| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/11/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40542 Activity:high |
11/11 Robertson to Pennsylvania town: Drop dead.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Robertson_Evolution.html
\_ Bill O'Reilly to SF: City not worth saving:
http://csua.org/u/dzj [sfgate.com]
\_ Why do they hate America?
\_ San Franciscans? The ones I know don't consider themselves
a part of this country so I guess it's a tribal us vs. them
thing, but really you'd have to go there and ask. It's only
a BART trip away.
\_ No, the obvious interpretation.
\_ San Franciscans? Which "they" are you referring to?
SFans is the only plural. Unless you mean the
Penn. town but then you're mis-indented.
\_ Nice misleading headline, dumbass. (you and the columnist)
\_ How's it misleading?
\_ He didn't say it was "not worth saving". He said that if
you don't want the military recruiting, then you don't get
the protection of the military. Talk about biased
reporting.
\_ Then can I stop paying the percentage of my taxes
that fund the military?
\_ If you're willing to fund your own military, your
own coast guard, etc, and the other million people
in the area are willing to do the same, then you
should try to get the city to cecede. I'm sure the
economics of the situtation will work in your favor.
Let us know how that works out for you.
\_ Perhaps a more interesting question is, should the federal
government do anything about SF banning military recruitment in
SF schools?
\_ Of course. No federal funds for them. Thanks for playing!
\_ That's exactly what they threatened to do to Yale Law for
exactly that reason. Yale backed down. Of course, that
may have partly been a personal feud between our moron
in chief and his alma matter.
\_ Ok, that's basically all O'Reilly said, he just threw in
a bunch of stupid hyperbole.
\_ Hmm, maybe the rest of California should pass similar
measures then, since we only get back half of what we
pay to the federal government.
\_ Half? URL please. And what's wrong with that anyway even
if true? I get back far less than half of what I pay into
the tax system, you don't see me or others trying to drop
out of the tax system. You want less taxes? You'll get
fewer services. It isn't possible to get 100% of your
taxes back because the government can't be 100% efficient.
No organization can. What's your beef with taxes, exactly?
\_ It's not half, but it is a fraction and it is a lot
in absolute dollar terms.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
\_ The same is true of your state and local taxes.
Government tax systems can *not* be 100% efficient.
The moment you put a middle man in between your
dollar and the service it renders, you lose.
\_ I think you misunderstand. It is indeed a
zero sum game. The dollars are going to be
spent somewhere. It may as well be California.
Why should other states get out of it more
than they put into it? If the middle man
takes his share, it shouldn't be a middle man
somewhere other than California (like DC).
\_ au contraire mon frere! I understand quite
well. You send $X to the Feds. Simply
employing someone to process your taxes costs
money (super simplified example). Thus right
there at step 1 you can't get 100% back. It
costs money to run the Federal government.
Taxes are not zero sum. They are a minus and
a drag on the system but they also provide
services that we agree as a nation are
necessary so we pay up and take the hit. So
instead of Federal taxes you seem to want to
pay only CA state taxes. Ok, you're still
not getting your money back. Some people are
going to get more, a lot more, money out of
the system than you. So let's only pay local
county/town taxes. But oh wait.... See? You
can't tax people and have all the people taxed
get 100% of their money back out. I don't care
where the middleman/waste is. Waste is waste.
Certainly, the CA State Legislature has not
proven itself better run than the Federal
level House/Senate.
\_ I think you still misunderstand. If the
person employed is a *CALIFORNIAN* then
there is no loss of money to the *STATE*.
Whether I, an individual, get back 100%
of what I put in is rather irrelevant.
I just don't want to see the money leave
the State if it can be spent here. So,
it is zero sum. Every tax dollar is
spent on something. None is lost to
'overhead' if the 'overhead' means
jobs/services for Californians. Sending
money off to Arkansas helps me not. Capiche?
\_ So you are not willing to consider your-
self a member of the "U.S. tribe" but
are willing to sacrifice to the "CA
tribe"? How does money spent on someone
in <random cow county in CA> help you?
How does money spent in another state
hurt you? Either way you get nothing
and pay the same amount. Money spent
on overhead is not productive for the
economy; furthermore, the economies are
so tightly intertwined that a poorly
performing state will drag the others
down. I understand what you're getting
at but fail to see how that philosophy
actually applies to the real world.
\_ If I am receiving 'federal' services
I would rather receive them from
my neighbor than from someone across
the country. If a dam is built in
Random Cow County it may benefit
me more than one built in New Orleans.
I would argue that spending more
money in CA is more likely to get me
something for my money. Or, more
obviously, just refund me my 'overage'
money back and I will benefit
directly. I identify strongly as
a Californian and I think, if
anything, much of the rest of the
country drags CA down. Certainly
many red states are just a drag
on the blue ones.
\_ If Cow County, CA is wiped off the
face of the map, most people won't
notice. If NO, LA is wiped off the
face of the map, the effects ripple
through the rest of the economy.
States are no longer highly
distinct entities, especially so
where the economy is concerned.
Your money is better invested in
NO, LA than it is in Cow, CA if
your concern is getting value back
for your tax dollar. If you just
hate everyone outside CA, well,
that's got zip to do with the way
that taxes or the economy work and
is a different topic.
\_ If NO, LA is that important
economically it should be
able to pay for its own dam
and not rely on CA to pay
for it. It's not like CA is
doing so well that we can
afford that stuff for other
places. What about our own
dams in the Delta, for example?
\_ So any part of the US that
isn't making profit should
be left to die? Now I think
you're just trolling but I'll
respond anyway: *when* CA is
hit by The Big One, you'll
be the first one bitching
about slow FEMA response and
any delays in the National
Guard showing up to save your
ass from looters.
\_ If so, it's because I
expect our fair share
after paying for floods
and tornados elsewhere
for the last 30 years
while FEMA refuses to pay
for our landslides and
wildfires.
\_ A landslide is too tiny
for FEMA. 5 houses?
Oh please. And the
wildfires aren't a Fed
issue either but we do
get help from other
states when they get
too big but really,
CO has had much bigger
fires than us. You're
really stretching now,
troll. Pay your damned
taxes and stop the fake
whining.
\_ Where was FEMA
in the last
couple quakes?
\_ Troll. They
weren't needed.
1 old guy had a
heart attack. A
few ancient bldgs
had cracks. Go
away troll. You
are stupid and
boring. Pay
your taxes.
\_ I have no beef with taxes. I'm merely pointing out
that it would be in our best interest to stop paying
federal taxes if, as the above post suggested, we
no longer are given federal funds. In other words,
be careful what you wish for.
\_ You don't pay taxes to get federal funds. You pay
taxes to get federal services such as the military,
the federal court system, the fbi, someone to
regular interstate commerce, etc. If you wanted
your tax dollars back in full measure you *can't*
pay federal taxes or any other taxes because the
tax system *can't* be 100% efficient. The government
is giant middle man system.
\_ Perhaps that might be related to the hostility to the
federal government exemplefied in the SF measure?
\_ say what?
\_ He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their
children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become
lesbians."
\_ That's silly. How does it destroy capitalism?
\_ Because women should be barefoot & pregnant in the home,
not part of the workforce, which ... Um ... helps
capitalism?
\_ The idea is feminism would force companies to accept lesser
qualified women in the name of equality. Their lack of
experience (wink and nod about female frailities) and forced
quotas would destroy the Competitive Edge (i.e. capitailism).
And they'd all be lesbians and pick up the good ones from the
secretarial pool thanks to their human children sacrifice to
their Wiccan gods.
\_ AND what is wrong with LESBIANS?
\_ Feminism doesn't force companies to do anything. Quota
systems do but obviously that's not the same thing. As
far as what real conservatives think about women in the
workforce, it is considered wasteful and stupid to scrub
half your country's brain power and creativity from
economically productive pursuits as seen in the Middle
East (except for Israel).
\_ AND what is wrong with LESBOS?
\_ Nothing BUD DAY can't fix!
\_ The local economy has been sucking, and tourism
hasn't been able to pick up the slack. Plus the
usual fears of terrorists attacking planes, trains,
and automobiles.
\_ In my observation, lesbians are in fact very good for the
economy.
\_ *laugh* A bit off topic? |
| 5/24 |
|
| seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Robertson_Evolution.html MSNBC US Thursday, November 10, 2005 Last updated 11:48 pm PT Pat Robertson warns Pa. town of disaster THE ASSOCIATED PRESS VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Ro bertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club." Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the co nstitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued. Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences." "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. advertising Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "ki ll their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become le sbians." |
| csua.org/u/dzj -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV41.DTL Email This Article Conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is ready to scratch San Francis co off the map of the United States. Terrorists can bl ow it up, and the rest of the country shouldn't care. The Fox News talk-show host and one-man conservative media juggernaut has concluded that the United States and San Francisco just don't go togeth er anymore. Voting to oppose military recruitment in public schools and to ban handgun ownership, as San Franciscans did Tuesday, means the city should be cut off from federal dollars. "You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into U nion Square, I set up my little presidential podium and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you' re not going to get another nickel in federal funds,' " O'Reilly said Tu esday on his radio show as San Franciscans were approving the two measur es. Perhaps, he didn't realize that he'd be speaking mostly to foreign t ourists and suburbanites if he were standing in Union Square. "And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in Ameri ca is off limits to you except San Francisco. San Franciscans might be offended by this invitation, or perhaps even thr eatened, if more of them visited Coit Tower. On a cool gray Thursday afternoon, the San Francisco landmark was filled, as usual, with tourists from Ohio, Texas and other states where TV's "T he O'Reilly Factor" and its syndicated radio companion, "The Radio Facto r," pull better ratings than in San Francisco. When visitors were told of O'Reilly's remarks, several had the same quest ion: "Why would he say that?" The few locals found at the tower had another: "Who's Bill O'Reilly again ?" Those familiar with O'Reilly tried to put the comment in context. "The man is a sensationalist fool," said Paul Hickey, a 76-year-old visit ing from Texas. Others interpreted the remark as O'Reilly's trademark brand of hyperbole. His mastery of this form of entertainment has made him a best-selling a uthor and top-rated talk-show host. "I just think he's blowing wind," said Jim Adelman, 64, visiting from Ohi o Reaction came swiftly from City Hall, which has taken other arrows in the aftermath of Tuesday's election. Thursday on KNEW-AM -- O'Reilly's Bay Area radio home -- conservative talk-show host Jeff Katz ripped handgun- measure supporters on San Francisco's "Board of Stupidadvisors." Board of, uh, Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes Coit Tower, suggested that O'Reilly should get his head examined. "It sounds like he's on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,'' Peskin said. Mayor Gavin Newsom said, "I've never been impressed with what he's had to say, and I'm not impressed now. Remember, this is the guy who wanted me arrested after (San Francisco sanctioned same-sex marriages last year). Imagine if O'Reilly had read the plaque on the front of Coit Tower, which describes its benefactor and namesake, Lillie Hitchcock Coit, as a woma n "who smoked cigars and often dressed as a man to gamble in North Beach saloons." Then again, Coit Tower fans should not feel special about being singled o ut. This isn't the first time O'Reilly has discussed the destruction of a famous building on the air with an aural twinkle in his eye. In September, a couple of weeks after Hurricane Katrina damaged the Gulf Coast, O'Reilly used the natural disaster to poke fun at one of his favo rite targets, the United Nations. "Bush addressed the UN, says he wants to be steadfast in battling terro rism," O'Reilly said on his radio show. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I ju st wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else. After United Nations Foundation President Timothy Wirth asked O'Reilly to apologize, the talk-show host replied with an on-the-air primer on the radio biz: "Well, apparently Tim Wirth has never listened to talk radio," O'Reilly s aid. Efforts to reach O'Reilly through Fox News on Thursday were unsuccessful. At least one liberal media watchdog group was offended by O'Reilly's Coit Tower remark. Media Matters for America President David Brock said, "He 's encouraging terrorist attacks. But isn't O'Reilly allowed the same type of latitude that liberals have s aid other entertainers should be afforded? Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want abo ut it, it's not cowardly." Maher apologized, and his public hushing by t he White House made him a favorite of Bush-bashers. "Yes, there are people saying things like that, like Bill Maher and 'The Daily Show,' but if you look at O'Reilly, his show is presented as a 'no spin zone,' " Brock said. Those people include Brock's group, which records every minute of O'Reill y's programs. Is that one of those entry-level jobs where you pay your d ues? Chronicle staff writer Rachel Gordon contributed to this report. |
| www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html April 19, 2005 Federal Spending in Each State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes, 2003 Note: To zoom in, print, select text or search the following document, pl ease use the grey toolbar below. KB * Federal Taxing and Spending by State, 1981-2003, XLS, 29 MB * Printer Friendly * Send to a Friend 2005 Tax Foundation. All Rights Reserved. |
| sfgate.com Friday, May 14, 2004 Updated: 12:07 AM PDT ' I'm guessing that the best way to hail a cab or a bartender in Athens will not be by waving an American flag." Sorensen Capital group He's already got more money than god, but that isn't stopping Steve Young (above, right) from embarking on a second career in business. Gov's Balancing Act Schwarzenegger unveils revised budget containing spending cuts and (as promised) no new taxes. Wedding Date's Still On Same-sex marriage opponents lose bid to halt gay nuptials, scheduled to begin Monday in Massachusetts. Researchers say they've found evidence of impact greater than the one that probably caused the dinosaurs' extinction. Wars' $50 Bil Price Tag "It's a big bill," says Wolfowitz, who estimates the cost of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. No Plea From Anderson Using a wheelchair, the haggard-looking suspect is arraigned in the murder of Xiana Fairchild. Giants Left Stranded G-men leave 12 men on base, including two in the bottom of the 9th, and drop series to Philly. Sex, Drugs, And Then 5 Deaths Playboy Playmate tells how she got involved with 2 suspects, but left in just the nick of time. Pixar Growth Plan Wins Fans 20-year proposal for Emeryville site gets flak from activists, but city says go for it. |