[an]

[quote=zk][quote=AN][quote=zk]I was making a point, AN. Sure, you understand him. But do you agree with him? Do you fvcking hate liberals with a passion? Even if you don’t know them? Even if they might not even be liberals but merely have traits that flu and the other brainwashed assume only liberals possess?[/quote]You said nothing about agreeing. You said only nut jobs right wing lemmings will understand him. No, I don’t hate anything I don’t know. Be it right or left wingers. Everyone has their own opinion. Do I have to agree with everyone in order for me to see where they’re coming from? Are you telling me you don’t hate those Tea Party nut job with a passion w/out even knowing them?[/quote]

Yes, I’m telling you that I don’t hate those Tea Party nut jobs with a passion w/out even knowing them. I think they ought not to be reelected. I think their plans and their ideas are bad. I don’t think they have much foresight. I’ll admit I’m angry that they’re on the path to ruining our country. But I don’t hate them.[/quote]You’re angry at them and you call them names, but you don’t hate them? Fine, but what you described is just as bad. I don’t see much different at hating someone vs thinking they’re dumb/nut job/and are constant angry at them.

[an]

[quote=zk]I was making a point, AN. Sure, you understand him. But do you agree with him? Do you fvcking hate liberals with a passion? Even if you don’t know them? Even if they might not even be liberals but merely have traits that flu and the other brainwashed assume only liberals possess?[/quote]You said nothing about agreeing. You said only nut jobs right wing lemmings will understand him. No, I don’t hate anyone I don’t know. Be it right or left wingers. Everyone has their own opinion. Do I have to agree with everyone in order for me to see where they’re coming from? Are you telling me you don’t hate those Tea Party nut job with a passion w/out even knowing them? FYI, you yourself, just lump EVERYONE who are not a liberal into a nut job camp. So, are you really that different?

[an]

[quote=zk][quote=flu][quote=AN][quote=zk]I didn’t say they were victims, flu. I said (or at least implied) that they think they’re victims and that therefore you think they’re liberals.

You’ve gone off the deep end, flu. You’ve let the right-wing noise machine turn you into one of them. An angry, pathologically liberal-hating jackass with no remaining common sense or ability to think for himself.[/quote]You said only the crazies right wing nut would understand him. I don’t listen to AM radio, I don’t watch Fox (anything), I watch CNN, listen to KPBS, etc. and I understand him perfectly fine.[/quote]

funny thing is neither do I. Though these days I would avoid CNN, since they are just crazy these days..I go to BBC…[/quote]

BS[/quote]LOL

[an]

[quote=zk]I didn’t say they were victims, flu. I said (or at least implied) that they think they’re victims and that therefore you think they’re liberals.

You’ve gone off the deep end, flu. You’ve let the right-wing noise machine turn you into one of them. An angry, pathologically liberal-hating jackass with no remaining common sense or ability to think for himself.[/quote]You said only the crazies right wing nut would understand him. I don’t listen to AM radio, I don’t watch Fox (anything), I watch CNN, listen to KPBS, etc. and I understand him perfectly fine.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN]Does he car drivers brake check the bikes, then after the bike hit them, the other car drivers surround the biker, pound his bike with helmet and fist?[/quote]

I had a traffic ticket in the past and i remember from my defensive driving class that you need to be far enough back from the vehicle in front of you so you can brake safely. It’s your own responsibility because the vehicle in front may brake suddenly.

I have been in cars where the driver get enraged and starts yelling because a biker splits traffic and zooms by. Guess what? The biker is allowed to do that.[/quote]FYI, brake check is ILLEGAL. yelling is not hitting and slashing your tires.

[an]

[quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
I don’t really follow the story so I might be missing some information. I’m willing to be swayed one way or the other though[/quote]

Then get more familiar with the story before you start arguing. There are videos from the same author made earlier that day. There are character references. There are witness statements. What else do you need?[/quote]+1

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Flu, you’re a nutcase going on a rant about liberals and civil rights, etc..

We are trying to determine the facts here. Lots of presumptions, yes. But we are trying to understand the chain of events here. Nothing to do about race or politics.[/quote]I’ve posted a link to the chain of event. If you don’t believe them, then feel free to Google the event. It’s all over the web and news right now, so there’s no shortage of info.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flu]
fuck you.. [/quote]

Maybe that’s the attitude of the SUV driver as he met the group of bikers

So he’s surrounded by bikes… That’s how bikers feel about cars.[/quote]Does he car drivers brake check the bikes, then after the bike hit them, the other car drivers surround the biker, pound his bike with helmet and fist?

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN]
Never mind the fact that there are over 200 911 calls relating to this group blocking freeway on ramps, stopping traffic, etc. If they’re not troublemakers, then why do you think there are over 200 911 calls related to them? If you’re the young guy you’re describing, do you think there will be 200+ 911 calls against you?[/quote]

This one very group? Or similar groups in the same region?

I don’t really follow the story so I might be missing some information. I’m willing to be swayed one way or the other though[/quote]There are a lot of more info on the web. No point in regurgitating them here. If you’re interested, Google is your friend.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]You’re presuming that these bikers are troublemakers like the other bike gangs you saw on tv. There are lots of presumptions and few facts only analysis.

Assume you’re a young guy riding peacefully with your buddies. An SUV comes along and swipes a rider and keeps on driving. Would all the other guys not want to stop the SUV?[/quote]
Never mind the fact that there are over 200 911 calls relating to this group blocking freeway on ramps, stopping traffic, etc. If they’re not troublemakers, then why do you think there are over 200 911 calls related to them? If you’re the young guy you’re describing, do you think there will be 200+ 911 calls against you?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
This protection for owner-occupiers is the only subsidy that should exist (if any). It’s one thing to help people stay in their single, primary residences; it’s quite another to subsidize the profits of landlords, commercial/industrial property owners, and developers/owners of large tracts of land.

And it’s not just renters who pay these higher taxes and fees. We all do.[/quote]
Everybody pays for higher income and sales tax, but renters are the only one who don’t get prop 13 protection, while home owners do, so yeah, they’re the one who’s footing the bill w/out getting anything in return.

My argument is that if you truly believe in higher home ownership, then you should be banging the remove prop 13 completely for everyone drum. I can almost say w/ certainty that there are more long term home owners than long term landlords. I’m still waiting for data to back up your assertion that removing prop 13 just for landlord will somehow increase home ownership.

[an]

CAR, sorry but your logic doesn’t make any sense. If you think landlord who are not pay market value taxes are getting a subsidy, then the same logic also apply to home owners who are not paying market value taxes. Renters are the ultimate payers of these subsidies because they have to pay higher income and sales tax to subsidize those long time owners. It doesn’t matter if they live in the house or not.

[an]

Here’s some more info on what happened:

http://jalopnik.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-terrifying-suv-vs-1440131015

[an]

[quote=UCGal]Time to get excited again. Here’s the quote from the article:

Tesla is not standing still. It plans to add the Model X, a crossover derivative of the Model S, in late 2014. And in early 2017, it expects to unveil the first of its so-called Gen 3 models, a new family of battery-powered compacts with a range of 200-plus miles and priced from around $35,000.

I read that as TESLA is introducing a Gen 3 in 2017 that will be around $35k.

The Volt is already out and sells for about $35k. So this would be direct competition with the volt.

And I can’t imagine it would be uglier than the volt. (Which IMO is too ugly to ever own.)[/quote]Knowing Tesla’s marketing strategy, it probably mean it’ll be $45k before government subsidies.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]How are they subsidizing me? I’m paying full, market-rate property taxes.

Yes, my long-time LL was an original owner, and was kind enough to “share” the benefit of their Prop 13 subsidy with us by keeping us at below-market rents (started at market rate, and was raised after the first year, per the lease agreement, and then once by us over the years). But that’s because we were excellent tenants who paid rent 6-12 months in advance, handled (and paid for) all of the small repairs/maintenance, and many of the more expensive repair/maintenance items and upgrades…and raised our own rent in order to control the increase and maintain goodwill with the LL.

And yes, an increase in property taxes would most definitely make me reconsider holding onto a property that was older (and in need of more maintenance), and worth a lot of money. This is especially true if other investments begin to look relatively more lucrative given the carrying costs — including the higher property taxes — and risks of keeping the home vs. more passive investments.

We are watching this closely because we’re probably going to inherit a couple of properties in desirable areas in the future. One of these is paid-off, and has been in the family for a couple of generations. Changes to Prop 13 for investment properties will absolutely factor into our decision-making process.

BTW, never said it would prevent current prospective landlords from buying, mostly just the long-time owners who are currently paying well below-market property taxes. Of course, in the desirable areas, there are very few “new” landlords because it’s rare for rents to cover the carrying costs of owning in these higher-cost areas, especially if the deal is financed.[/quote]They’re not subsidizing you right now because you just bought. Just like they’re not subsidizing the new landlord. But going forward, you’ll be paying less and less of your fair share, assuming housing price goes up more than 2% on average each year. You can easily go through all the older neighborhood and see people paying only a few hundred/year on a 1/2 million dollar house. Do you not think somehow that’s not a subsidy?

If you don’t think it prevent current prospective landlord, then what make you think it would increase the home ownership? FYI, those 45% who are renting would not be looking in the desirable areas, because they can’t even afford the cheaper area. So, the supply you’re upset for not being turning over will not help the current renters becoming home owners. The only way you can help those renters become home owners is to give them 0% down option and a drastically reduced price. If we see a drastically reduced price, you’ll again see plenty of people jumping in to be landlord, unless you somehow see a drastically reduced rent to go w/ that drastically reduced price. Logic is telling me what you’re proposing isn’t going to do what you said it would.

FYI, if I was given a paid off $1M house and my property tax was $1k and will go to $11k/year. I would no way in hell sell that. A few reason would be, if it’s a $1M house today, then it probably mean it’s in a desirable area and the area is all built out. So, I’m keeping it for future appreciation. Secondly, that $1M is probably renting for >$3k/month, so, although my cost went from $100/month to $1k/month because of taxes, it’s still WELL BELOW rent. So, I’m still making good profit. Thirdly, if a house has been in my family for many generation, why would I want be the duche generation that destroy that multigenerational legacy. So, while you might sell, I’m sure there are plenty who wouldn’t.

[Author]

Posts