To: martin_fierro
****$689,000**** NO WAY! REALLY! What kind of imbecile would spend that kind of money on this teeny little place when you could buy a veritable palace elsewhere! Just goes to show the average intelligence of the people living there now.
18 posted on
02/27/2006 9:16:56 AM PST by
Desron13
(If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
To: Desron13
My company is HQd in the Bay Area. I probably make a 1/3 less than my counterparts who live there.
But I more than make up for it in quality of life :-)
I even hate going there the twice a year that I have to.
20 posted on
02/27/2006 9:49:45 AM PST by
VeniVidiVici
(What? Me worry?)
To: Desron13
What kind of imbecile would spend that kind of money on this teeny little place when you could buy a veritable palace elsewhere! 1) The kind that thinks they will be able to turn around and sell it for $900K in a couple of years.
2) The kind that has let a mortgage lender fool them into thinking that this is "their last chance to ever own a home in the Bay Area!!!"
3) The kind that thinks they absolutely have to pay that kind of money to avoid being "gay-bashed" by rabid red state Bush supporters if they move to Stockton. ;)
28 posted on
02/27/2006 12:40:47 PM PST by
Mr. Jeeves
("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
To: Desron13
One solution: have "shall issue" concealed carry, and adopt a "no retreat" law that immunizes a homeowner from any lawsuit from anybody he shoots while the perp is unlawfully on the homeowner's property
Then colonize the welfare enclaves
It will have the added benefit of reducing SF's welfare costs
50 posted on
02/27/2006 1:26:22 PM PST by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson