Beware of the unintended consequences of anti-discrimination mandates. That's what some folks are discovering in Santa Fe, where the residents of the RainbowVision development, created to provide a secure and affirming environment for gay seniors, fear it could soon be overrun by heterosexuals. New Mexico law bars housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and so the home owners association can't maintain a balance toward gay people (and it seems that the management company is just as happy to rent to whomever).
RainbowVision includes a mixture of condos and rental units plus an assisted-living facility. Interestingly enough, the New York Times recently reported on discrimination against gay seniors in typical assisted living facilities, including one in Santa Fe, finding that gay seniors:
have been disrespected, shunned or mistreated in ways that range from hurtful to deadly, even leading some to commit suicide. Some have seen their partners and friends insulted or isolated.
So it would seem that the right to create gay-focused retirement institutions might be worth preserving.
And its not just gay seniors who fall victim to "fair housing" over-reach. Activist in the past succeeded in forbidding those seeking home or apartment roommates from indicating a religious or age preference in their classified ads, and the same issue has popped up with gay people seeking gay roommates.
To which some housing commissar wannabes simply shrug and say why not force an 80-year-old Catholic grandma to rent her spare room to a 20-something wiccan? It'll be good for the old gal, and it's not like there's any need to respect archaic concepts like property rights or freedom of association or any other impediments on the road to the progressive total state, is there?
35 Comments for “Double-Edged Sword”
posted by Randy on
Except that, as Stephen well knows, that the 80 year old grandma is exempted from such laws. Most states exempt landlords who have five units or less from these non-discrimination laws.
Good try at the straw man, Stephen. Maybe next time you won’t be so disengenuous, though.
posted by Casey on
That 80-year old grandma is forbidden from advertising her room in any way that would signal her preferences in terms of who she would want to rent the room to, however.
posted by avee on
That’s correct: “Under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Liptak notes, discrimination itself is not necessarily illegal when choosing roommates and tenants, but advertisements that suggest as much are” (as reported here), for example.
I’ve also read about an apartment complex that wanted to define itself as gay focused and wasn’t allowed to advertie as such.
posted by atma on
I work at RainbowVision. It is GLBT owned and operated. 90% of the residents are GLBT. The 10% straight population either have gay children or gay siblings. Please research the truth first before passing judgment. Thanks.
posted by The Gay Recluse on
Thanks, Atma–I also thought it seemed a bit strained the way the writer seemed to imply that RainbowVision was the same one the Times wrote about, which is obviously miles from the truth. The Gay Recluse
posted by Xeno on
The article says:“a there-goes-the-neighborhood cloud has appeared. Some residents fear that their community could be overrun by an outside element — straight people…. About 80% of the complex’s residents are gay, management said. But there is potential for a radical shift because nearly half of the units are unoccupied or for sale.”
The residents’ fears are about what could now happen.
Also, what kind of research does atma expect bloggers to conduct on their own before commenting on a story in a major national newspaper?
posted by rhywun on
Most of my friends are straight. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere my friends aren’t wanted, anyway.
posted by Marcio on
I understand Miller’s concerns, however, I don’t believe straights who are hostile to gays are likely to move on to an area where a large number of gays and lesbians have already established.
I know some gay bars which allow straights to enter have faced some few problems caused by a small group of straight guys (or sometimes girls) interested in harassing the gay patrons; however, spending a night at a gay bar, and living months or years in a gay condominium are not…the same.
posted by Bobby on
Well, here in Florida there are communities exclusively for seniors, some which ban children after certain hours. Frankly, RainbowVision should establish themselves as a private country club, then they can accept or reject anyone they want.
Anyway, hopefully the plublicity of RainbowVision will make some heterosexuals think twice before moving there.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t believe straights who are hostile to gays are likely to move on to an area where a large number of gays and lesbians have already established.
You haven’t been to San Francisco, then. There’s a movement underway in the Castro, San Francisco’s historically gay neighborhood, to close clubs, bars and stores that recent residents with kids find “offensive.”
One of them regularly appears on TV demanding that a certain venue have its business license revoked because “my child walks past it every day on his way to school and has to see that.”
Most of the people pursuing it are heterosexual, and have lived in the neighborhood for just a few years. The institutions they’re seeking to use government power to close are often decades old.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
With housing being tight, it’s understandable that there is competition for it, whatever it is.
I look at this situation this way, sure…heterosexuals will and have discriminated. By the same token, those who CHOOSE to live with gay people are also those hard pressed to not be allies, or otherwise look like the biggest hypocrites.
What would it look like? Yeah, I can be your roommate, rent to you and take your money, look you in the face and take advantage of the new housing in ways I wouldn’t want to extend to gay people.
It’s that strange schizophrenia at work that bigotry is.
When gays and lesbians establish their own housing, communities or high schools because of hostility and discrimination, it’s beyond dumb and bigoted for straight people to cry foul and say that gay people are excluding them for the same reasons that straight people do.
Or as IF, straight people want to share whatever they’ve established in the first place.
posted by Randy on
I’m not sure what the point of this blog is. IF there were no non-discrimination in housing, then gays might not be admitted to any senior living complex.
Now Stephen is trying to argue that this is a bad thing. sheesh.
posted by Brian Miller on
With housing being tight, it’s understandable that there is competition for it, whatever it is.
At the moment, there’s more housing than there is demand for housing. If the government would stop propping up mortgage companies and let the mortgage bubble finish bursting, affordable housing all over the country would be virtually guaranteed.
Need any more indications? Just take a look at all the houses out there that have been listed, delisted, relisted again, delisted, relisted again at a lower price, etc. Once prices return to the mean (an average 40% to 50% decline), everyone — including gay Americans — will have access.
As usual, it’s a government bailout policy (of stupid banks who lent too much money to people who couldn’t pay them back AND of stupid borrowers who got a loan they couldn’t afford yet shriek about how they’re victims) that is hurting gay people seeking affordable, quality housing.
posted by Xeno on
Dang, someone has been using my nickname. Well it’s a common one anyway, I’ll use my name Rob from now on.
I agree with Brian Miller, this mortgage bubble has went way out of control because of government interference. Forget raising mortgage limits, when a great deal of people already foreclose on their current mortgages. Instead, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should lose their special status and be chopped up into pieces.
As for RainbowVision, I think they’ll be able to manage well since I doubt that antigay geezers would move there in the first place.
posted by ETJB on
Yawn! More right-wing babble and bs about how evii equal opportunity is. Can’t you guys change the record?
Yes, discrimination, abuse and neglect of seniors in this nation is a problem and, in particular, when you are dealing with low income, disabled, or minorites or gays.
Heck, a great many people in this nation are not even in a posititon to complain about their housing community, because they are either homeless or have little chioces in where they live.
It is great to have an LGBT-housing program for seniors. Its a option that many gay seniors will not be able to access, but it is a good thing none of the less.
I doubt that such a place is going to be ‘overrun’ by heterosexual seniors (hetero-phobia aside ;0)). Straight seniors will quickly realize that their are lots of openly LGBT seniors in the housing. Straights who live in such a place, will likely be accepting.
“Activist[s]”
(Conservative double speak for ‘anyone that I disagree with’)
“Succeeded in forbidding those seeking home or apartment roommates from indicating a religious or age preference in their classified ads.”
It would depend on state law and how it was written. Different rules can come intp play when you are talking about a landlord veruss a tenent seeking a roomate.
“Why not force an 80-year-old Catholic grandma to rent her spare room to a 20-something wiccan?”
More BS. If she has a spare room, chances are the religious requirment (and sexual orientation) for housing EEO does not apply.
Your straw man’s arguments about civil rights are pretty much balony. Typical sillyness that we get from libertarians who think that we should return to the ‘good old days’ of the 1780s.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
More right-wing babble and bs about how evii equal opportunity is. Can’t you guys change the record?
But the problem is, ETJB, what you and yours are pushing is not “equal opportunity”. You may call it that, but an examination of it makes obvious that it isn’t.
For instance, systems for college admissions that award black students an automatic number of points based on their skin color/race are considered “equal opportunity”. Systems that preferentially award contracts to businesses or vendors based on the skin color or gender of the owners are considered “equal opportunity”.
How can it be “equal” when people are obviously being treated differently based on their skin color or gender?
posted by Bobby on
“Yawn! More right-wing babble and bs about how evii equal opportunity is.”
—It is not only evil but unrealistic. There’s no equal opportunity, companies and people discriminate on a wide variety of criteria. If you wanted to practice equal opportunity, you’d have to sleep with everyone who wants to sleep with you, no matter if you like them or not. Could you live by those standards? I doubt it.
“Yes, discrimination, abuse and neglect of seniors in this nation is a problem and, in particular, when you are dealing with low income, disabled, or minorites or gays.”
—Yes, so why not let a senior community for gays only rent to other gays?
“Heck, a great many people in this nation are not even in a posititon to complain about their housing community, because they are either homeless or have little chioces in where they live.”
—The misery of others is not our problem.
“I doubt that such a place is going to be ‘overrun’ by heterosexual seniors (hetero-phobia aside ;0)).”
—It depends on the price. If it’s really cheap, the place could get overrun by straight seniors who need the low prices.
It’s natural for people to self-segregate. I’ve read a study that in San Francisco most blacks prefer to live with other blacks, while whites enjoy living with other whites. Even in most high schools people form cliques and seat with their kind at lunch. Is that evil? Of course not. I for example accept only those who think like me into my group, that’s because to me ideology is more important than race, religion and sexual orientation.
But if a group of liberal gay seniors want to hang out with other liberal seniors, they should not have to worry about what they’re straight neighbors are thinking. And the best way to do that is to segregate and keep undesirables. out.
posted by ETJB on
It is the right-libertarians who are oppose to equal opportunity, not me. They are content to believe that we should oppose and repeal civil rights, not me.
“Systems for college admissions that award black students an automatic number of points based on their skin color/race are considered “equal opportunity”.
We were not talking about Affirmative Action. We were talking about equal opportunity in housing based on sexual orientation. Two different legal realms.
Affirmative Action attempts to deal with institutional racism.
Students are given points for a wide range of personal demographics in an effort to create a diverse student body and to provide opportunities for people who have traditionally had the same opportunities due to race, or class.
Giving women or minority owned businesses preferential treatment in certain government contracts is, again, dealing with institutional and historic problems.
We can have a good debate about Affirmative Action polices, but they are different from basic civil rights legislation.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
Equal opportunity has been the law of the land since the 1960s when it comes to race, color, religion, national or ethnic background or sex. Do you wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Disability was added (federally) in 1990. Now sexual orientation may be added — to employment — if basic fairness wins out.
We are talking about equal opportunity in certain sectors of society and based on certain factors. This is what civil rights legislation is all about.
While I can not give you legal advice, I am pretty sure that you do not have to have sex with everyone that asks you.
If a LGBT senior community really wants to do that, then they need to look into the applicable state laws. Most laws can be seen online, officially, for free.
“The misery of others is not our problem.”
Well, then why do you care about those LGBT Seniors?
Heck, we do not you even post on this message board if do not care about other people. Heck, why not kill yourself now?
Most LGBT senior centers tend to be for people of a certain socioeconomic class, that does not often include “cheap”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We were talking about equal opportunity in housing based on sexual orientation.
Yes — such as the belief that it is a “civil right” for gays to be allowed to discriminate against straight people in housing, as the article outlines that gays are demanding, but that straights should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.
Students are given points for a wide range of personal demographics in an effort to create a diverse student body and to provide opportunities for people who have traditionally had the same opportunities due to race, or class.
Or, put differently, it assumes things about people based on their skin color/race, and it orders preferential treatment for one skin color/race over another.
Same with contract laws, which assume things about businesses based on the skin color or gender of their owner, and legally mandate preferential treatment for one skin color or gender over another.
What makes this really funny, ETJB, is that leftists in academia insist that white students must demonstrate a certain level of academic achievement because otherwise they won’t be able to keep up with college demands, but insist that the skin color and the magic “diversity” factor insulates black students from that problem.
posted by Alice AN on
So what if I wanted to have a ‘whites only building’?
By your suggestion – I should be able to. And yet, there is a universal recognition it’s inherently wrong for the majority to discriminate in such a fashion. Of course even on the left Ideology trumps common sense because they suggest switching the shackles of forced segregation for that of self-segregation which is equally as perverse.
I celebrate the fact that the RainbowVision development, is overrun by heterosexuals not because it robs homosexuals of their safe heaven, but because it signals the beginning of an era when a gay person’s heaven can be in a place overrun by heterosexuals.
I look forward to a time when we stop identifying ourselves by race or gender or sexual orientation – when all that matters will be in the words of MLK ‘the content of your character’.
PS 80yo grandma VS 20yo Punk is more about content of character than race, gender or sexual orientation.
I don’t want my neighbor playing music at 1000Db, I don’t care if he’s white, female or gay!
posted by Brian Flynn on
Bobby writes: “I for example accept only those who think like me into my group”.
One can only hope this is a very small group, though in my more despairing days I worry that it is larger than I would like to believe.
posted by fisby on
of course,RainbowVision should just accept gays, lesbian and bisexual.it should reject straight people. its their private space.no need to deal with crowed.http://www.gkiss.com/photo/wayland
posted by Bobby on
Actually Brian, it’s quite a big group, a lot of people like the fact that I’m not a stereotipical democratic party loving gay.
Hey ETJB,
“Do you wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964?”
—Either repeal it or stop adding categories. Enough is enough.
“Disability was added (federally) in 1990.”
—Yes, and cities have been forced to spend fortunes making every building handicapable. Not to mention those annoying handicaped spots.
“We are talking about equal opportunity in certain sectors of society and based on certain factors. This is what civil rights legislation is all about.”
—It’s still discrimination. Are blacks superior to fat people or white people? Should a black man get hired while a fat man gets fired? Do you support quotas? I don’t see African American ad agencies going out of their way to hire black people. Yet they’re always demanding that mainstream agencies hire more minorities. Ironically, I work in a hispanic agency, from your point of view, my company should hire copywriters who dont speak Spanish just for diverisity’s sake.
“While I can not give you legal advice, I am pretty sure that you do not have to have sex with everyone that asks you.”
—Of course I don’t, I discriminate. I CHOOSE. Freedom to choose is more important than equal opportunity.
“Well, then why do you care about those LGBT Seniors? ”
—Because someday I might be a senior and I want to have the choice of a 100% gay retirement community.
“Heck, why not kill yourself now?”
—Very funny, I happen to enjoy life, specially debating the likes of you.
“Most LGBT senior centers tend to be for people of a certain socioeconomic class, that does not often include “cheap”.”
—Well, research the price of living in that community. We don’t know if it’s enough to get a social security paycheck to live there, or if it’s more expensive. It’s a well known fact that most baby boomers are loaded, they’ve had their entire lifes to save money for their retirement, invest, and do other things. The grey market is a viable market, often ignored by mainstream advertisers but a cash cow for many industries, such as cruises, fine restaurants, real estate, and more.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
There are so many things wrong with bobby’s posting…but this one really stood out.
“It’s a well known fact that most baby boomers are loaded…”
Are you joking? If not, please try harder not to sound completely brain-dead.
posted by Brian Miller on
how evii equal opportunity is
How are government-mandated quotas that exclude heterosexuals or gay people from certain spaces “equal?”
This Orwellian newspeak has GOT to stop.
Special-rights laws that guarantee people of a certain race, gender, ethnicity or other status aren’t “equal opportunity laws.” They’re SPECIAL opportunity mandates.
We were talking about equal opportunity in housing based on sexual orientation.
Good lord. Has the Democratic Party so rotted your brain that you don’t see the irony in this sentence?
“Equal opportunity” that is “based on sexual orientation” isn’t equal opportunity. By default. When sexual orientation is factored in by government central planners, with respective quotas, rules, etc., it’s not about equality at all. It’s about special opportunities for supposedly aggrieved minorities.
“Equal opportunity” means the ability for anyone with money to go in and bid for the housing being offered. And even that isn’t necessarily a good thing if the house was built for a specific mandate — such as battered women, gay seniors, African Americans, etc. Of course, that’s all in the Constitution, so it’s not going to matter much to you, but still. . .
By your suggestion – I should be able to. And yet, there is a universal recognition it’s inherently wrong for the majority to discriminate in such a fashion.
Logical fallacy — and a great example of how the left’s willingness to violate the Constitution to get what it wants laid the groundwork for the right to do the same under George W. Bush.
Apartments, etc. are private property. Private property rights include the right to rent, not rent, sell or not sell based on any criterion the owner wishes.
While it is indeed vulgar in the extreme to discriminate openly on such a basis, it’s equally vulgar for government to start mandating to all private property owners how they shall manage their private property.
Once you negated their constitutional rights as to how they can manage their property, you created a precedent now used by the Bush administration to negate your constitutional right to habeus corpus. How you Demopublicans can’t see this is beyond me.
Are you joking?
Actually, comparatively speaking, he’s right.
Boomers will have earned more over their lifetimes than the generation following them (Generation X) and Generation Y alike.
They will have had more fiscal power — including spending power — than any other generation alive.
Now, many of them squandered it on McMansions and Lincoln Navigators and plasma TVs, but that’s their problem. They had (and have) more spending power than anyone else — the classic American definition of wealth. That they chose to SPEND all that spending power rather than divert something into savings — assuming that impoverished Xers and Yers would pick up their slack and pay for a comfy retirement for them — is immaterial.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
“Boomers will have earned more over their lifetimes than the generation following them (Generation X) and Generation Y alike.”
Sources Please. I have never seen a study that supports what you and bobby are saying here.
posted by ETJB on
First off all, civil rights legislation for gay people is NOT quotas. Second off all, affirmative action is not quotas either. Get you facts straight before you start pandering to Ayn Rand fantasies.
“This Orwellian newspeak has GOT to stop.”
Agreed. Why don’t you people just stop the bs?
“Special-rights”
Again, civil rights legislation is not ‘special rights’. If a law prohibitions discrimination on the account of race then it applies to all races…if if it is sexual orientation then it applies to both gays and straights.
Why can’t you just come out and admit that you reject equal opportunity, civil rights legislation and want to take America back to pre-1964?
“”Equal opportunity” means the ability for anyone with money to go in and bid for the housing being offered.”
That is an important part of it. It also means that some one will not be denied a house (or apartment) for certain reasons, i.e. race.
If you want to abolish civil rights and take America back to pre-1964, then admit it. Admit that you want to live in some right-wing libertarian loony land.
Civil rights laws generally exclude a small business. Sexual orientation generally excludes religious groups. Do you even bother to check your facts?
BTW, opposing equal opportunity and civil rights it is NOT in the Federal Constitution. I suppose you plan on telling me that the Federal Income Tax Amendment was not ratified and that no law exists requirng people to file?
Civil rights laws are certainly constitutional, as are hate crime laws. Your attempt to put me in some cliche ‘left’ box, aside, I know what the constitution says and I think that the government should follow it.
“Apartments, etc. are private property.”
Yeah, and the federal government (and states) have the power to regulate private property. If you disagree then admend the constitution or run for office.
You will not find many ‘private property rights’ in the Federal Constitution. I doubt you will find it in many state constitutions. You are promoting one of the many little inventions of right-wing libertarians.
Yes, the government cannot take property without ‘due process’ of the law. But that is different from the notion that the government cannot regulate private property or the economy.
posted by ETJB on
Booby;
You seek to repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please, go crawl into your KKK outfit. America was not a ‘free’ nation before the law was enacted.
Actually no. Cities have to gradually spend money making certain buildings accessible to citizens who are disabled.
Private businesses to a limited degree.
“Those annoying handicaped spots.”
So, we should add your bigotry against the disabled, as well as to just about everyone else who is not rich, white and straight?
“It’s still discrimination.”
Um, no. Civil rights, different from AA, is about nondiscrimination.
“Are blacks superior to fat people or white people?”
Race (white and black) is covered by civil rights laws. Weight discrimination is generally covered. Do you feel it should be? Well, change the law.
“I work in a hispanic agency.”
Do you know that you oppose equal opportunity and civil rights?
“From your point of view, my company should hire copywriters who dont speak Spanish just for diverisity’s sake.”
Nope. Do you even bother to check your facts, or do you just type these posts intoxicated and reading Ayn Rand novels?
“Freedom to choose is more important than equal opportunity.”
If you want to repeal the law, then start up your own group to oppose civil rights and equal opportunity. Oh, wait the KKK will probably not let you join.
“Because someday I might be a senior and I want to have the choice of a 100% gay retirement community.”
Well, their are ways to do that, with civil rights legislation. You clearly do not understand the law.
“It’s a well known fact that most baby boomers are loaded.”
Ah, more BS.
posted by Bobby on
“It’s a well known fact that most baby boomers are loaded…”
Are you joking? If not, please try harder not to sound completely brain-dead.
—-Tell me ColoradoPatriot? Do you work in marketing? Do you read Adweek, Adage? I mean, you don’t believe boomers have money? Fine, do your own fucking research and then insult me if you want.
“You seek to repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please, go crawl into your KKK outfit.”
America was not a ‘free’ nation before the law was enacted.”
—Ever heard of federalism? Each state doing what they want? From your point of view, I would have to say that America is still not a free nation because some states have higher taxes than other states.
“Actually no. Cities have to gradually spend money making certain buildings accessible to citizens who are disabled. Private businesses to a limited degree.”
—Who says? This is just like the foot baths for muslims in the Minnesota airport! We’re letting minorities force their way of life on the rest of us.
“So, we should add your bigotry against the disabled, as well as to just about everyone else who is not rich, white and straight?”
—Don’t be stupid, all I care is about ideology. There’s plenty of rich, white, straight liberals. But I guess a racist like you wouldn’t see it that way. To you all blacks are poor democrats and all whites are rich republicans. What a simplistic way to see the world. I’m not against the cripples, I’m just against my tax dollars being wasted on them.
“Weight discrimination is generally covered. Do you feel it should be? Well, change the law.”
—No, it’s is not covered. In fact, some jobs have weight, height and age requirenments. And if you’re an actor, forget it, you can’t sue Hollywood because you want to play King Lear and the director would rather use a white actor.
“Do you know that you oppose equal opportunity and civil rights?”
—I support FREEDOM! Freedom to say what you want and not be charged with a hate crime, freedom to hire and fire people as you see fit, freedom to control what your children are taught in school, freedom to cut a tree in your garden and not put up with the EPA because an endangered rat lives in that tree. Freedom to carry a gun, shoot a criminal that attacks me, and not go to jail for it.
“If you want to repeal the law, then start up your own group to oppose civil rights and equal opportunity.”
—No, I’m just gonna keep voting republican, eventually we’ll control SCOTUS and run the country as we see fit.
“Well, their are ways to do that, with civil rights legislation. You clearly do not understand the law.”
—Actually, with civil rights legislation the retirement community would have to be open to EVERYONE, so it wouldn’t be a gay retirement community. Capish? Imagine a bathhouse that had to allow straight people to join? Or a gay strip bar that had to allow women to strip? Get it? Involuntary diversity doesn’t work.
Now, Rodney King might have asked “Can’t we all just get along?” We can, it’s very easy, just tell your liberal friends to stop forcing their values on Normal America.
Sometimes I think California should seecede from the union, but that’s another topic.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
bobby: “Do you work in marketing?”
Nope, I’m an economist. Got any sources for your claims or are you just making shit up again?
bobby: “I mean, you don’t believe boomers have money? Fine, do your own fucking research and then insult me if you want.”
You made the claim fucko, all I asked for was some sources. Maybe you can consult one of your favorite mediums or spiritualists on the matter?
bobby: “This is just like the foot baths for muslims in the Minnesota airport! We’re letting minorities force their way of life on the rest of us.”
How have the foot-baths personally affected you?
bobby: “I’m just gonna keep voting republican, eventually we’ll control SCOTUS and run the country as we see fit.”
Yeah!! Who needs checks and balances anyway? Fuck that noise!!
You are fucking scary dude…seriously deranged and in need of help.
posted by Brian Miller on
Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that ETJB is interested in a real conversation. He’s just indulging himself in proving his moral superiority through his generosity with other people’s money, his infinite willingness with other people’s HR policies, and his eternal demand that one’s livelihood and housing come from government quotas and not personal achievement.
posted by Bobby on
“Nope, I’m an economist. Got any sources for your claims or are you just making shit up again?”
—No wonder you don’t know shit about marketing. Here’s some sources, Mr. Economist.
“Every creative director knows that the over-50s – currently 20 million strong, and growing fast – hold 80% of the nation’s wealth.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4019965.stm
“UNITED STATES MATURE MARKET
Larger than African-American and Hispanic market segments combined.
The most affluent of any age segment
Account for 80% of all luxury travel
Spend $7 billion online annually
Adults 50+ control a household net worth of $19 trillion.”
http://www.suddenlysenior.com/seniorfacts.html
“How have the foot-baths personally affected you?”
—It doesn’t matter how it has affected me. This was done with money that belongs to the taxpayers. I am a taxpayer, I don’t want my money wasted on bullshit. If muslims want to pray, they can go to a mosque. An airport is not a fucking mosque, and if they want to wash their feet, they can use a sink, or the toilets for all I care.
“You are fucking scary dude…seriously deranged and in need of help.”
—You ought to call yourself ColoradoLiberal. What exactly is patriotic about you? You probably live in People’s Republic of Boulder.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid, asshole.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Thanks for the links…not much of substance there though. Certainly not enough info to back up your ridiculous statement that, “all baby boomers are loaded”. Do you base all of your theories on information from the United Kingdon or just your bullshit economic statistics? I know that it is hard for a marketing genius like yourself to see beyond the impact of advertising but, how about some links that are based on supportable and documented statistics?
PS
Why the anger bobby? I don’t impugn your supposed “patriotism” based on the insipid and uneducated drivel you spew here, why not extend the same courtesy to me? Your judgment and condemnation of me, someone you know little to nothing about, is not very Christian of you.
posted by ETJB on
I do not think that anyone here said that boomers do not have money, only to question the notion that boomers are all super rich.
I have asked people to point to where in the U.S. Constitution it says that citizens can do whatever they want with their own property. Now, the scam is ‘federalism’.
Ok, were in the Constitution does it say that states can do whatever they want?
“We’re letting minorities force their way of life on the rest of us.”
Spoken like a true bigot. To you, equal opportunity bad. Civil rights are evil and the world revolves around you.
“To you all blacks are poor democrats”
Nope. I never said that. Most be another one of your lies.
“All whites are rich republicans.”
Nope. I never said that. Most be another one of your lies.
“I’m just against my tax dollars being wasted on them.”
Well, then elect your Congressman.
I meant to say (clearly) weight discrimination is generally NOT covered.
“I support FREEDOM!”
No, you support libertoonyism and right-wing sound bytes, half-truths and sheer lies.
“Freedom to say what you want and not be charged with a hate crime.”
So, then you have no problem if I said (hypothetical) “I know where you live and will come and kill you” That should be protected speech in your mind?!
“Freedom to hire and fire people as you see fit.”
That may be your opinion, but given the little electoral success the Libertarian Party has had, dont waste your breath.
Equal opportunity is constitutional law.
“Freedom to control what your children are taught in school.”
Ah, more young terrorist schools!
“No, I’m just gonna keep voting republican, eventually we’ll control SCOTUS and run the country as we see fit.”
Well, few Republicans want to repeal Civil Rights laws and given the current Presidential primary, the party is likely to become more socially liberal.
But, it sounds like you are more interested in a dictatorship then anything else.
“Actually, with civil rights legislation the retirement community would have to be open to EVERYONE.”
No, not really no. Again, you clearly do not understand civil rights laws.
Normally America? You are certainly not normal in the eyes of your own party.