Politics: J'accuse! - Page 247

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-06-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If apt buildings take over your McMansion neighborhood, you can move. Just like people whose apartments get too expensive can move, instead of getting rent-control passed as a LAW to protect them from the big scary market. Why do kids in single-family areas get nice lawns and stuff and kids in apartment areas dont' have the same protectible right to sunshine and fresh air?

Life's not fair. Zoing laws can't change that, but that does not mean they are unfair. Please stop now.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-06-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Zoning is the new polygamy. Someone had to fill the refreshing void left by Not Me's absence.

Curse you, GGG for this topic!

S_A_M

well, not really, except for those cabals of polygamists who want to claim they're a single family, despite 8 adults and 17 children, and therefore allowed to live in my neighborhood. If you want your light and fresh air, take it to St. George--plenty of it there.

LessinSF · 05-06-2004, 05:38 PM

Yet I can still get 2 for 1 offshore on Kerry.

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004 (1-Pay)

REPUBLICAN PARTY 59 63
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 37 41

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 05-06-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Zoning is the new polygamy. Someone had to fill the refreshing void left by Not Me's absence.

Curse you, GGG for this topic!

S_A_M

Wait a minute! I thought we were talking about rent control.

Enough.

Zoning out now.

Atticus Grinch · 05-06-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm guessing you're thinking of Euclid v. Ambler. But it was decided in 1926 (Lochner, indeed), when we still were accepting tired, poor huddled masses, the wretched refuse from the teeming shore of other countries.

This, by the way, was my unspoken objection to the argument that rent control causes substandard housing notwithstanding habitability laws --- or made habitibility laws suddenly necessary --- and by contrast free markets create quality housing in the absence of habitibility laws and make all such laws unnecessary.

I don't think the tenements being photographed by Jacob Riis were rent controlled.

Not Flinty · 05-06-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Zoning is the new polygamy. Someone had to fill the refreshing void left by Not Me's absence.

Curse you, GGG for this topic!

I like the way we are breaking along different lines, though.

(Yr pal, Ty.)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-06-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't think the tenements being photographed by Jacob Riis were rent controlled.

I'm sure they had the scrilla to afford the Class A apartment units, though.

Not Flinty · 05-06-2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
Yet I can still get 2 for 1 offshore on Kerry.

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004 (1-Pay)

REPUBLICAN PARTY 59 63
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 37 41

Ruy Teixeira says:

Note also that, continuing a pattern I've noted of late, Kerry is doing better in the battleground states than overall. In an LV Kerry-Bush-Nader matchup (the only relevant data Gallup provides), Kerry is ahead of Bush by 4 points (48-44) in the "purple states", while tied in the national race.

As you know, I'm not a betting guy, but if I were, 2 to 1 would be pretty good odds. Are you putting money down?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-06-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Flinty
Ruy Teixeira says:

Note also that, continuing a pattern I've noted of late, Kerry is doing better in the battleground states than overall. In an LV Kerry-Bush-Nader matchup (the only relevant data Gallup provides), Kerry is ahead of Bush by 4 points (48-44) in the "purple states", while tied in the national race.

As you know, I'm not a betting guy, but if I were, 2 to 1 would be pretty good odds. Are you putting money down?

I agree that 2 to 1 is pretty good.

But why does even the overall % in purple states matter? The current percents in each of the purple states and their attendant electoral votes is the count that matters.

Flinty_McFlint · 05-06-2004, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Flinty
I like the way we are breaking along different lines, though.

(Yr pal, Ty.)

I think this is the only way you could have gotten me to post/read the PB. That said, I will leave with something non-confrontational. GO NADER!

LessinSF · 05-06-2004, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Flinty
As you know, I'm not a betting guy, but if I were, 2 to 1 would be pretty good odds. Are you putting money down?

I did - two contracts at $41 to win $200. Now I have a reason to root for more Bush league fuck-ups in Iraq.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 05-06-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
I did - two contracts at $41 to win $200. Now I have a reason to root for more Bush league fuck-ups in Iraq.

Isn't the way to do this to place a bet offshore at 2:1 for $50,000 and a contrary bet onshore at even odds for $75,000? Or is no one taking even odds (OK, I've got her soul, but other than that). Either way you win.

Not Flinty · 05-06-2004, 07:13 PM

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York joined the chorus of Democrats calling for Rumsfeld to step down or for Bush to fire him. If neither happens, Rangel said, Congress should impeach the defense secretary "for withholding from the president, Congress and the American people information on the abuses at the Iraqi prison."

That seemed extremely unlikely in a Congress under Republican control.

SF Gate

Hard for me to believe that Rummy will lose his job over this. Among other things, he's too much in Cheney's camp. And I would think Bush would see it as a sign of weakness to be avoided before an election. If there was a way to pin this on Powell, it might be a good way to boot his ass, but State wasn't anywhere near those prisons.

Hank Chinaski · 05-06-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
Yet I can still get 2 for 1 offshore on Kerry.

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004 (1-Pay)

REPUBLICAN PARTY 59 63
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 37 41

the nat'l polls are counter-intuitive. bush being even in electoral should be winning popular easily. he won several state by extreme margins 70%, but lost popular. I don't get the math. I know he lost several huge state by 5-7%, but if electoral is an approximation of population, then the huge margins in several places should outweight the comfortable margins in a few, right?

anyway, this one boils down to Kerry needs to hold EVERY one gore won, plus win Fla, or at least turn 2-3 smaller ones. The census shift gave the Bush state 6-7 more votes, so repeat of 2000 becomes a more comfortable win.

Ty. can you find a blog that looks at the electorla right now?

Hank Chinaski · 05-06-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Flinty

Rangel said, Congress should impeach the defense secretary "for withholding from the president, Congress and the American people information on the abuses at the Iraqi prison."

That seemed extremely unlikely in a Congress under Republican control.

SF Gate

can congress impeach a cabinet secretary- i mean not counting Gethard'sexecutive oder powers?