Anarchistbear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Who's leaving?
1) Retirees. That's likely an economic consideration. Lots of places in the country are congenial and less expensive
2) African- Americans. Economic and cultural. Atlanta and Houston are much better for both than Fairfield
3) Techoles. Mostly transients attracted to shiny things. Ostrich Skin Boots and Music scene in Nashville or Austin beats San Francisco plus you can afford a house

---

California politics and taxes suck but I'm staying put. The weather is just too damn good and we have the nicest scenery. Any extra cost for living here I'll chalk up to a "vacation tax." That said, it is extremely difficult for a young person to gain a foothold here because of the cost.

---

You can't match the combination of weather and physical beauty and ecosystems- deserts, mountains, rainforests, seashore, anywhere. I spend a number of months a year in the South which is more interesting culturally but doesn't offer anything close to all that.

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Big C said:

---

Hey, everybody hates California, just like everybody makes fun of blonds and the French. Just the other day, my father-in-law said, "Damn California." Why? Because he very much wants to move here, but can't afford a house in this market.

In fact, that's why my piss ant house is worth so much... because everybody hates California.

Wait, do I have the economics correct?

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I guess when those right wing outlets like the LA Times or NPR are running segments on the California exodus, that is cool. There seems to be this misunderstanding that people in the media come-up with anything new, especially internet twits that only seem to be able to retweet what other say. Our NPR station did essentially the same rant as Kennedy, but with a bunch of college professors saying things in much more PC terms. It's a popular topic, because the alternative is the vaccine roll out (yes, it sucks) or impeachment all the time (yes, Trump sucks), and no one really has any new information or opinions to share. So line-up the California exodus piece.

I live in California despite everything, because I think it is the best place to live. People that live in California tend to ***** about California always blind to its benefits. Yes, there has been a lot to complain about the last few years with fires, floods, roving blackouts, housing shortages, traffic (pre-COVID), etc. But there are reasons it is the most populated states. Even the Eagles *****ed about how it all had gone down hill in 1976 (listen to the Last Resort - we find something good, but destroyed it by our presence) and where do the non-deceased Eagles members live? You got it, Southern California.

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I remain optimistic that when the public is fully engaged on the issue these morons will have their asses handed to them.

---

SFBear92 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I remain optimistic that when the public is fully engaged on the issue these morons will have their asses handed to them.

---

I can see an argument for it if the new names are going to be more reflective of the community the school is in, rather than honoring someone for being a hero. I agree with the guy who said schools shouldn't be named after people.

In accordance with that philosophy, I propose that Stanford University be named to Palo Alto University to avoid offending anyone who maybe thinks that Leland Stanford wasn't a hero. I also think Hoover Tower should be renamed as well.

---

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I remain optimistic that when the public is fully engaged on the issue these morons will have their asses handed to them.

---

I can see an argument for it if the new names are going to be more reflective of the community the school is in, rather than honoring someone for being a hero. I agree with the guy who said schools shouldn't be named after people.

In accordance with that philosophy, I propose that Stanford University be named to Palo Alto University to avoid offending anyone who maybe thinks that Leland Stanford wasn't a hero. I also think Hoover Tower should be renamed as well.

---

If the argument is to have no schools named after people at all, I can see it. The approach taken by SFUSD seems considerably more willy-nilly than that. It's more like: find anything bad any of these people have done and recommend the name comes down. That's not a workable standard for naming things after historical figures.

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

It's surprising to me how many people think our grandparents were oppressive and un-American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced.

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I hope you're right.

---

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I hope you're right.

---

At least 3/4 of the schools (like Lincoln), it's cringe-worthy to hear they want to change the name. National laughing stock stuff. For the time being, they should call each of those schools some version of "Not Open".

Then, when they get on with this, instead of deciding to not name schools after people anymore (not a bad idea), they are going to dig up some woke hero and name the school after them, which will last until they discover that said hero did something bad at some point during their life.

---

LMK5 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

It's surprising to me how many people think our grandparents were oppressive and un-American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced.

---

Lots of things used to be regulated: Airline fares; stock trade commissions; liquor prices; what a retailer could sell on Sunday, etc. That's largely been abandoned. The problem with regulating thought is that the person or persons regulating it are appointed by the present administration. That, in and of itself, would tend to bias what one might see as truth or facts.

Here's a case in point: If you notice, news organizations no longer use the phrase "illegal alien" even though it was commonplace very recently. They changed the phrase to "illegal immigrants." But now, there is no "illegal" in the phrase--they're all "immigrants." That includes the people who waited years to enter legally and the ones who walked across the border. It's a clear attempt by the media to remove from the viewers' and listeners' minds any distinction between people who followed the law and those that didn't. The goal, of course, is to soften the public's view of the illegals in the hope they'll be more sensitive to their cause. This kind of equivalency would have to be regulated. Would that bother you?

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

It's surprising to me how many people think our grandparents were oppressive and un-American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced.

---

Lots of things used to be regulated: Airline fares; stock trade commissions; liquor prices; what a retailer could sell on Sunday, etc. That's largely been abandoned. The problem with regulating thought is that the person or persons regulating it are appointed by the present administration. That, in and of itself, would tend to bias what one might see as truth or facts.

Here's a case in point: If you notice, news organizations no longer use the phrase "illegal alien" even though it was commonplace very recently. They changed the phrase to "illegal immigrants." But now, there is no "illegal" in the phrase--they're all "immigrants." That includes the people who waited years to enter legally and the ones who walked across the border. It's a clear attempt by the media to remove from the viewers' and listeners' minds any distinction between people who followed the law and those that didn't. The goal, of course, is to soften the public's view of the illegals in the hope they'll be more sensitive to their cause. This kind of equivalency would have to be regulated. Would that bother you?

---

You moved the goalposts quite rapidly away from oppressive and un-American

---

LMK5 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

It's surprising to me how many people think our grandparents were oppressive and un-American

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced.

---

Lots of things used to be regulated: Airline fares; stock trade commissions; liquor prices; what a retailer could sell on Sunday, etc. That's largely been abandoned. The problem with regulating thought is that the person or persons regulating it are appointed by the present administration. That, in and of itself, would tend to bias what one might see as truth or facts.

Here's a case in point: If you notice, news organizations no longer use the phrase "illegal alien" even though it was commonplace very recently. They changed the phrase to "illegal immigrants." But now, there is no "illegal" in the phrase--they're all "immigrants." That includes the people who waited years to enter legally and the ones who walked across the border. It's a clear attempt by the media to remove from the viewers' and listeners' minds any distinction between people who followed the law and those that didn't. The goal, of course, is to soften the public's view of the illegals in the hope they'll be more sensitive to their cause. This kind of equivalency would have to be regulated. Would that bother you?

---

You moved the goalposts quite rapidly away from oppressive and un-American

---

Nonetheless, you agree?

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I guess when those right wing outlets like the LA Times or NPR are running segments on the California exodus, that is cool. There seems to be this misunderstanding that people in the media come-up with anything new, especially internet twits that only seem to be able to retweet what other say. Our NPR station did essentially the same rant as Kennedy, but with a bunch of college professors saying things in much more PC terms. It's a popular topic, because the alternative is the vaccine roll out (yes, it sucks) or impeachment all the time (yes, Trump sucks), and no one really has any new information or opinions to share. So line-up the California exodus piece.

I live in California despite everything, because I think it is the best place to live. People that live in California tend to ***** about California always blind to its benefits. Yes, there has been a lot to complain about the last few years with fires, floods, roving blackouts, housing shortages, traffic (pre-COVID), etc. But there are reasons it is the most populated states. Even the Eagles *****ed about how it all had gone down hill in 1976 (listen to the Last Resort - we find something good, but destroyed it by our presence) and where do the non-deceased Eagles members live? You got it, Southern California.

---

People are leaving California because of housing cost. Rather than fleeing liberal policies, they are turning the places they go more liberal. No matter how good something is, there is a price point at which it is no longer worth the premium. The housing prices have skyrocketed so long that it has reached the point that there needs to be a market adjustment. Combine that with COVID simultaneously giving some workers more flexibility to home office while seriously hurting the ability of others to continue to afford the premium.

---

Big C said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I hope you're right.

---

At least 3/4 of the schools (like Lincoln), it's cringe-worthy to hear they want to change the name. National laughing stock stuff. For the time being, they should call each of those schools some version of "Not Open".

Then, when they get on with this, instead of deciding to not name schools after people anymore (not a bad idea), they are going to dig up some woke hero and name the school after them, which will last until they discover that said hero did something bad at some point during their life.

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

People are leaving California because of housing cost. Rather than fleeing liberal policies, they are turning the places they go more liberal. No matter how good something is, there is a price point at which it is no longer worth the premium. The housing prices have skyrocketed so long that it has reached the point that there needs to be a market adjustment. Combine that with COVID simultaneously giving some workers more flexibility to home office while seriously hurting the ability of others to continue to afford the premium.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

The point in this thread I created is not whether CA is dying or thriving, worth living in or not.
It was a complaint about the Rightist channels who bash CA for attempted political gain. It's an attempt to smear the Blue state. It's an attempt to drive non-Californians away from the allure of the greatest state.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

1. Fox lies and shapes their opinions WAY more than CNN. If you disagree, then we'll simply agree to disagree.
2. I wasn't calling for state owned TV. I propose some sort of standards surrounding how 99% of Americans get their data. There must be truth in journalism, in print or on air.
3. Architects, electricians, doctors, lawyers.... they all must obtain licenses to practice and must adhere to standards. Not the case for tv anchors or politicians.

The nation's future depends on us cleaning up our swamps - lest an even bolder swamp beast rise up again. Media (mis)informs and feeds the swamp. I mean, come on, we've now got Q followers in Congress. That's just whack!

---

The solution is already there. The problem is that many people have a quaint notion of free speech that predates the internet. You don't need government intervention. The solution is you sue the shyte out of anyone that defames you. The framers never intended free speech to cover accusing people and organizations of running sex trafficking cabals.

Look at what is going on with right wing networks that have Dominion on their tails. They are falling all over themselves issuing detailed retractions hoping to avoid a lawsuit. They know Dominion has them by the balls. They flat out lost track of keeping themselves legally protected.

The Qanon bullshyte should have been dealt with and hopefully the Democratic party has learned its lesson. They should sue every damned person they can track down that posted that they are drinking children's blood. I don't care if it is some guy with a laptop living in his van. Take his van away and throw him on the street. If you don't know how, ask Disney.

Both parties should be fielding legal teams and monitoring the internet and news networks for defamatory lies against them or their members. You want to call someone a socialist or a fascist, fine. That is opinion. You want to say they drink children's blood, Thank you for donating your house to the political party. Networks should be getting cease and desist letters daily until they relearn the difference between opinion and slander.

The first amendment does not give you the right to defame or defraud people. I'm not one who normally thinks the solution is more lawyers, but in this case, the solution is more lawyers.

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

The point in this thread I created is not whether CA is dying or thriving, worth living in or not.
It was a complaint about the Rightist channels who bash CA for attempted political gain. It's an attempt to smear the Blue state. It's an attempt to drive non-Californians away from the allure of the greatest state.

---