wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:55:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Home prices are down 25-30% but government spending is still
gong up.

25/30%?

Maybe in some over inflated markets - not around here.

That is what the price of houses that actually sell reflects. (SW Fla)
Certainly people may be thinking their market is better than that but
what is the price of the houses that actually move?

I'd buy those numbers in certain parts of Florida. For several years
the
market value of some homes were going up by 15-20 percent/year. It all
came to a screeching halt in 2003-2004.

Eisboch



I always like to ask the question "Why should prices go up by those
percentages?" In many cases, there's no sane reason. Here, there were a
couple of neighborhoods where that happened. The excuse was that the
schools
were so much better. Later, people who moved to those places said that the
only thing "better" were the drugs the kids could get, and the cars their
parents bought them. Quite a few people have moved back to the place they
thought they wanted to get away from: The city.


There was a gold rush mentality in Florida. People were paying
outragous prices for houses right up into the summer of 2006. That was
really when it crashed. The first round of defaults on contracts, not
buying a house they had a down payment on was really not until the
fall of 2006. The buillders were still able to pocket the $50,000
deposit and sell them that much cheaper. Around thanksgiving was when
they weren't moving either. My wife (builder) was laid off in March
2007. The prices were in free fall until they levelled off about 30%
below the summer 2006 price. (pre-construction prices)

This is the house around the corner from me

http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192

price date
455,000 12/22/2004
295,000 3/15/2002
195,000 9/1/1994
133,000 8/1/1990


That's insane.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:22:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

price date
455,000 12/22/2004
295,000 3/15/2002
195,000 9/1/1994
133,000 8/1/1990


That's insane.



The guy who bought it in 2002 and sold it in 2004 was happy.


The buy who bought it probably thinks penny stocks are a great place for IRA
money. :-)

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


This is the house around the corner from me

http://www.leepa.org/Scripts/Propert...lioID=10274192

price date
455,000 12/22/2004
295,000 3/15/2002
195,000 9/1/1994
133,000 8/1/1990




That's insane.


We purchased a house in Jupiter, FL in January of 2002 and paid $585K for
it. Sometime in 2005 we determined that due to family related issues up
here in MA, wintering in Florida was not going to be something we would be
doing any longer, so we contacted a realtor to put it on the market. I
expected a market appraisal of about $600-$650K, allowing for some
improvements we had made, offset by a market that was showing signs of
slowing by then.
The realtor disagreed, and she was right. It sold in November, 2005, a
month after Hurricane Wilma for $1M.

Eisboch

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16�pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.
Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign
policy experience.
Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)
Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.
There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.
The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents.
The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.
This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.
Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.
On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."
There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)
Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.


Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't
need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated
in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties
in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies"
are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them.

I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three
public radio stations I listen to while in the car.

On Jan 31, 12:03Â*am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16�pm, John H. wrote:





On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign
policy experience.

Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)

Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents.

The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.

This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.

Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.

On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."

There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)

Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have got to be kidding.. Repubs with groupthink? Compared to the
dems in congress? You are just not paying attention...

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:19:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote:


There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is something
about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and then
leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to me,
we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't know,
but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his unending
"terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason
for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD.

Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man
had
WMD, including the Democrats.

That liberal line has been old for a long time.
--
John H


Where did those WMDs go?


Why was *knew* written the way it was?
--
John H


Beats me. I didn't write it.

Stop trying to use distractions. Where did those WMDs go, John?


What WMD?
--
John H

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:58:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:17:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:14:16 -0500, HK wrote:


There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing
so
within 60 days of assuming office.

You know, I was against this war from the start, but there is
something
about invading a country, wiping out it's government structure, and
then
leaving it in shambles, that doesn't set well with me. It seems to
me,
we now have a duty. How much of a duty? How many lives? I don't
know,
but I'll be interested in the debate without the Nitwit and his
unending
"terrorists" statements. I wonder if we will ever learn the real
reason
for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD.

Get your head out of the liberal sand. The whole world *knew* the man
had
WMD, including the Democrats.

That liberal line has been old for a long time.
--
John H


Where did those WMDs go?


Why was *knew* written the way it was?
--
John H


Beats me. I didn't write it.

Stop trying to use distractions. Where did those WMDs go, John?


Syria? Mars? Shortwaves home planet? Where do you think they went?



Irrelevant. I want John's answer.


What WMD?
--
John H

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign
policy experience.

Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)

Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents.

The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.

This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.

Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.

On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."

There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)

Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.

Most Conservatives don't listen to 'the talk show circuit', which
apparently (at least as you define it) does not include Air America. I say
this because you make negative comments about only conservative talk radio.

I've heard the 'group think' mantra from you and Loogy. It's more of your
rhetoric. You try to make it sound as though you are all flying off in
different directions with your philosophy, when you really aren't. It's
snobbery, pure and simple.

I think the attitude is best exemplified by Ward L. Churchill. He didn't
earn my respect.
--
John H

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:39:23 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.
Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign
policy experience.
Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)
Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.
There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.
The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents.
The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.
This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.
Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.
On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."
There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)
Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.


Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't
need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated
in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties
in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies"
are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them.

I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three
public radio stations I listen to while in the car.

A lot of the NPR stuff gets pretty close.
--
John H

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his foreign
policy experience.

Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)

Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of Independents.

The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that "swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.

This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.

Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.

On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."

There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)

Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.

Try an experiment. Take your prejudices and stereotypes about 'our side',
(just one at a time, no reason to endure too large a shock at once), and
ask yourself "What if this isn't right? What if they really do think for
themselves just as much as we liberals do?"

Take it a little further, What if every conservative doesn't fit the very
narrow pigeon hole to which I have mentally assigned them?"

I couldn't resist. :)





--
John H