Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (115363)	1/6/2016 10:57:15 PM
From: bart13	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219928

Indeed, another one of those inconvenient truths on San Francisco that exposes that the sh*t of both parties continually stinks badly in spite of the consistent lying PR attempts to whitewash it. Just watch what areas or people are always avoided and never mentioned. Much like the issues you brought up about San Francisco, we hear lots about the eeeeeeeeeevil Koch brothers but never anything about Soros or the other liberal money whales, who are obviously perfect in every way. /sarc There is only one true party that's nothing but kinder and gentler is the continual PR message, and of course debt doesn't matter... which conveniently ignores, amongst many other idiocies, that if interest on the debt didn't exist, over $400 billion more could be spent on their pet projects and to support entitlements. We'd have instant Nirvana if only they could spend as much as they want. /sarc

To: John Vosilla who wrote (115363)	1/7/2016 4:24:49 AM
From: clochard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219928

The paradoxes and contradictions of the SF Bay area will resolve themselves when the Big One hits.

To: John Vosilla who wrote (115363)	1/9/2016 3:45:16 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219928

re: The Bay Area's Progressive Paradox I learned a few things from this article: S.F. and the Bay Area as a whole highlight the myriad contradictions and hypocrisies that characterize many leftists. Understanding these contradictions is key to formulating an effective strategy for combating the liberal plague. This statement appears to be the conclusion, but I really think that it's the premise of the article. Foundationally, leftists are hypocrites, and other political groups are less so. This also implies non-leftists can formulate strategies against hypocrisy. It seems that if this were true, we could have done away with it some time ago. Something just tells me that growing numbers of regular people will notice that, in spite of the prevailing progressive ethos, their standards of living continue to diminish. I have to wonder what is this time frame of "continue to diminish." Do you think this is over the last 40-50 years, or maybe over the last 200 years. It would be interesting to read a poll from people under 40 compared to those over 50. I am forced guess that the definition of "regular people" means only those people with diminishing standards of living. Equivalently, anyone with an improving standard of living is no longer a "regular" person. Statistically, this means to me that those with higher education levels won't be considered as regular people given that definition. As much as liberals champion humanity in the abstract, the greed that permeates cities such as S.F. is rendering life increasingly unbearable for actual human beings. This seams to imply that only liberals are responsible for the unbearableness of living in SF for "actual" human beings. Does this mean that if living in SF is bearable, those people are not "actual" human beings. This appears to be an overly convenient definition. From my standpoint, the economic changes, good or bad, in any city will be from liberals and conservatives, and all stripes in between. San Francisco’s divide between the haves and have-nots would give Sheldon Adelson a wet dream. The implication here is that Sheldon Adelson wants wealth disparity. Is this right? He supports Republican candidates and the GOP. He gave $30mm to Rommey, $23mm to the GOP, $15mm to Gingrich. washingtonpost.com From the article's comment about being a wet dream, can you tell if the author thinks Adelson is a good buy or bad guy. You can't really call him a lefty. I've read from your posts that you're not fond of Zionists, or the Zionist-controlled media. Is this one of the guys you are referring to?