Pelosi's a dick.

...and it's bigger than Dotard's.

For sure

Another Bear said:

---

Hahaha...Nixon and Eisenhower were beyond Socialists in context of today's GOP. That's how crazy and insane the GOP have become. They're freakin' aiding and abetting TREASON and working with the Russkies, if not fully participating now.

Have to break the negative connotations of the word in the U.S. Shared but dispersed risk is is a great model if it can benefit many, like healthcare, credit unions and the like.

I see socialism (if by a different name) making a comeback. Gen Z will bring it. Making $100k+ and never being able to buy a house ($1m+ median) will do that.

---

Hate to tell you, but that's only the case in states run by Democrats, like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. In Republican--run states like Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, etc. You can buy a median-priced house for a helluva lot less than $1,000,000; in fact, for a helluva lot less than $500,000.

Coincidence is not causation, genius.

...and you end up living in Texass, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska. That might be okay for conservatives but it's no way for a CALIFORNIAN to live. My sister lives in Colorado in a nice house, great area near Boulder, great job, nice people, great outdoors...and she wants to get the EF back home. Given a choice, who the EF choose a fly over state?

Golden One said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Hahaha...Nixon and Eisenhower were beyond Socialists in context of today's GOP. That's how crazy and insane the GOP have become. They're freakin' aiding and abetting TREASON and working with the Russkies, if not fully participating now.

Have to break the negative connotations of the word in the U.S. Shared but dispersed risk is is a great model if it can benefit many, like healthcare, credit unions and the like.

I see socialism (if by a different name) making a comeback. Gen Z will bring it. Making $100k+ and never being able to buy a house ($1m+ median) will do that.

---

Hate to tell you, but that's only the case in states run by Democrats, like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. In Republican--run states like Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, etc. You can buy a median-priced house for a helluva lot less than $1,000,000; in fact, for a helluva lot less than $500,000.

---

In other words, people actually want to live in blue states and drive up the prices.

sycasey said:

---

In other words, people actually want to live in blue states and drive up the prices.

---

Very sane response, Sycasey. Just sayin'.

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

AunBear89 said:

---

Coincidence is not causation, genius.

---

Sorry, Einstein. It's obviously difficult for you to accept the truth.

Another Bear said:

---

...and you end up living in Texass, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska. That might be okay for conservatives but it's no way for a CALIFORNIAN to live. My sister lives in Colorado in a nice house, great area near Boulder, great job, nice people, great outdoors...and she wants to get the EF back home. Given a choice, who the EF choose a fly over state?

---

Yes, it's true that California has more natural beauty and a much better climate than any of these other states, but God gave California that advantage, not it's political leadership. The other states have it better than California in most other characteristics. Lower taxes, less traffic, better roads and freeways, lower cost of living, less burdensome regulations, etc. If your sister has been out of California for a number of years, she probably hasn't experienced it's many disadvantages of today. And she probably couldn't afford a home in the Bay Area today, especially in Silicon Valley.

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Hahaha...Nixon and Eisenhower were beyond Socialists in context of today's GOP. That's how crazy and insane the GOP have become. They're freakin' aiding and abetting TREASON and working with the Russkies, if not fully participating now.

Have to break the negative connotations of the word in the U.S. Shared but dispersed risk is is a great model if it can benefit many, like healthcare, credit unions and the like.

I see socialism (if by a different name) making a comeback. Gen Z will bring it. Making $100k+ and never being able to buy a house ($1m+ median) will do that.

---

Hate to tell you, but that's only the case in states run by Democrats, like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, etc. In Republican--run states like Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, etc. You can buy a median-priced house for a helluva lot less than $1,000,000; in fact, for a helluva lot less than $500,000.

---

In other words, people actually want to live in blue states and drive up the prices.

---

Not exactly. The governmental entities have established regulations that inhibit the construction of new housing so that the demand for housing is greater than the supply. Thus, the price of housing skyrockets. That's exactly what's happening in Silicon Valley and in the East Bay. The actual influx of people into California has slowed down dramatically. The only people coming in today are well-paid high tech employees and illegal immigrants, and the latter are being subsidized by the taxpayers in the state.

Do you live in California? If you do, you should consider leaving for the greener pastures of Texass, Wyoming, Utah and the other great states you mention.

Another Bear said:

---

Do you live in California? If you do, you should consider leaving for the greener pastures of Texass, Wyoming, Utah and the other great states you mention.

---

Yes, I live in California. I'm a California native who hates to see how the state has been made less desirable by the policies of liberal politicians over the last 60 years. I'm retired now, but because of my job, I lived in Texas for 17 years; If it weren't for family drawing me back to California when I retired, I have to tell you that I would have stayed in Texas. Although the climate there sucks, the overall quality of life is better than that provided by California today. If you have never lived in Texas, you wouldn't understand, because you only believe all the California hype.

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

Yup as simple as supply and demand. You must be an econ prof.

That's really the best you got? "I know you are but what am I?"

And about your rant that high housing costs and COL are down to Libruls running the state? I don't know where to begin...

24 of last 35 years Republican Governor.

Your house and my house in California are worth so much money in large part because of policy and action of Republican controlled legislatures and conservative ballot measures.

It really hurts any credibility you think have when you say the first thing that comes to mind that insults and/or blames progressive voters and policies. Your palpable disgust with everything outside your tiny box of Conservative dogma is really disturbing.

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

AunBear89 said:

---

That's really the best you got? "I know you are but what am I?"

And about your rant that high housing costs and COL are down to Libruls running the state? I don't know where to begin...

24 of last 35 years Republican Governor.

Your house and my house in California are worth so much money in large part because of policy and action of Republican controlled legislatures and conservative ballot measures.

It really hurts any credibility you think have when you say the first thing that comes to mind that insults and/or blames progressive voters and policies. Your palpable disgust with everything outside your tiny box of Conservative dogma is really disturbing.

---

Wow! You've really gone off the deep end now. Do you actually believe the garbage you post? How many conservative governors and legislatures do you think California has had during the past 40 years? It's time for you to leave the fantasy world you're living in.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

---

These areas aren't popular because they're liberal, they're popular because of the weather and the beautiful natural landscape--in other words because of their God-given characteristics. The liberal politics of the area is its biggest negative.

And yet people keep coming JUST for the beauty. Bullsh*t....those millennials making $120k out of college work 65 hrs/wk and never see the sun.

They come for the opportunity and a economy that works. This has been the case since before the Gold Rush and continues to a major draw: JOBS in technology, media and innovative new industries. They come for the open mindedness (yeah that liburl stuff of legend) that goes with all those. The beauty is a bonus.

So, if Alabama had liberal policies and Bay Area had conservative policies, people here would move to Alabama? And the only thing keeping Mississippi real estate from blowing up to the sky is their conservative policy? And Orange County being popular and expensive despite their conservative politics is just a freak of nature and has nothing to do with the weather?

Do you folks really believe everything you write?

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

---

These areas aren't popular because they're liberal, they're popular because of the weather and the beautiful natural landscape--in other words because of their God-given characteristics. The liberal politics of the area is its biggest negative.

---

Not negative enough, evidently.

Though my opinion is that regions tend to become more liberal when a bunch of people from different places have to learn to live together.

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

---

These areas aren't popular because they're liberal, they're popular because of the weather and the beautiful natural landscape--in other words because of their God-given characteristics. The liberal politics of the area is its biggest negative.

---

Not negative enough, evidently.

Though my opinion is that regions tend to become more liberal when a bunch of people from different places have to learn to live together.

---

Yes, posters here and people in San Fransisco are so, so tolerant of different viewpoints. Diversity doesn't start and end with skin color. Diversity matters because, if we are open minded and are willing to consider other viewpoint and experiences, we all benefit. Don't see much of that among the liberal folks any more than the conservative folks.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

---

These areas aren't popular because they're liberal, they're popular because of the weather and the beautiful natural landscape--in other words because of their God-given characteristics. The liberal politics of the area is its biggest negative.

---

Not negative enough, evidently.

Though my opinion is that regions tend to become more liberal when a bunch of people from different places have to learn to live together.

---

Yes, posters here and people in San Fransisco are so, so tolerant of different viewpoints. Diversity doesn't start and end with skin color. Diversity matters because, if we are open minded and are willing to consider other viewpoint and experiences, we all benefit. Don't see much of that among the liberal folks any more than the conservative folks.

---

All viewpoints are worthy of being CONSIDERED. Once considered, not all are worthy of the same airtime.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I didn't quite say that but I get your point. High housing prices aren't back...if there's still a reasonable entry point which is now an issue). I think it's obvious people want to live in Blue States...but driving up housing prices is something else.

Housing prices in California are a combo of things...and you could write a book about it and still now get it all. It's a complex matter that involved a Great Recession, the dissolving of state urban redevelopment funds (Brown killed the fund to pay for stuff during the Recession), massive bank fraud, f v c k e d up loans. Then there's how market rate housing has dominated California develop since then...and has skewed prices even more, thus eliminating a very important entry level for most buyers.

Otherwise, yes people value great weather, diversity, culture and opportunity...and want to live where their families are. It's a great place and if people don't like it, please leave and make room for those who want to be here.

---

Let me write the Cliff Notes for that book of yours: it's a very simple matter of supply and demand, and supply in the CA housing market is severely throttled by NIMBYist anti-growth and anti-business policies, without which median housing price in the Bay Area would have been nearly half what it is today.

---

I do agree about NIMBYism being a problem. It's been long past time for the cities in the central Bay Area (S.F./Oakland/Berkeley) to increase housing stock.

At some point it will have to happen. There's only so far out into the suburbs a person can live and still reasonably commute to jobs in the city center.

That said, NIMBYism doesn't even come into play unless the area is an attractive place where people want to live. The Bay Area and other liberal enclaves clearly are.

---

These areas aren't popular because they're liberal, they're popular because of the weather and the beautiful natural landscape--in other words because of their God-given characteristics. The liberal politics of the area is its biggest negative.

---

Not negative enough, evidently.

Though my opinion is that regions tend to become more liberal when a bunch of people from different places have to learn to live together.

---

Yes, posters here and people in San Fransisco are so, so tolerant of different viewpoints. Diversity doesn't start and end with skin color. Diversity matters because, if we are open minded and are willing to consider other viewpoint and experiences, we all benefit. Don't see much of that among the liberal folks any more than the conservative folks.

---

All viewpoints are worthy of being CONSIDERED. Once considered, not all are worthy of the same airtime.

---

That's fine that you don't believe that certain viewpoint, after considering with an open mind, do not have significant merit. But i don't believe it is really your or others place to dictate worthiness of "airtime" in a public forum. That type of attitude results in the faulty thinking that certain viewpoint deserves to be shut down either literally or through bullying and mocking. Honestly, that is what happens here, and then folks acted shocked when civility breaks down and the same treatment is returned. You and disagree as much as two people can, but we try to generally be civil with each other.

Depends what you mean by "liberal." Voting for a corporate pimp like Clinton could be construed as liberal but it hardly describes any progress in the human condition.

San Francisco was always a "liberal" city but that described people of various ethnicities, races and more importantly classes living together cheek to Jowl. This liberalism was a tolerance for the human condition and eccentricity and for all walks of life.

Believe it or not, African Americans actually lived in San Francisco-13% at one time. Italians lived in North Beach before it became a Guido museum. Latinos lived in the Mission before tacos were reimagined by a chef from Orinda. Likewise, working class Chinese lived in Chinatown. All these populations have declined. The suburbs have won. San Francisco is declining in diversity and liberalism, not advancing.

Another Bear said:

---

And yet people keep coming JUST for the beauty. Bullsh*t....those millennials making $120k out of college work 65 hrs/wk and never see the sun.

They come for the opportunity and a economy that works. This has been the case since before the Gold Rush and continues to a major draw: JOBS in technology, media and innovative new industries. They come for the open mindedness (yeah that liburl stuff of legend) that goes with all those. The beauty is a bonus.

---

Yeah, open mindedness. Right. LOL!!

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Not negative enough, evidently.

Though my opinion is that regions tend to become more liberal when a bunch of people from different places have to learn to live together.

---

Yes, posters here and people in San Fransisco are so, so tolerant of different viewpoints. Diversity doesn't start and end with skin color. Diversity matters because, if we are open minded and are willing to consider other viewpoint and experiences, we all benefit. Don't see much of that among the liberal folks any more than the conservative folks.

---

Exactly. Liberal people are among the least tolerant in our population. If you think like them, you're fine. If you don't you're a racist, fascist, bigot, etc. Sad.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Depends what you mean by "liberal." Voting for a corporate pimp like Clinton could be construed as liberal but it hardly describes any progress in the human condition.

San Francisco was always a "liberal" city but that described people of various ethnicities, races and more importantly classes living together cheek to Jowl. This liberalism was a tolerance for the human condition and eccentricity and for all walks of life.

Believe it or not, African Americans actually lived in San Francisco-13% at one time. Italians lived in North Beach before it became a Guido museum. Latinos lived in the Mission before tacos were reimagined by a chef from Orinda. Likewise, working class Chinese lived in Chinatown. All these populations have declined. The suburbs have won. San Francisco is declining in diversity and liberalism, not advancing.

---

You're exactly right.

sycasey said:

---

All viewpoints are worthy of being CONSIDERED. Once considered, not all are worthy of the same airtime.

---

Thank you! You have perfectly captured the essence of liberalism. In other words, "If you agree with me, you're worthy of airtime; if you don't you're not."

Holy ***** Golden One agrees.

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."

Lenin-

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

All viewpoints are worthy of being CONSIDERED. Once considered, not all are worthy of the same airtime.

---

Thank you! You have perfectly captured the essence of liberalism. In other words, "If you agree with me, you're worthy of airtime; if you don't you're not."

---

I'll note here that you didn't actually ask me what I thought wasn't "worthy of airtime," rather you jumped to a conclusion that it's merely "those who disagree with me." Not so.

There are two categories of views that I would say are generally not worthy of airtime:

1. Overtly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. views that seek to reduce the humanity of people based on factors they cannot control. Not worth my time.

2. Views that have long ago been debunked by all available scientific evidence. Flat Earthers, to name an extreme example.

In my opinion, the Republican Party has been trending too far in the direction of these two categories in their arguments. I know, not everyone agrees, and I wouldn't ever expect 100% agreement anyway. I'm just making clear that I'm not rejecting conservative arguments out of pure intolerance of conservatives. It's because, in my view, these arguments are not worth my time.

Now, to be clear, I do not advocate that the government actively restrict these people's rights to free speech. But I do think that once the argument has been considered and has run afoul of either of the above standards, I and anyone else are entirely justified in shunning those who continue to make such arguments. I'm sure that will look like intolerance to them, but it's really just considering a viewpoint, finding it wanting, and then moving on to more productive things.

IMO, that is largely what happens when a lot of people come together and share their views and life experiences in a large city (like S.F. or L.A. or NYC). Some of those views don't pass muster and fall to the bottom of the barrel. If those happen to represent most of the current "conservative" dogma, then so be it. Come up with better arguments.