IseWolf22 said:

---

The bad faith troll is at it again with the anti-semitism lies

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

The bad faith troll is at it again with the anti-semitism lies

---

Here's your chance again. Condemn Talib, Amash, the one you said you would support for POTUS, Omar, AOC, etc....

Condemn the comments they have made. Come out in support of Israel and against Hamas who they both openly support.

How do you feel about your party refusing to help fund the "Iron Dome?" You have the floor. Prove me wrong.

---

You don't get to smear sh!#t on the floor and demand people roll in it. I owe you nothing troll.

I finally replied to your bad faith smear last time and..... you ignored it. I don't need to do it again.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.

---

never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose

---

They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.

---

Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?

---

Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?

---

I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.

---

Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?

---

Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.

---

Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...

---

Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

---

I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime

---

Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.

---

never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose

---

They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.

---

Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?

---

Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?

---

I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.

---

Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?

---

Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.

---

Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...

---

Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

---

I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime

---

Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.

---

Preach.

Very high and rising costs of land and construction aside, there are many unnecessary municipal and entitlement impediments to efficient, scalable multi-family development as a means to build our way out of a severe housing shortage. We can't get where we need to be from a housing supply standpoint via almost exclusively single-family home construction.

Cities that are growing can choose density or sprawl, but they have to choose.

Inaction is choosing sprawl.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.

---

never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose

---

They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.

---

Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?

---

Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?

---

I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.

---

Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?

---

Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.

---

Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...

---

Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

---

I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime

---

Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.

---

Preach.

Very high and rising costs of land and construction aside, there are many unnecessary municipal and entitlement impediments to efficient, scalable multi-family development as a means to build our way out of a severe housing shortage. We can't get where we need to be from a housing supply standpoint via almost exclusively single-family home construction.

Cities that are growing can choose density or sprawl, but they have to choose.

Inaction is choosing sprawl.

---

Civ, where do you live? Single family house in the burbs? Townhouse in the burbs? Apartment in a city?

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.

---

never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose

---

They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.

---

Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?

---

Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?

---

I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.

---

Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?

---

Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.

---

Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...

---

Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

---

I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime

---

Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.

---

Preach.

Very high and rising costs of land and construction aside, there are many unnecessary municipal and entitlement impediments to efficient, scalable multi-family development as a means to build our way out of a severe housing shortage. We can't get where we need to be from a housing supply standpoint via almost exclusively single-family home construction.

Cities that are growing can choose density or sprawl, but they have to choose.

Inaction is choosing sprawl.

---

Civ, where do you live? Single family house in the burbs? Townhouse in the burbs? Apartment in a city?

---

Parent's basement...

---

BBW12OG said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

The bad faith troll is at it again with the anti-semitism lies

---

Here's your chance again. Condemn Talib, Amash, the one you said you would support for POTUS, Omar, AOC, etc....

Condemn the comments they have made. Come out in support of Israel and against Hamas who they both openly support.

How do you feel about your party refusing to help fund the "Iron Dome?" You have the floor. Prove me wrong.

---

You don't get to smear sh!#t on the floor and demand people roll in it. I owe you nothing troll.

I finally replied to your bad faith smear last time and..... you ignored it. I don't need to do it again.

---

Troll?? What have you posted other than to stalk me? A few here and there. And you did reply with a "nothing" answer.

You never condemned Talib, Amash etc.... you simply stated "(sic) I'm not anti-Semitic..."

You never did it the first time and now you are resorting the same tired response again. You said I supported the KKK.... which is not true. You likened that to me calling you out for supporting the anti-Semitic wing of your party.

I never supported David Duke for POTUS. You supported, and probably still do, Amash for POTUS. So your strawman argument is a phony and fake as your response.

Again...you've proven once again where your loyalties lie with your failure to condemn anti-Semitism and the ones who support it. You may not be a dog with fleas but you damn sure scratch a lot.

By the way... calling people out for their BS and lies is not "trolling." It's calling people out for their BS and lies.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

The bad faith troll is at it again with the anti-semitism lies

---

Here's your chance again. Condemn Talib, Amash, the one you said you would support for POTUS, Omar, AOC, etc....

Condemn the comments they have made. Come out in support of Israel and against Hamas who they both openly support.

How do you feel about your party refusing to help fund the "Iron Dome?" You have the floor. Prove me wrong.

---

You don't get to smear sh!#t on the floor and demand people roll in it. I owe you nothing troll.

I finally replied to your bad faith smear last time and..... you ignored it. I don't need to do it again.

---

Troll?? What have you posted other than to stalk me? A few here and there. And you did reply with a "nothing" answer.

You never condemned Talib, Amash etc.... you simply stated "(sic) I'm not anti-Semitic..."

You never did it the first time and now you are resorting the same tired response again. You said I supported the KKK.... which is not true. You likened that to me calling you out for supporting the anti-Semitic wing of your party.

I never supported David Duke for POTUS. You supported, and probably still do, Amash for POTUS. So your strawman argument is a phony and fake as your response.

Again...you've proven once again where your loyalties lie with your failure to condemn anti-Semitism and the ones who support it. You may not be a dog with fleas but you damn sure scratch a lot.

By the way... calling people out for their BS and lies is not "trolling." It's calling people out for their BS and lies.

---

You have still never established Amash as anti-semetic. You are the only one who tried to bring up Tlaib and somehow extrapolate her statements to Amash and then me. I used the KKK as an example of a smear I could have made if I was stooping to the same level as you. I'm better than making false, inflammatory attacks at other posters. I guess you're not.

Now I've wasted enough time on you today.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

With respect to the debt limit, it's surprising to me that Yellen, Schumer, and the media are doing a full court press to get Republican legislators to support the raise, given that they are the majority party in both chambers, and should be able to do it unilaterally.

---

never let a good crisis go to waste I suppose

---

They don't have the votes!

I really don't think Nancy has the votes! Many of her caucus are scared to death to vote for this thing. You have to watch the rio grand valley. The Democratic Representatives have seen how the Hispanics are shifting away from the Dem to the Repubs (really the America first agenda) and are scared to vote for anything that helps them lose their power.

---

Another problem with this infrastructure bill is that the Dems will dangle money like a carrot to some of these states in order to get them to push the progressive agenda further. Affirmative Fair Housing?

---

Didn't that already get put back in place by the Biden admin?

---

I believe so. But, it's not widespread enough for them, especially in the suburbs of red states. Their bigger goal is to geographically and demographically change this country.

---

Do you see the elimination of single family home zoning as a part of that?

---

Totally! Here's $10B for your infrastructure needs. Buuuuuuttt, we need some zoning laws changed here, here and here. Low income housing units are put in place, newly appointed US citizens move in, and voila, voting demographics altered.

---

Add in that financial institutions (Blackrock Capital) are buying up the home market. Change zoning laws and limiting home ownership, via investment bankers, and you have a recipe for disaster!!!!

This is truly class warfare. How our Democratic hombres don't see this is beyond me...

---

Interesting, I never thought about it that way, I saw some of the potential benefits of it, i.e reducing the amount of zoning and freeing up property owners with more rights. But you both have valid concerns. I just never thought about it being parking a low income housing development in your neighborhood but rather increasing the build options, I.e building small condo buildings, duplexes and triplexes, and single family homes interspersed within an area to create more housing options.

---

I also look at it from a generational and family wealth standpoint.

Building things like low income housing, condos, duplexes, and triplexes tend to drive down the cost of homes in the area. Most americans have most of their wealth tied up in their home. When you drop something like low income housing into a nice neighborhood in takes away from wealth that most people have accrued in their home over a lifetime

---

Upzoning can increases property values in urban or near urban places because a piece of land with more tenants is inherently produces more economic value. I get objections to upzoning out in the burbs, but if you're anywhere near a city center, we're prolonging an unsustainable situation. To be clear I am specifically talking about upzoning to allow private investment and development, not creation of government housing.

The population of the US keeps increasing, but housing supply has not kept up. In huge parts of the country (especially West Coast), it's extremely onerous to be a developer trying to build multi-family homes. Environmental reviews, historical designations, parking requirements, and other regulations are a factor. But just a general lack of near urban places to build due to single family zoning may be the biggest constraint. We can't build out forever. At some point the areas that were suburbs 50 years ago get consumed by the urban core and increased density should be allowed if driven by market forces.

---

Preach.

Very high and rising costs of land and construction aside, there are many unnecessary municipal and entitlement impediments to efficient, scalable multi-family development as a means to build our way out of a severe housing shortage. We can't get where we need to be from a housing supply standpoint via almost exclusively single-family home construction.

Cities that are growing can choose density or sprawl, but they have to choose.

Inaction is choosing sprawl.

---

Civ, where do you live? Single family house in the burbs? Townhouse in the burbs? Apartment in a city?

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

2016? Remind us who was President that year when that commitment was made?

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

2016? Remind us who was President that year when that commitment was made?

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

2016? Remind us who was President that year when that commitment was made?

---

it was actually Obama

---

Someone should tell the squad.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

2016? Remind us who was President that year when that commitment was made?

---

LOL... get'em... There's plenty of room up under the bridge for more "trolls..."

Nothing a desperate lefty likes more than calling someone out that proves their entire party and platform is all a bunch of MARXIST/COMMUNIST lemmings!

Oh... forgot...."but...but...but.... TRRRRUUUUUMMMMMMPPPPPPP"

Just be careful not to hurt anyone's "feewlings..." A few here are sensitive. Especially when they aren't out saving the world message board by message board!!! LMAO....

---

Lol. Didn't know you were a big Obama fan.

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is all very very true but neither party seems to care about it for some reason. Its crazy

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is all very very true but neither party seems to care about it for some reason. Its crazy

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

2016? Remind us who was President that year when that commitment was made?

---

LOL... get'em... There's plenty of room up under the bridge for more "trolls..."

Nothing a desperate lefty likes more than calling someone out that proves their entire party and platform is all a bunch of MARXIST/COMMUNIST lemmings!

Oh... forgot...."but...but...but.... TRRRRUUUUUMMMMMMPPPPPPP"

Just be careful not to hurt anyone's "feewlings..." A few here are sensitive. Especially when they aren't out saving the world message board by message board!!! LMAO....

---

Lol. Didn't know you were a big Obama fan.

---

ZOINKS pic.twitter.com/6p0yOJtOfA

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) September 23, 2021