of 350MM and the reduction   sure would make the homes in the less desirable areas lose value first.

If the people who see things your way - the Davos crowd - would close the borders, that might actually work. Me, I don't give a lot of head space to the population control crowd - on account of all those pesky facts you keep ignoring. You know the ones I mean: The fact that more people tracks with more prosperity consistently and undeniably.

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

This would help reduce people's average commute times with no more ridiculous stories about people living in Sacramento commuting to San Francisco

Commute times are something adults understand BEFORE they sign mortgages. I don't like to interfere in other people's personal business.

GHETTOBLASTER » 14 May 2024, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

14 May 2024, 11:40 pm

"More people means more wealth"...yeah just look at India and China for proof of that.

You absolutely can do so. The poverty rate in india is 12.9 percent as of 2021, with a population of 1.4 billion. https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND It was 22% in 1959 with a population of 365 million. Population has more than tripled, poverty is almost halved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ang%202005).

You wanna keep playing dumb about the facts? We have a facts vs feeling tete a tete going on here, and I keep wondering how long it is going to take you to simply embrace the facts.

China lost almost 5% of its population due to famine caused by extreme poverty in 1959 and 60 - with 600 million people. Today, with 1.4 billion, China's poverty rate is lower than our own at 1.7% https://ourworldindata.org/data-insight ... low%201%25.

There is nothing wrong with your feelings until they are put beside facts. At that very moment, though, your feelings look kind of - well, let's say fact-averse.
 

Cannonpointer » 15 May 2024, 12:51 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 12:51 am

And this does not strike you on its face as a very very stupid idea? Getting rid of people in order to make half the nation's housing stock redundant? Why the **** would we do something that tar-ted?

 

People living in houses on postage stamp sized lots will snatch up adjacent  lots for pennies on the dollar.
Apartment dwellers will be able to  slide right into single family homes.
I would love to see at least half of the multi family, multi-story apartment house nightmares bull dozed to the ground.
                                     


 

GHETTOBLASTER » 15 May 2024, 1:29 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 1:29 am

People living in houses on postage stamp sized lots will snatch up adjacent  lots for pennies on the dollar.
Apartment dwellers will be able to  slide right into single family homes.
I would love to see at least half of the multi family, multi-story apartment house nightmares bull dozed to the ground.

YOU would love it. Don't assume that everyone else would. I lived in a high rise luxury apartment in St Petersburg that I quite enjoyed. There were parks and sanctuaries quite nearby, and I could get sushi, italian, good steak, several sports bars - you name it, all in walking distance. A natural grocer was a short car trip from my door. There were beautiful grounds and a very clean swimming pool. And yes - my apartment was small. But not as small as the one in San Francisco. 

I don't need anyone to die for my life to work. I had a four bedroom with a pool and a spa in Vegas, a three bedroom in Myrtle Beach. I currently live in a three bedroom way out in the woods, on account of the recent attempt on my life by the federal government. I'm hunkered down with chickens and relationships with local farmers and perfectly comfortable. And let's not step over the fact that the crowd directing the attempt on my life sees things your way regarding population. 
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 02 May 2024, 7:59 am » wrote: ↑

02 May 2024, 7:59 am

I'll just leave you yearning to swim shoulder to shoulder in your vast Sea of Humanity while I continue to enjoy my preferred lifestyle where any man can still afford to live on acreage thanks to the lack of competition.  

My current home sits on 29 acres. I have chickens and am thinking about goats. I love me some goat meat.

GHETTOBLASTER » 15 May 2024, 12:11 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 12:11 am

6.6 and a private lake..!!    
If you sold out  to  CP I'll bet he could easily cram 100 houses in there priced at $1,5MM each.]  
There are so many high density neighborhoods being slapped up all over like your co-workers.. 
I should take a rolling video of one such neighborhood that is so jammed packed with two story McMansions spaced 10 feet apart and with a "lattice work" of intersecting streets that require stop signs and speed bumps every  100 feet.......  
These neighborhoods  resemble "ANT FARMS" with a steady stream of ants moving in and moving out. 
You bet there is plenty of Section Ape Housing going on too.
An unexpected consequence of the massive influx of wonderfully diverse  City Folk are frequent power outages due to all of the clueless and witless  Libtard Newcomers flying off our narrow, shoulderless country highways and slamming head on into power poles....

The kind of neighborhood you imagine I might wish to build allows parents the freedom of their children being able to walk to school. No nig-filled busses forcing them to choose between being a taxi service or cramming their kids onto a rolling reform school. Such neighborhoods offer convenient shopping and quite often provide easy access to nearby jobs. There are quite a few advantages to living in suburbs - as there are to living in urban centers and rural areas. I have lived in Urbania, Suburbia, and rural farm districts. Each and every have had downsides and upsides. My current conditions force me to drive 3 hours round trip to the nearest Sams Club and the nearest airport of any note whatsoever and the nearest asian market - an important commodity to me. But I get to raise chickens, and I am currently so exasperated with leftards that my personal comfort is worth the drive. 

We have a "private lake," so to speak. It looks like a small pond. But it is spring fed, constant, and feeds a creek. So by definition, it is a lake, not a pond. I am looking at ducks - but that would require shooting turtles for a living, because those pond-hopping mother **** like to eat anything that floats. 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 15 May 2024, 12:11 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 12:11 am

6.6 and a private lake..!!    
If you sold out  to  CP I'll bet he could easily cram 100 houses in there priced at $1,5MM each.]  
There are so many high density neighborhoods being slapped up all over like your co-workers.. 
I should take a rolling video of one such neighborhood that is so jammed packed with two story McMansions spaced 10 feet apart and with a "lattice work" of intersecting streets that require stop signs and speed bumps every  100 feet.......  
These neighborhoods  resemble "ANT FARMS" with a steady stream of ants moving in and moving out. 
You bet there is plenty of Section Ape Housing going on too.
An unexpected consequence of the massive influx of wonderfully diverse  City Folk are frequent power outages due to all of the clueless and witless  Libtard Newcomers flying off our narrow, shoulderless country highways and slamming head on into power poles....

well, you don't have to as my son moved into one of those new developments...big barns that all resemble each other in size, style and color...it's being built so fast, that if I don't go thru there every 2 week, I get lost...  

but that's ok, keep them out of my neighborhood...  
 

sootedupCyndi » 15 May 2024, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑

15 May 2024, 12:10 am

I'd sell it- to get rid of it-
Nobody wants land stuck in the middle of no where. After a while- trees become less exciting.  just taxed on it.

Around these parts, people purchase than for hunting, farming or 40 acre plotting with a 1 time split in acreage depending upon zoning...