In 1995, current Fox News judicial commentator Andrew Napolitano left his seat on New Jersey’s Superior Court to begin a career as a news commentator. Napolitano told the Washington Times recently that the reason he left the judiciary is because “I really was tired of being poor.” His salary as a judge? $100,000 a year.
boo freakin’ hoo, ONLY a measely $100,000. What kind of cheese does he want with his whine?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pmSo tired of being poor and lying is sooo much more lucrative.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:22 pm1995
$100,000.-
Poor….
It does not add up…
January 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pmAnd of course he is sympathetic with the really poor, of course he is, he works for Faux Noise.
Oh wait, Faux Noise..er…no he doesn’t, he thinks the economy is great (for him).
Buck Fush
January 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pmMore proof that reich-wingers are out of touch with reality.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm“I was ‘poor’ at $100,000 a year”
- - Yeah, and not just financially poor.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pmApproximately 16% of US tax filing units receive over $100,000 per year in income according to the US Census Bureau.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pmHey, Andrew! Better quit feeding your camel so much–he’s looking pretty fat. That needle’s eye isn’t getting any wider…
January 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pmToo poor to borrow & get that vacation home lavishly furnished, Napolitano? I’m sure Fixed Noise will now take care of it for you.
“Poor no more” Napolitano gets on the gravy train with biscuit wheels, while U.S. families drown in bills to make ends meet…
January 18th, 2008 at 3:34 pmAnother Fox elitist who doesn’t have a clue about the average person.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pmGive the guy a break. Sheeeesh. Do you have any idea how much male gigolos cost in Jersey?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pmPoor di(kless bastard…
January 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pmi hate to say it, TP, but 100,000 doesn’t get you very far in most major american cities these days.
you’ll never be able to own a home in san francisco or manhattan with that salary. never, ever.
you may be able to buy a home in riverside or san bernadino.
maybe walnut creek. or white plains.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pmAnd who was he telling this to as he tried to gain some compassion for leaving the judiciary? Why the Rev. Moon newspaper! Tony Blankley, editor. Of course” Napolitano would feel comfortable in making his elitist “complaint.”
January 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm$100K in 1995 equals $135K today.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pmReminds me of Tony Snow, who had to quit lying to the press for the benefit of W, because he was also “poor.”
Tell that to the homeless guy sleeping in my alley last night.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pmWe’re talking ‘95 dollars? Double boo effin’ hoo. Try living within your means like all the rest of us, pal.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:41 pmRecently, a person that was a lawyer for the music business was laid off. She was making $300,000 a year. All the people around her were saying poor XXXX, she is ONLY going to be making $100,000 a year now. Now, being a struggling musician, and seeing how much unsigned talent is out there, I had ZERO sympathy for this person. This untalented boob is sucking off of musicians, making more than most. Ringo Starr just recently said that the music business is now run by lawyers and accountants, instead of musicians.
I see engineers and technicians are having to take $12 an hour jobs. Something is terribly wrong.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pmi hate to say it, TP, but 100,000 doesn’t get you very far in most major american cities these days.
you’ll never be able to own a home in san francisco or manhattan with that salary. never, ever.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Well, if you read the article it says he was a judge in New Jersey. I’m guessing he could afford a house, especially in 1995 when real estate was far cheaper than today. Also, we don’t know if there is other family income. The fact is that most American households need two working adults to buy a house. Suppose his wife earns $65K. Then together they earn $200K (in current dollars). But whatever, his own salary was enough to exceed the household income of approximately 90% of Americans. That is not poor. Period.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pmyou’ll never be able to own a home in san francisco or manhattan with that salary. never, ever.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pmf
Oh, and nobody forces anybody to live in these particular cities, which are not typical of “most major american cities these days.” People choose to live there according to their own financial means and willingness to sacrifice.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm$100K a year is poor? I should be so poor.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pmFor some people in some places $100,000 may not seem like much.
For other people, even in the same place…$100,000 would be over the moon!
But in our acquisitive little universe going down the tube….and degrading earth while we do it….more stuff seems to be the operative word until it is all gone. No mas.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pmMaybe he has 18 kids or a really expensive boat or a serious coke problem or something.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pmBush to proprose broad tax cuts
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pmgop judges are on the bench to make money. figure it out folks? there is no public service without promise of payment. bribery perhaps?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pmSounds familiar. Remember this?
“There’s not much that entices about the job,†[Clarence]Thomas said, answering questions from the public that provided a rare glimpse of the man behind the office. “There’s no money in it, no privacy, no big houses, and from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me.â€
Thomas, 59, said the position is satisfying because he feels he’s serving the public, and he’s honored by it, “but I wouldn’t say I like it.â€
January 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pmBrian Maloney (the radio equalizer) is at least guilty of “soft” racism - he deliberately doesn’t point out the full story of Grant’s racist remarks, and in one post on that website merely copies and pastes a commenter’s groundless refutation of Grant’s history as reported by FAIR.
Mind you, that comment he pasted came from a completely different site.
It’s the same kind of soft racism Sean Hannity expouses.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pmHis salary as a judge? $100,000 a year.
Not including bribes.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pmI realize that Washington DC is a rather high-cost city in which to live. Even so, I would have a considerably higher standard of living there with an income of $100K annually than I have now.
His definition of “poor” must be “not filthy rich”. If he had an opportunity for a bigger income and wanted to change jobs for that reason, he could have just said so. By saying that he was “tired of being poor” at his current salary, he insults the majority of us who manage to make it on far less.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pmMemo to Napolitano: Step away from the koolaid please.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm.
And I barely make 24k.
What does that make me?
Besides without healthcare?
.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pmI would take $100K and be very, very happy about it. (Even in 1995 dollars, too…)
January 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pmTry living in Los Angeles on a single income of less than $78,000.00 a year.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm#13, I own a home in the DC near-suburbs market (walking distance to a Metro) and make only 85% that (in 2008 dollars) - as a single person, single income plus some music gigs.
If I made $100,000k in 1995 dollars, that’s 58% more than I make now. I could probably buy in DC proper with that.
So yeah, not so much with the being true.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pmyou’ll never be able to own a home in san francisco or manhattan with that salary. never, ever.
you may be able to buy a home in riverside or san bernadino.
maybe walnut creek. or white plains.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
And that’s why Joe Average American (I promised I wouldn’t call him Joe Sixpack anymore) lives out in the suburbs and commutes. He’s got a decent enough house where he lives, but the gas prices are turning his commute into an expensive nightmare.
If Napolitano gets a better job with a fatter paycheck, more power to him. Maybe he can afford that lavish apartment at the Watergate now. But for him to whine about financial circumstances that are better than what most of us deal with is offensive.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pmI think what he was trying to say was that he was not responsible enough to manage his money. I’m sure that he was late on his bills all the time not because of a lack of money, rather a lack of discipline and will power. See, when Mommy and Daddy stop paying the bills for these brats, they grow up to be the ones who go bankrupt and have low credit scores.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm“I really was tired of being poor.â€
There were probably plenty of people in New Jersey who were tired of his being a judge.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI wonder what the people who taught his kids made
January 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pmi hate to say it, TP, but 100,000 doesn’t get you very far in most major american cities these days.
you’ll never be able to own a home in san francisco or manhattan with that salary. never, ever.
you may be able to buy a home in riverside or san bernadino.
maybe walnut creek. or white plains.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
And yet the median income in the nation is $60,000.
Only the top 15% of Americans earns more than $100,000. And the percentage of income in the hands of the wealthiest Amiercans is the highest it’s been since the 1920s.
Yeah, this is a GREAT economy.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:16 pm#30 and #35 Please note that he lived in New Jersey when he was a judge, not DC.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pmi am not opposed to people making large sums of money, and if they think they are “poor”, according to the the standards to which they aspire, then so be it.
to debate a man who thinks he is poor is……a waste of time in which TP seems to regularly engage.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:34 pmOh, and nobody forces anybody to live in these particular cities, which are not typical of “most major american cities these days.†People choose to live there according to their own financial means and willingness to sacrifice.
so your point is mine: people choose to live according to their own means. therefore, his claim that 100,000 is “poor” is valid according to the terms upon which his claim is made.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:36 pmto debate a man who thinks he is poor is……a waste of time in which TP seems to regularly engage.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Unless of course the debate examines the meaning of wealth. He who sees it as a possession is poor, he who shares his no matter how meager is rich. I learned this in Haiti. Maybe others should visit there
January 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pmPoor is a subjective term. I feel like the richest man alive.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pmUnless of course the debate examines the meaning of wealth. He who sees it as a possession is poor, he who shares his no matter how meager is rich. I learned this in Haiti. Maybe others should visit there
ok, jesus.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pmLooks to me like we have a concern troll in here.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pmso your point is mine: people choose to live according to their own means. therefore, his claim that 100,000 is “poor†is valid according to the terms upon which his claim is made.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
No, my point is not your point. The two are hardly connected. In fact, I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make. From what I can see, you are trying to twist the definition of poor into nonsense. Here is the definition according to the dictionary on my computer:
lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society
Read it a few times and let the meaning sink in.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:53 pmRead it a few times and let the meaning sink in.
this man lacks sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable by himself.
if you think that his standard is unreasonable, or not poor enough, then perhaps you should join the edwards’ campaign. or better yet, get a job at TP doing blogs about what some guy said.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pmbtw, i’m not a troll. i visit this site almost every day.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pmNot that $100k is so rich even in 1995, but if he was so “poor,” Andrew Napolitano should have went out and find a second or third job-maybe as a late night job at Wal-mart or Jack-in-the-Box!!!
Oh wait, that’s for the “middle class”…..
January 18th, 2008 at 5:07 pmthis man lacks sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable by himself.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Read the definition again and try to pay attention this time. It doesn’t say anything about what HE considers comfortable. It refers to what society considers comfortable.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pmbtw, i’m not a troll. i visit this site almost every day.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
I’m confused. What does frequency of visiting have to do with being a troll or not?
January 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm“I wonder what the people who taught his kids made
Comment by dbadass — January 18, 2008 @ 4:14 pm”
Good one and soooooo true.
“btw, i’m not a troll. i visit this site almost every day.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 5:06 pm”
You’re still a troll.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pmI’d like to try being poor on $ 100K even at today’s value of money. Of course, $ 100 k in 1995 is probably more like $ 150 K today. I’d like trying that even more.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:23 pmjust heard this on randi rhodes… a quick google and:
If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00. With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00. With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left. But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you would have $214.00. Based on the above, current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
It’s called the 401 Keg Plan.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pmbtw, i’m not a troll. i visit this site almost every day.
Comment by darladoon
Nevar heard of you before, are you related to brigadoon?
January 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pmso your point is mine: people choose to live according to their own means. therefore, his claim that 100,000 is “poor†is valid according to the terms upon which his claim is made.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
$100,000 is not poor by any stretch of the imagination.
Maybe someday, when gas is $500 a gallon and phone calls are $25 a minute, but not today, and especially not in the 1990s.
Your statement is ludicrous.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:33 pma neocon is never satisified with a law profession
January 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pmThe Law Profession has become the stepping stone for the true criminals in our society to learn how to avoid, break, and ignore the law.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pmEvidently darlaloon doesn’t get the point. The point is that $100K is not poor. If you make $100k, you are not poor no matter where you live and work. Sure, you’re not rich either, but you’re damn well not poor.
Darlaloon, does that make any sense to you?
January 18th, 2008 at 7:16 pm#13 - No Lie. I make $50k in DC and I feel poor. It just doesn’t go that far here. Now if I were back in Louisiana, I’d be doing fairly well. I’d probably be able to buy a house instead of renting a 1BR apt.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:29 pmWell to be fair, when you have to pay for hookers and blow all of the time, 100k isn’t nearly enough for a good republican boy ;)
January 18th, 2008 at 7:31 pmIt refers to what society considers comfortable
is “society” not made up of people like this judge?
the definition you cite has no mention of a “median” income, or acceptable level of poverty, or any such precise definition. it merely says what “society” deems to be “normal”.
and in san francisco society, 100,000 is pretty much the norm for professional people.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:42 pmpoverty is an abstract qualification.
for me, i like expensive cheese and wine. and expensive resorts.
if i don’t have these things, i’m poor.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pmI’m confused. What does frequency of visiting have to do with being a troll or not?
not only frequency of visits, but frequency of posts. i do engage these discussions.
my level of familiarity with the topics is also very high.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:45 pmand in san francisco society, 100,000 is pretty much the norm for professional people.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Not for the unemployed veteran sleeping under a bridge in San Francisco.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:02 pmmy level of familiarity with the topics is also very high.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
January 18th, 2008 at 8:03 pmWish the same could be said of your IQ…………
The “norm” is not poor.
Wow, I cannot believe this has to be explained to someone.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pmun-fcking-believable.
it would be far more helpful to the progressive “movement” if progressives began criticizing THEMSELVES rather than conservatives.
when i criticize this blog, i am actually helping progressives to be suspect of what they believe to be self-evident.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pmpoverty is an abstract qualification.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Live under a bridge for a month with the clothes on your back and no ATM card. Come back and talk to us after that.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pmpoverty is an abstract qualification.
for me, i like expensive cheese and wine. and expensive resorts.
if i don’t have these things, i’m poor.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
ROTFL!! If you don’t have THOSE THINGS it doesn’t make you POOR, but WHINING ABOUT IT does make you a SPOILED BRAT, like MOST REPUBLICANS!
when i criticize this blog, i am actually helping progressives to be suspect of what they believe to be self-evident.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
When you criticize this blog, you are helping progressives by demonstrating exactly how misinformed and STUPID you TARDS really are!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pmpoverty is an abstract qualification.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Poverty is a CONCRETE WORD, what’s ABSTRACT his your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of BASIC LANGUAGE SKILLS!
poverty:
1 a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
It’s SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE to not have EXPENSIVE WINE, no matter how EXPENSIVE your WHINE MIGHT BE!! ROTFL!!! As YOU don’t determine the word POVERTY - SOCIETY DOES - TARD!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pmit would be far more helpful to the progressive “movement†if progressives began criticizing THEMSELVES rather than conservatives.
when i criticize this blog, i am actually helping progressives to be suspect of what they believe to be self-evident.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
WOW !!!!!! How can we thank you ?
Chocolate , flowers , and kisses like our soldiers got from the Iraqis ?
Why are Cancervatives/GOP backers like yourself , under the crazy delusion that you and your ilk are always the most intelligent/gifted , when you preside at the bottom rung of the IQ ladder ?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pmNot for the unemployed veteran sleeping under a bridge in San Francisco.
the unemployed veteran sleeping under the bridge in san francisco is not the norm. not even close.
there are currently less than 12,000 homeless people in san francisco. many of them are veterans, but still less than 1/4. that would be 3,000 people out of nearly 850,000.
that’s less than 1/3 of 1%.
to own a home in san francisco, you have to have it given to you as an inheritance, or you make at least six figures.
for many people, not owning a home in the place they LOVE is considered a form of poverty.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:13 pmpoverty is an abstract qualification.
for me, i like expensive cheese and wine. and expensive resorts.
if i don’t have these things, i’m poor.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
You possess all the depth and insight of a single drop of bug urine ; even with those things that you mention above , you’re still poor.
You are a foppish bore , with all the charm and intellect of an old bar rag……
January 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pmwhen i criticize this blog, i am actually helping progressives to be suspect of what they believe to be self-evident.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
I have yet to see an intelligent critique from you yet.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pmI am not swayed much at all by willful ignorance.
Why are Cancervatives/GOP backers like yourself , under the crazy delusion that you and your ilk are always the most intelligent/gifted , when you preside at the bottom rung of the IQ ladder ?
for the record, i am not a conservative. and i’m very well educated. i’m a minority, both sexual and racial. i am jewish. and i live in the most liberal region of the country.
and i love herbs, herbal remedies, herbalism, and pagan worship.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:15 pmWhy are Cancervatives/GOP backers like yourself , under the crazy delusion that you and your ilk are always the most intelligent/gifted , when you preside at the bottom rung of the IQ ladder ?
for the record, i am not a conservative. and i’m very well educated. i’m a minority, both sexual and racial. i am jewish. and i live in the most liberal region of the country.
and i love herbs, herbal remedies, herbalism, and pagan worship.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
No , you’re actually a self-aggrandizing nitwit , and an annoying braggart.
You’re also completely devoid of understanding , compassion and humanity ; someone like you could easily curdle all the milk of human kindness , with one of your empty posts…….
January 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pmfor many people, not owning a home in the place they LOVE is considered a form of poverty.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
Again you try to equate poverty as the “norm”.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pmYour argument is based on a false assumption, therefor not worth the electrons used to transmit it.
I have yet to see an intelligent critique from you yet.
I am not swayed much at all by willful ignorance.
i have many friends in san francisco. all of them make very good money, and are…..GASP……in debt. obscene mortgage payments, the most expensive restaurants, attractions, in urban splendorous and world class backdrop. san francisco cannot be thoroughly enjoyed these days without at least six figures. otherwise, indeed, life is somewhat impoverished.
just take the bike messenger crowd, or the other “low” income communities in san francisco who make around $24,000/year. they are most definitely impoverished by local standards. they live in cold, dusty and crammed victorians; they don’t own cars; they pay minimum $750/month rent. they eat burritos and greasy thai food day in/day out. they have no health care, etc, etc. in other words, barely getting by.
those who make $60,000/year are, likewise, barely getting by in that although they live pretty well on a day-to-day basis, they have absolutely no hope of ever owning a home in either sf or oakland. ever. ever. ever.
that is a form of poverty, no matter how you cut it.
so, 100,000 is the minimum requirement for that. and still, you will have a steep mortgage, so you’ll never be able to go on vacation, or have kids, etc, etc.
again, another form of poverty. no kids.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm“…for the record..”
Comment by darladoon
Oh MY Gawd……
January 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pmJake has reincarnated folks, after a blindingly quick tour of the astral plane, our beloved septegenatian veteran of the Korean War has returned as a slinky and sultry practitioner of perfumery…
Ewwww, what’s that smell?
a neocon is never satisified with a law profession
Comment by theswan
That’s because the law is an inconvenience to them.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pmYou possess all the depth and insight of a single drop of bug urine ; even with those things that you mention above , you’re still poor.
You are a foppish bore , with all the charm and intellect of an old bar rag……
No , you’re actually a self-aggrandizing nitwit , and an annoying braggart.
You’re also completely devoid of understanding , compassion and humanity ; someone like you could easily curdle all the milk of human kindness , with one of your empty posts
and you’re the humane one here?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pmAgain you try to equate poverty as the “normâ€
this statement makes no sense, please clarify.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pmthis statement makes no sense, please clarify.
Comment by darladoon
Try using your crystal ball…….
January 18th, 2008 at 8:30 pmand you’re the humane one here?
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Pointing out that someone is TARDED and INHUMANE such as YOU, is in fact the HUMANE THING, even if you’re too TARDED and FOOLISH to understand it! ;)
January 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pmPointing out that someone is TARDED and INHUMANE such as YOU, is in fact the HUMANE THING, even if you’re too TARDED and FOOLISH to understand it! ;)
so, my belief that, by someone’s own personal standards, 100,000/annual is poor, i am inhumane, foolish and retarded.
that is your argument?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pmYou possess all the depth and insight of a single drop of bug urine ; even with those things that you mention above , you’re still poor.
You are a foppish bore , with all the charm and intellect of an old bar rag……
No , you’re actually a self-aggrandizing nitwit , and an annoying braggart.
You’re also completely devoid of understanding , compassion and humanity ; someone like you could easily curdle all the milk of human kindness , with one of your empty posts
and you’re the humane one here?
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Compared to you ? Shit , I seem like Mother Theresa………
You are attempting to quantify those that do not make a certain monetary amount , and even more incredibly , those that choose to not have children , as all being “poor” ; who do you believe you are on any level , to categorize others ?
And all you’re doing when not calling those you deem as “poor” , is prattling on about what you have , enjoy and make ; that isn’t a sign of your contempt/disdain for those that do not pull down a particular salary ? And/or a piss-poor attempt to claim your nonexistent superiority ?
You’re a putz ; nothing more……..
January 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pmAgain you try to equate poverty as the “normâ€
this statement makes no sense, please clarify.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Only one way for it to make sense to someone like you.
Like I said before.
Go live under a bridge for a month, with only the clothes on your back and no ATM card, then come back and talk to us.
No fine wines there, but you can beg on the corner for enough to get a bottle of Thunderbird, if you would rather not spend it on food.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pmsan francisco cannot be thoroughly enjoyed these days without at least six figures. otherwise, indeed, life is somewhat impoverished. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
No LIFE is LESS FABULOUS, it’s POOR if you work in a kitchen and live in tiny single room in a flop house in a bad neighborhood, and you can barely afford the ‘essentials’ of life. Once again, you IGNORE THE DICTIONARY - TARD. You aren’t HELPING YOUR CAUSE!
just take the bike messenger crowd, or the other “low†income communities in san francisco who make around $24,000/year. they are most definitely impoverished by local standards. they live in cold, dusty and crammed victorians; they don’t own cars; they pay minimum $750/month rent. they eat burritos and greasy thai food day in/day out. they have no health care, etc, etc. in other words, barely getting by. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
See, that’s almost SANE, because 24k, is in fact close to the poverty line in even less expensive areas. This is FAR DIFFERENT from being STUPID ENOUGH to equate 100k as POVERTY LINE! MORON!
those who make $60,000/year are, likewise, barely getting by in that although they live pretty well on a day-to-day basis, they have absolutely no hope of ever owning a home in either sf or oakland. ever. ever. ever. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
So that makes them the lower middle class - watch a 70s sitcom sometime like archie bunker. It’s not POVERTY it’s being the WORKING CLASS - MORON!
that is a form of poverty, no matter how you cut it. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Being MIDDLE CLASS is a FORM OF POVERTY? ROTLF, now you’re MAKING DEFINITIONS UP for words that have a CLEAR DEFINITION! STFU MORON!
so, 100,000 is the minimum requirement for that. and still, you will have a steep mortgage, so you’ll never be able to go on vacation, or have kids, etc, etc.
again, another form of poverty. no kids.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
No, that’s the minimum to be UPPER MIDDLE CLASS in an EXPENSIVE AREA! You’ve LEFT OUT the MIDDLE CLASS in your CLASSIST RAMBLINGS - MORON!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pmso, my belief that, by someone’s own personal standards, 100,000/annual is poor, i am inhumane, foolish and retarded.
that is your argument?
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
As per the DICTIONARY, SOCIETY sets that STANDARD, so your OPINION is only RELEVANT so far as it CONTRIBUTES to SOCIETY’S OPINION - and in this CASE, SOCIETY says you’re a MORON! And YES, because you CAN’T READ A DICTIONARY - that pretty much QUALIFIES YOU AS TARDED!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pmBy the way MORON, a quick search shows the median FAMILY income in SF (many if not most families in SF have 2 incomes) is ~85k, meaning that by the LOCAL DEFINITION any INDIVIDUAL earning more than that would be considered BETTER OFF THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS. Hardly what would qualify as someone earning POVERTY WAGES - according to the ENGLISH definition of the word - MORON! Unless you’re going to try and argue that the MAJORITY OF THE NATION LIVES IN POVERTY? ROTFL!! You people get MORE STUPID BY THE DAY!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pmfor many people, not owning a home in the place they LOVE is considered a form of poverty.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
But it is not ACTUAL poverty, you dim wit.
It’s a f_cking BUMMER, but not POVERTY. Maybe you’d know that if you ever actually experienced economic poverty, rather than your current spiritual poverty.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pmso, my belief that, by someone’s own personal standards, 100,000/annual is poor, i am inhumane, foolish and retarded.
that is your argument?
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
No , the fact that you believe your own stupid bullshit of what others are , plus that “personal standards” are set by someone such as yourself , are what does it……..
Okay , you’ve claimed to not being a Cancervative ; then why the speech earlier , claiming you’re “helping” progressives , by insisting they criticize themselves instead of Cancervatives ?
January 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pmso, my belief that, by someone’s own personal standards, 100,000/annual is poor, i am inhumane, foolish and retarded.
that is your argument?
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
I would call you willfully ignorant and obtuse.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pmBeing MIDDLE CLASS is a FORM OF POVERTY? ROTLF, now you’re MAKING DEFINITIONS UP for words that have a CLEAR DEFINITION! STFU MORON!
the way your favorite beltway all stars (clinton, edwards and obama) characterize it, the middle class in this counry are indeed “suffering” (their words).
in europe, the middle classes have no such fear of going below the poverty line.
now, why is that? “poverty lines” are irrelevant.
some of us just need a full stomach and some manual labor to be happy. go to a zen center and see what i mean.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pmI would call you willfully ignorant and obtuse.
Comment by Wayne — January 18, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Obtuse is the word.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pmBy the way MORON, a quick search shows the median FAMILY income in SF (many if not most families in SF have 2 incomes) is ~85k, meaning that by the LOCAL DEFINITION any INDIVIDUAL earning more than that would be considered BETTER OFF THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS. Hardly what would qualify as someone earning POVERTY WAGES - according to the ENGLISH definition of the word - MORON! Unless you’re going to try and argue that the MAJORITY OF THE NATION LIVES IN POVERTY? ROTFL!! You people get MORE STUPID BY THE DAY!
in order for the above poster to make an argument, he/she/it must use the CAPS LOCK far too often.
people without ideas generally talk louder than most.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pmwhat is poverty in europe?
if someone has two kids in college, a wife or husband, a car and a home (which is what most americans have, or aspire to, at a minimum, even blacks and latinos), mortgage payments, credit card debt, bad investments, etc…..and live in a major city…..
then 100,000 might not be enough to cover the losses.
so, whether this is poverty, by strict generic standards, is irrelevant to the more specific and personal point this judge was trying to make.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pmBeing MIDDLE CLASS is a FORM OF POVERTY? ROTLF, now you’re MAKING DEFINITIONS UP for words that have a CLEAR DEFINITION! STFU MORON!
the way your favorite beltway all stars (clinton, edwards and obama) characterize it, the middle class in this counry are indeed “suffering†(their words).
in europe, the middle classes have no such fear of going below the poverty line.
now, why is that? “poverty lines†are irrelevant.
some of us just need a full stomach and some manual labor to be happy. go to a zen center and see what i mean.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Poverty lines are not irrelevant when you live in the country that has been steadily outsourcing all middle-income jobs by a frighteningly increasing rate ; that would make anyone uneasy and worried about the future.
And what good is a full stomach , if the head and heart are barren ?
Look in the mirror for a prime example of that……..
January 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pmBy the way MORON, a quick search shows the median FAMILY income in SF (many if not most families in SF have 2 incomes) is ~85k, meaning that by the LOCAL DEFINITION any INDIVIDUAL earning more than that would be considered BETTER OFF THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS. Hardly what would qualify as someone earning POVERTY WAGES - according to the ENGLISH definition of the word - MORON! Unless you’re going to try and argue that the MAJORITY OF THE NATION LIVES IN POVERTY? ROTFL!! You people get MORE STUPID BY THE DAY!
in order for the above poster to make an argument, he/she/it must use the CAPS LOCK far too often.
people without ideas generally talk louder than most.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
January 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pmOr they’re arrogant , condescending and judgmental in their behavior……..
if someone has two kids in college, a wife or husband, a car and a home (which is what most americans have, or aspire to, at a minimum, even blacks and latinos)
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
What in the hell is that supposed to mean ?”Even” blacks and latinos ? Because in all other areas/traits , they’re inferior ?
What in the hell is wrong with you ??????????
January 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pmso, whether this is poverty, by strict generic standards, is irrelevant to the more specific and personal point this judge was trying to make.
Comment by darladoon
My my, you’re a judge as well?
January 18th, 2008 at 9:18 pmWhere do you find time amongst the potions and the fainting spells?
in order for the above poster to make an argument, he/she/it must use the CAPS LOCK far too often.
people without ideas generally talk louder than most.
Comment by darladoo
Thanks for balancing the equation here by your lack of CAPS
January 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pmpoor darladoon
January 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pmdarladoon? darlaloooooony ……where are yoooooooooooo…………
whenever i see that headline, i’m reminded of this line
from a great movie:
“… i was born a poor black child…” - the jerk…
January 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pmin order for the above poster to make an argument, he/she/it must use the CAPS LOCK far too often.
people without ideas generally talk louder than most.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
And MORONS can’t tell the difference between RAISING ONE’S VOICE or EMPHASIZING from TALKING LOUDER. Thanks for SELF IDENTIFYING YOURSELF - MORON!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pmMaybe in punditry the former judge has found his special purpose.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pmthe way your favorite beltway all stars (clinton, edwards and obama) characterize it, the middle class in this counry are indeed “suffering†(their words). Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
ROTFL, another STUPID COMMENT.
in europe, the middle classes have no such fear of going below the poverty line. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
They DON’T? What if they’re an IMMIGRANT WORKER? And remember that SOCIETY determines POVERTY (as in Europeans DECIDE what’s POVERTY - not you - TARD).
now, why is that? “poverty lines†are irrelevant. Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Tell that to someone LIVING UNDER THE POVERTY LINE! What’s IRRELEVANT is YOUR IGNORANT OPINION!
some of us just need a full stomach and some manual labor to be happy. go to a zen center and see what i mean.
Comment by darladoon — January 18, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
SOME of YOU need MEDICATED and HOSPITALIZATION to be HAPPY. Go see a SHRINK and SEE WHAT I MEAN - CRAZY B!!!H!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:56 pmdarlaloon’s idea of suffering economic hardship is not being able to buy fine wines and cheeses.
Enough said.
With voters like that, no wonder the US in in the mess its in……
January 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pmI think I have footage of your darling darladoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVEwCqfi9MU
January 18th, 2008 at 10:25 pmThat’s pretty funny, Sabyen91…
January 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pmI’d like to chime in to rebut the latest concern troll.
It is pure rubbish $100,000 aren’t enough to live comfortably in San Francisco. The city is expensive, that is true, but a salary like that can afford anyone -at least- a modest home. There is no need to inherit a home to own it.
It certainly won’t be as big as a house in, say, Texas, with a big backyard and 3-car garage, but it is a home. The same goes for the city across the bay, Oakland.
Moreover, there is such a thing as an objective measure of poverty. The troll’s babble about the judge’s subjective feeling of poverty is pure nonsense. And if the judge’s perception is so out of touch with reality, he certainly deserves scorn.
Finally, and as others have already noted, the judge was not living in San Francisco at the time he claims to have been “poor”, about 12 years ago (our troll doesn’t know the word “inflation” either, apparently).
What a way to move the goal posts…
January 18th, 2008 at 11:34 pmThe city is expensive, that is true, but a salary like that can afford anyone -at least- a modest home.
clearly, this person has never attempted to buy a home here. a “modest” home? what you mean to say is a $1 million dollar home, at minimum. if you want something habitable, try $1.4 million. minimum.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:03 amI just checked out a website (Pacific Union) and found a whole bunch of nice homes between $250,000 and $500,000 in San Fran. No, many of them don’t have indoor spas and basketball courts. They don’t come with a butler and a world-class chef. However, only spoiled brats that inherited their money would turn their nose up at them. You wouldn’t even have to cut back on the Velveeta and Ripple.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:10 amIt certainly won’t be as big as a house in, say, Texas, with a big backyard and 3-car garage, but it is a home. The same goes for the city across the bay, Oakland.
this statement alone disqualifies this person from discussing the housing market in san franciso OR oakland.
a 3 bedroom home, with a backyard, in san francisco, with garage, would cost a minimum $2 million. the idea of purchasing said home would only eminate from someone with a huge salary, stock options, and other lucrative investments.
this is far less a measure than “it won’t get you something in texas”. it won’t get you anything, anywhere, except manhattan. period. a 2 million dollar home in LA would get you A LOT. anywhere. a 2 million dollar home in LA is just waiting for any high priced investor.
but in sf or nyc? it’s a whole nutha ball game, brutha.
now, i have to get back to more important things. you serial predictable leftists are like flies on sweat.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:10 amI just checked out a website (Pacific Union) and found a whole bunch of nice homes between $250,000 and $500,000 in San Fran
anyone who calls san francisco “san fran” is disqualified from the discussion.
can you send a link to your homes?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:11 amComment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:03 am
I live “here”. I own a home.
Not every home sold in the city is $1million. That is simply not true.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:11 amComment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:10 am
You have reading comprehension issues.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:13 amI live “hereâ€. I own a home.
Not every home sold in the city is $1million. That is simply not true.
oh, i’m sorry. i didn’t realize that the prerequisite to understanding the difficulty of purchasing a home in san francisco was owning a home.
if you are suggesting that i purchase a dilapidated edwardian in visitation valley, then you are perhaps correct.
but that would, alone, require other expenses (saying bye-bye to the culture and convenience of better neighborhoods like the mission or noe valley; sweat equity into upgrading the property; putting more time/energy/money into transportation into more desirable neighborhoods; there are numerous reasons for not wanting to purchase a less than 1 million dollar home in an undesirable neighborhood)…..
January 19th, 2008 at 12:18 amdarladoon in what part of the City do you reside? The Mish; Marina; Hunters-Bay View; Nob Hill; the Sunset…
January 19th, 2008 at 12:20 amNot every home sold in the city is $1million. That is simply not true.
this is true, but how many middle class white people want to buy a home in the ghetto?
any takers?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am124, i live in the castro
January 19th, 2008 at 12:21 ami didn’t realize that the prerequisite to understanding the difficulty of purchasing a home in san francisco was owning a home.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:18 am
That puts to rest your inane post about me being unqualified to discuss the real estate market in San Francisco.
If you don’t own one, that makes you less qualified to discuss a home affordability on $100,000.
if you are suggesting that i purchase a dilapidated edwardian in visitation valley, then you are perhaps correct.
I don’t care whether or not you buy a home, or where.
Fact remains $100,00 can buy a home -which again puts to rest your inane post about home affordability in the city.
You can buy a house in Bernal Heights for a lot less than a $1mil, btw.
And you are moving the goal posts again, making this about where you would like to live, as opposed to whether or not someone can afford a home on $100,000 a year in the city.
Finally, this has nothing to do with the fact that there are objective measures of poverty and the judge was spouting nonsense. Much like you.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:28 am“anyone who calls san francisco “san fran†is disqualified from the discussion.
can you send a link to your homes?
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:11 am”
If I am disqualified why did you ask for a link? I am from Wisconsin and I find prices of SAN FRAN’s (I am so sorry I offended your very delicate, spoiled sensibilities over that apparant faux pas) houses to be appalling. But it is no more than 40% higher than Milwaukee or Madison. I just think you would think you were poor if you didn’t have your freaking butler. By the way, I gave you the name of the realty company (Pacific Union). Perhaps you can get you personal assistant to Google it for you.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:36 amBy the way darla, do you live in the Levittown or the Westbury part?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:38 amgregor, i really enjoyed your post. i have to masturbate now….
January 19th, 2008 at 12:38 amDon’t forget your golden dildo.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:40 amBut it is no more than 40% higher than Milwaukee or Madison
comparing milwaukee to san francisco is like comparing indianapolis to milan.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:40 amsabyen, my dildo is worth more than your car.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:42 am“comparing milwaukee to san francisco is like comparing indianapolis to milan.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:40 am”
Arrogant, stupid and missing the point of a purely economic comparison. I don’t think I have ever read such elitist BS from a poster, not even trolls. You claimed your are not a troll…you are right…you are THE troll.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:43 am“sabyen, my dildo is worth more than your car.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:42 am”
I am sorry that your very classy dildo has to come into contact with such a classless trashy c*nt.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:44 amOf course, my car may be more effective at satisfying you.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:46 amI am sorry that your very classy dildo has to come into contact with such a classless trashy c*nt.
it’s funny, but all of my clients seek exactly that: a classless, trashy cunt.
would you prefer a wholesome, wonder bread cunt?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:48 amsabyen, the moment you renounce your obsession with predictable political leanings, you succeed.
you need to seek invisibility.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:49 amAll of your clients? You are a madame?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:54 am“sabyen, the moment you renounce your obsession with predictable political leanings, you succeed.
you need to seek invisibility.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:49 am”
Do you think anybody on this site, whether conservative or liberal can’t tell what you are? You need to seek antibiotics.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:54 amBut couldn’t he have gotten food stamps or welfare or something?
January 19th, 2008 at 1:01 amI mean if he was really that poor…
He could have waited and gotten the Bush tax cuts.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:07 amit’s funny, but all of my clients seek exactly that: a classless, trashy cunt.
would you prefer a wholesome, wonder bread cunt?
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Well to be FAIR your CLIENTS are must be LOOKING AT YOU when they SEE THAT! ROTFL!!!
sabyen, the moment you renounce your obsession with predictable political leanings, you succeed.
you need to seek invisibility.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:49 am
The moment YOU stop being a STUPID IGNORANT WH@RE that SHILLS for REPUBLICAN FOOLS, the moment you become a PART OF THE SOLUTION, instead of a PART OF THE PROBLEM! DUM B!!CH!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:14 am“anyone who calls san francisco “san fran†is disqualified from the discussion.
can you send a link to your homes?
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:11 amâ€
Anyone that’s as STUPID and IGNORANT as you, is UNQUALIFIED TO SPEAK of San Francisco, let alone REPRESENT IT, you TRAILER TRASH F**KING C**T!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:15 amclearly, this person has never attempted to buy a home here. a “modest†home? what you mean to say is a $1 million dollar home, at minimum. if you want something habitable, try $1.4 million. minimum.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:03 am
The MEDIAN home price in San Francisco is $740,000 as of TODAY. That means that MORE THAN HALF of the city’s properties sell for LESS than that. Just because YOU are a MORON and expect to have a RED STATE McMansion clearly demonstrates your LACK OF CULTURE, more than an ability to find a suitable housing situation… How many sex dungeons do you need - b**CH?
January 19th, 2008 at 3:18 amclearly, this person has never attempted to buy a home here. a “modest†home? what you mean to say is a $1 million dollar home, at minimum. if you want something habitable, try $1.4 million. minimum.
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Don’t even PRETEND to be a San Francisco resident, and if you are one, you’re probably a recent refuge from some red state h*ll hole, and don’t have a CLUE WTF you’re doing living in a BLUE STATE! A QUICK SEARCH on the San Francisco real estate showed up a 3bd 2bath Noe Valley home (you know in the neighborhood you said was favorable) for $679,000.
http://realestate.sfgate.com/ RealEstate/ Sales/ Listing.asp?lid=20-ch5174338
And there are SEVERAL 2bd places that show up for under $600k.
Just because you expect to live like a RICH PERSON instead of MIDDLE CLASS is more of an INDICTMENT of your SPOILED CHILDISH ATTITUDES than ANYTHING! Are you an ONLY CHILD, because you are ONE POS PRINCESS! Your PARENTS should be PUNISHED for raising SUCH A POS LITTLE C*NT!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:27 amboy, the members of think progress are really delightful people. you disagree with something they write or say, and of course, by logical extension, you are an evil cunt. it’s really that simple. and let me also add: that’s progress
and i can’t pretend to be a san francisco resident? what a strange command. i have to live under the illusion that i live somewhere else?
does this person actually want proof of residence? so they find a property below 1 million, and it’s that simple. san francisco is just so affordable for someone making 100,000, with a child, a vehicle, and bills to pay.
clearly, this person has never, ever attempted to buy a home here.
if you want to spend 350,000 on a home in sf, then be prepared to deal with crime, drugs, homeless people, graffiti, noise, lack of parking, etc, etc. and this doesn’t begin to address the obvious question of whether the property is even moderately attractive. at 350,000, i can guarantee you, it’s not going to be pretty.
and 700,000, there will most definitely be some problems.
look, everyone wants to live in the following hoods:
mission
noe valley
castro
haight
soma (maybe)
western addition
all of these neighborhoods have very high priced homes. there is simple no bending this reality.
go ahead, buy something in bayview! have fun!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:27 amand just because you can buy a home for under 1 million in san francisco, does not necessarily mean that it’s a wise investment.
like i said, if you are white, professional and young, then the outer sunset or visitation valley or ocean view are simply not places to buy a home. period. one has to think long term about investing in those areas of town. they are (by relative standards) unattractive areas, with higher crime rates, less public transportation, less cultural attractions, and bad food (again, by relative standards).
if you are an african-american family of 4 or 5, then bayview hunters point might have some homes for under 350,000, but again, they come at a price, obviously. the southeastern corner of the city has been neglected for so long, and in so many ways, that owning a home there is not something most people aspire to. there’s a lot of crime, there’s not many cultural attractions, and it’s far from the action.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:47 amdarladoon, why do you have to be such a snot?
I’d say you’d fit right in with the Fox crowd, but since you’re apparently a black, Jewish lesbian, they wouldn’t let you in the front door.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:56 pmoh, yeah, right in with the fox news crowd. that’s my crowd alright. i just love non-stop jingoism. cavuto is a genius, and hannity is my all-time favorite. i just can’t get enough of that station.
on the other hand, thinkprogress is also propaganda. do you believe everything you read here?
January 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pm(darladoon) “…apparently a black, Jewish lesbian, …”
I still think it’s “jake” working off some seriously hilarious karma…
January 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pmon the other hand, thinkprogress is also propaganda. do you believe everything you read here?
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
ROTFL!!! Wow, how STUPID are you b**CH! Anything that DOESN’T AGREE with YOUR FOX PROPAGANDA is PROPAGANDA? ROTFL!! Then YOU are PROPAGANDA - DUM B**CH! What STUPID LITTLE C*NT! How do you POSSIBLY LIVE in San Francisco? Are you one of those LaRouche or Green Party WACKOS, because WHAT EVER you are, the MEDS AREN’T WORKING - LOON!! ROTFL!!
January 20th, 2008 at 3:43 amboy, the members of think progress are really delightful people. you disagree with something they write or say, and of course, by logical extension, you are an evil cunt. it’s really that simple. and let me also add: that’s progress Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
No you’re an EVIL C*NT because YOU ARE, not because you DISAGREE! That, and because you’re SO SPOILED and STUPID as to believe that unless you have EXACTLY the THINGS/LIFE you want, you’re POOR!! What a SPOILED STUPID LITTLE B**CH you are!
and i can’t pretend to be a san francisco resident? what a strange command. i have to live under the illusion that i live somewhere else? Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Well if you’re a San Francisco Resident, you’re an AWFULLY STUPID ONE!
does this person actually want proof of residence? so they find a property below 1 million, and it’s that simple. san francisco is just so affordable for someone making 100,000, with a child, a vehicle, and bills to pay. Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
A PROPERTY? ROTFL!!! How about DOZENS FOR SALE in the SUPPOSEDLY EXPENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD where you say they DON’T EXIST!!! DUM B**CH! First of all, San Francisco has LOTS of public transit, a car isn’t necessary. Second of all, a CHILD doesn’t cost 100,000, even in San Francisco. Third, where’s that LAZY EXCUSE for a FATHER anyway? And if you didn’t waste so much MONEY on METH/POT/WHATEVER, maybe your BILLS wouldn’t be so HIGH? Like YOU OBVIOUSLY are?
clearly, this person has never, ever attempted to buy a home here. Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Clearly THIS DUM B**CH doesn’t know how to READ A REAL-ESTATE SECTION! What a SPOILED LITTLE PRINCESS C*NT! Grow UP!
if you want to spend 350,000 on a home in sf, then be prepared to deal with crime, drugs, homeless people, graffiti, noise, lack of parking, etc, etc. and this doesn’t begin to address the obvious question of whether the property is even moderately attractive. at 350,000, i can guarantee you, it’s not going to be pretty. Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
How BIG of a place do want anyway? And DIDN’T YOU complain that your REASONS were that you wanted to live in an INTERESTING PART of San Francisco (isn’t it the MOST EXPENSIVE CITY in the country to live in?) How about live in the BURBS like MOST MIDDLE CLASS - you SPOILED SELFISH LITTLE B**CH?
and 700,000, there will most definitely be some problems.
look, everyone wants to live in the following hoods:
mission
noe valley
castro
haight
soma (maybe)
western addition
all of these neighborhoods have very high priced homes. there is simple no bending this reality.
go ahead, buy something in bayview! have fun!
Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 11:27 am
PROBLEMS? What, not ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE for your Jimmeh Chooooo SHOE COLLECTION? As I ALREADY POINTED OUT, there are SEVERAL ~500k 2 bdrm, in the neighborhood YOU SUGGESTED, many of them appear to be new construction even. We can’t help it if you’re too dam STUPID to read a REAL ESTATE SECTION! Wow, what kind of BAD PARENTING raised such an ENTITLED, INEPT MORON anyway? Were your parents REAGAN REPUBLICANS, because you’re as DUM as a bag of ROCKS!
January 20th, 2008 at 3:51 amand just because you can buy a home for under 1 million in san francisco, does not necessarily mean that it’s a wise investment. Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am
That’s true of ANY real estate purchase - dum b**ch!
like i said, if you are white, professional and young, then the outer sunset or visitation valley or ocean view are simply not places to buy a home. period. one has to think long term about investing in those areas of town. they are (by relative standards) unattractive areas, with higher crime rates, less public transportation, less cultural attractions, and bad food (again, by relative standards). Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Sorry, but your WHINING has already been DEBUNKED and is BORING!! ZZzzzzz
if you are an african-american family of 4 or 5, then bayview hunters point might have some homes for under 350,000, but again, they come at a price, obviously. the southeastern corner of the city has been neglected for so long, and in so many ways, that owning a home there is not something most people aspire to. there’s a lot of crime, there’s not many cultural attractions, and it’s far from the action. Comment by darladoon — January 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Then MOVE TO THE BURBS and use that CAR OF YOURS to DRIVE, and STFU, you LAZY, SELFISH, ENTITLED WH*RE!
January 20th, 2008 at 3:53 amGee, I only own a 10 bedroom mansion in Beverly Hills and not a 20 bedroom mansion. I can’t afford to summer in Monte Carlo in a seaside villa and must suffer with an apartment in Nice. I can only afford a BMW and not a Lamborghini. I have to make do with a 40′ yacht and not a 100′ ocean-going cruiser. The Sultan of Brunei and Bill Gates didn’t invite me to their party as they consider me utter riff raff with barely a penny to my name. The things that I love in life are denied to me. Oh the humanity of it all!
January 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm