| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/23 |
| 2008/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51443 Activity:low |
10/8 Get ready for the great fraud election of 2008
http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2008/10/voting-early-often-indianapolis-bloated.html
\_ Courtesy ACORN:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174
\_ Of course it is not possible that McCain is going to lose simply
because his ideas and his party are unpopular. I actually like
this meme, it guarantees that the GOP will remain out of power
even longer, as they refuse to admit to their problems.
\_ the 100 guys the all powerful ACORN have signed up will tilt
the election! |
| 2008/10/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51419 Activity:nil |
10/7 Prop 8 proponents pouring millions into it, these bigoted assholes
might get it to pass -- go to http://www.eqca.org and donate $$$
Don't let prop 8 pass!
\_ my wife got a flyer supporting prop 8 at work. it was from a
church goer, all in Chinese, and pretty slick.
\_ Interestingly the poll shows that all of the pro-prop 8 movement
is coming from young people.
\_ URL? |
| 2008/10/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51390 Activity:nil |
10/5 Guess which VP candidate has read the Constitution?
PALIN: Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not
only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very
seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more
authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose
to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are
supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our
president understands what our strengths are.
BIDEN: The only authority the vice president has from the legislative
standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no
authority relative to the Congress.
\_ He said "He". SEXIST.
\_ Of couse he won't say "she" at this point of the campaign. Just
like he'd say he already knows that the next president will be
black, even though deep in his mind he's not sure.
\_ But Palin has read the Russian Constitution!
\_ She can see it from her house!
\_ Palin is not entirely wrong. A Republican VP is more powerful than
a plain VP. Just look at how powerful Chaney is (seriously).
a plain VP. Just look at how powerful Cheney is (seriously).
\_ Research Cheney and the VP position. Constitutionally, VP has
no more power/responsibility than Biden says. Cheney has
_created_ new power for the VP position because "the goddamn
constitution is just a piece of paper." |
| 2008/10/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51375 Activity:nil |
10/3 Hypothetical moral question: if you know someone who has the
opposite political stance as you but know that the person isn't
sure whether he/she wants to vote, would you:
1) encourage that person to vote because it's in the American
spirit to vote?
2) don't bother that person to vote because he/she will
nullify your vote.
Please explain your answers.
\_ I think everyone should vote who's paying attention. There's
something to be said for the wisdom of democaracy, but I think
something to be said for the wisdom of democracy, but I think
that breaks down if the voter isn't paying attention.
\- 1. i dont think this is a moral question typically
2. not voting is a form of voting.
longer answer: if you are persuaded the way you are voting is
"moral" and the other party is not ... like say they believe
in torturing people ... the moral act is to try to persuade them
to do the "right thing". now in some cases it's reasonable to
agree to disagree or the other party may reasonably have different
interest from you. i think discussing issues matters more than
voting. but to answer your question directly, #2. --non-voter.
\_ Cast an additional vote on their behalf for your candidate. -rdaley
\_ It doesn't matter. -DIEBOLD |
| 2008/10/2-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51349 Activity:moderate |
10/2 What is it like to date a Republican?
\_ Dated a TAIWANESE Republican. Great sex, but some side effects.
Always thinks she's right. Very stubborn. She's never wrong, and
you're always wrong. Materialistic. Always talks about money.
Complains about job all the time. Wants more money. Plays stocks
a lot. Talks about stocks all the time. Great sex. Always talks
about herself. High maintenance. Talks too much. Talks about
stocks and $$$. Complains about work. More righteous than
anyone else. Wants more tax cuts. Does not care about anyone
else except herself. Fuck mass transit and homeless and
social programs, the government should spend more money on
ME ME ME. Wants more tax cuts. Does not care about war as long
as it doesn't affect her tax rates. Votes Republican all the
time because it's GOOD FOR TAIWAN, so nothing else matters!
And low tax, oh my! Republicans are GOOD. Who cares about faggots
and minorities, lower tax is good for me! Me me me. $$$. See,
she's totally self absorbed & selfish & annoying. My advice is
that to be happy with someone like this, you too should be a
Republican and use her until she's no longer of value to you.
\_ Great sex. Annoying arguments. Overruse of cloying personal care
products by your SO.
\_ Annoying sex. Great arguments. Crappy food.
\_ Why crappy food? I thought southerners ate better and
took better care of themselves. SOUTHERN BELLES, MAN.
\_ Have you ever been to the south?
\_ I've never been to the south. In fact, like many
people here, I've never left Northern California.
people here, I've never been outside of N Cal.
The only real reference I have is Sweet Alabama.
Please tell me about the South. -pp
\_ Well the Republican I dated wasn't from the South,
but classic Southern food isn't exactly known for
being healthy.
\_ There's usually an inverse correlation between
something that tastes good and something that
is healthy.
\_ Spoken like someone who knows nothing
about food.
\_ The key word is: usually.
\_ You beat me to it.
\_ I have. Women there (men, too) from the upper classes
\_ I heard Southern pussies are bigger. Whether that's
environmental or genetic is still debatable.
http://csua.com/?entry=34794
\_ Southern men are just more well-endowed.
are more put together. They dress up more often and
wear makeup everywhere they go. This is in stark
contrast to people in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic who
are boring and plain-looking. I am not sure where
to classify Texans, but there are lots of hotties in
Texas, Florida, and Georgia.
\_ And generally chubby, you forgot that part. MOTD
boob guy would like it there.
\_ And you forgot that dim like them chunky. Dim
\_ I was visting family, sorry.
\_ And you forgot that dim like 'em chunky. Dim
likes 'em Texan size. Dim like JACKIE JOHNSON.
Dim like LA and suburban homes. Bigger IS better. |
| 2008/10/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:51343 Activity:nil |
10/1 I am a liberal. I've constantly being lectured about how great
free-market is. I am a bit frustrated now that practically *NO* ONE
talk about free-market anymore.
\_ eBay works well in the free market. In short, IMHO free market
works the best if you're dealing with oranges and such, and
not so well when you're dealing with homes and healthcare. I
for one welcome FDR style government because we're ready for it.
The pending wave of Socialism reforms is about to sweep America.
I know, because I am the next generation, and we want Socialism.
We are as talented and hard working as the generation before us, and
the generation before that, but unlike them we all missed out
the dot-com and housing boom. We have NOTHING to win and
everything to lose with the F-U everything for myself
Reagan style Capitalism. But we have everything to win
and NOTHING to lose with FDR style programs. We're fed up, and
we want CHANGE. The future of America depends on a bunch of
people like us, and we want Socialism NOW. More taxes on the
people who have, and less taxes on people who do not. Fuck
Prop 13, fuck corporate tax cuts, fuck religious nuts, fuck
anti-gay biggots, fuck tax cuts, fuck deficits, fuck automobiles,
fuck free market. We are ready for change.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/socialismisback |
| 2008/9/30-10/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51342 Activity:nil |
9/30 Senate to vote on bailout tomorrow, attaching bailout proposal to
existing bill. If passed, will go to House for a vote.
\_ Has anyone read this 451 page monstrosity? It has something for
every special interest that ever walked the Halls of Congress.
My favorite is an excise tax break for manufacturers of wooden
shafts for children. The shafts must be laminate, not all wood,
less than 5/16ths of an inch in diameter.
Then there is the excise tax relief for rum producers... that's nice.
The bill is full of this sort of junk. This is insanity!
\_ This... is... the SENATE! |
| 2008/9/29-10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51328 Activity:nil |
9/29 A key problem with this bailout is that the final version was
released on Sunday, and Dems and Republicans were expected to follow
their leadership and vote Yes after reviewing it for < 24 hours.
This is crazy for a $700B bailout. Every House member who voted for
it should be kicked out in November.
If you're gonna spend $700B, you FUCKING DO IT RIGHT. 150+ economists
are against this plan. See http://fedupusa.org for one approach.
\_ It isn't $700B
\_ please elaborate
\_ $250B at first, $100B available by asking for it. Another
$350B that is only available if congress explicitly agrees
to it via a joint resolution after the Treasury asks for it.
So it's really a $350B plan with the option to increase the
plan if desired. (Which is still a lot of money)
\_ Plus, we probably end up getting most of it back.
\_ how much of RTC did we get back?
\_ So let's see... the govt buys the assets that the banks
want least (presumably because it's tied to borrowers
who are most likely to default), and the govt wants to
not buy it at firesale prices, since that would cause
the banks to realize large losses and still make them go
out of business, so we'll buy it at prices that are
fairly close to "hold to maturity" (this according to
Ben, anyway). And then we hope and pray that we can
actually hold it to maturity without the borrowers
defaulting. How does it stand to reason that we'll
probably get most of it back? Just because the govt buys
their debt, these people will now more likely not default?
\_ The reality is that the default rate is pretty low
in either case. The problem is that no one wants
to buy the debt. It's a liquidity problem. The
banks would probably be fine if they had enough cash
reserves to operate, but they were counting on
selling the securities. Recall that in the early
1990s banks owned a lot of RE and it caused them
massive liquidity problems even though they would have
made large profits if they could have held on for 10
more years. Banks don't want houses, though. They
want cash. The gov't can afford to sit on it. Note
that I am still against the bailout.
\_ ^liquidity^solvency
taxpayer should take a loss because Hank said so
\_ Or, the taxpayer could take a gain. You really
don't know and neither does anyone else. Do you
even know how the bailout bill plan for auctioning
securities was going to work? I guess it doesn't
really matter now, but the next bill will have
something like it. You claim that the taxpayer
will take a loss, but the truth is, we won't know
for a while if that is true or not.
\_ how much of RTC did we get back?
\_ I don't know, but we got 100% of the money
we lent out using the HOLC and even got a
slight profit. We even got 100% of the RFC
money back. How much of the RTC did we get
back, you seem to know.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/4th5r7
\_ That does not answer the question, but
one person quoted that the US would
end up getting 50% back. But the
total cost ended up double (?) the
original estimate.
\_ We lost $124B on a total purchase of
$400B of debt and distressed assets:
http://tinyurl.com/4mogcb
\- re: the S&L crisis:
1. the circumstances of the s&l
crisis was deposit insurance
not an intervention. so the
govt in a sense didnt have a
choice [or the nature of the
choice was different ... e.g.
the could have closed firms
earlier ... if you are interested
in a difference between today
[FDIC now] and "yesterday"
[FSLIC back in the late 80s] see
e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4gts57]
2. to understand the full costs,
you must add the signficant costs
of the failed FSLIC in addition
to the successor, the RTC [there
are a bunch of smaller orgs as
well, but those can be ignored].
[the FSLIC shutdown about $100bn
worth of S&Ls and was insolvent
from very early in the process,
but continued to go through the
administrative motions]
3. these assets the RTC had were
seized, not purchased, and the
seized, not purchased, and then
disposed of. so the govt can
be criciized about how they
disposed of stuff, but not their
selection of what to buy ...
in the current situation the
problem facing the govt is
how much to pay when buying and
holding, as opposed to how to
dispose of a carcass while
keeping your promise.
\_ "You really don't know and
neither does anyone else." |
| 2008/9/26-10/1 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51319 Activity:nil |
9/26 http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=180291 Republicans more satisfied with sex than Democrats. \_ Women and fags are more likely to be Democrats. \_ I think it is all the bathroom sex. |
| 2008/9/22-29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51256 Activity:nil |
9/22 When's the last time to register to vote for Nov? -first time voter
\_ In CA, Oct 20: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
\_ http://www.rockthevote.com/voting-is-easy/important-dates |
| 2008/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51251 Activity:nil |
9/21 Contact/email your representatives to oppose the $700 billion bailout
of Wall Street.
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
http://lee.house.gov/?sectionid=44§iontree=18,44
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Home |
| 2008/9/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51212 Activity:nil |
9/17 Ah-nold to veto Dem+GOP supported California state budget. karma++ |
| 2008/9/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51122 Activity:nil |
9/9 California anti-gay leaders raking it in
http://justinmclachlan.com/08/46/california-family-council-money |
| 12/23 |
| 2008/9/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51102 Activity:low |
9/7 I can't stand the smirky tone of Palin's voice. Her mocking of
Obama, especially when her facts are wrong or deliberately disengenous
as they are shoved at her by Republican operatives, pisses me off.
I wasn't going to vote for her anyway, oh well
\_ I hated her too. She has that primly self-righteous tone of
holier-than-thou which I learned to despise from a co-worker
of mine, this sheltered whiny self-centered woman-child who
was pleased to level judgement on everyone else, but who,
when justifiably called flaky for actions she herself
committed, got all pissed off and then went on the attack
instead of admitting that yes, she HAD been a flake, sorry,
she'll try to do better.
\- but she runs a state with a land border with CANADA and a
martime border with RUSSIA
\_ http://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute |
| 2008/9/7-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51088 Activity:nil |
9/7 U.S. taxpayer put on hook for junk stuffed in FNM/FRE/FHLBs.
Cost likely to exceed $500B over next couple years: "In the end, the
ultimate cost to the taxpayer will depend on the business results of
the GSEs going forward" - Hank Paulson
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122079276849707821.html
\_ Thanks Republicans! Deregulation sure had worked out great!
\_ Thanks Republicans! The deregulation thing is working out really
well.
\_ Get ready for FOUR MORE YEAR.
\_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these guys
since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job. Fannie, et al have
great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to cut them loose and
completely privatize, while Dems defend them because they help
subsidize loans to lower income people.
\_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it say $500B?
\_ Wrong. There's been a dedicated regulator created just for these
guys since early 90s, and it has always done a terrible job.
Fannie, et al have great lobbyists. Repubs have been fighting to
cut them loose and completely privatize, while Dems defend them
because they help subsidize loans to lower income people.
\_ But but Bush sucks!
\_ An interesting way to put it; another way might be to say that
the Dems are supporting the dream of home ownership, while
the GOP want to cripple the govt. by privatizing any
successful programs.
\_ Didn't Bush just nationalize them? It is true that F&F have
given generously to both parties over the years, but the GOP
could have easily killed them when they controlled both house
of Congress and the White House, but they didn't. Instead they
let the IBs run wild with SIVs and GSEs and derivatives and
ignore their capital requirements.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5w38tk (FNM gives to whoever is in)
\_ The article says Treasury will put up up to $200B. Where does it
say $500B? |
| 2008/9/6-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51078 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Courseyvalue.html \_ Screw polar bears. |
| 2008/9/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51056 Activity:nil |
9/4 "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check |
| 2008/9/3-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51049 Activity:nil |
9/3 Caught a minute of the GOP convention, and I swear I heard
Obama's name mentioned more often than McCain's. (Granted, in
negative contexts, but still more often.) This seems...
counter-productive.
\_ It's been like this all year. The GOP literally has
nothing positive to run on.
\_ Vote for Our Guy! He's not... that guy!
\_ Pretty much.
\_ HOPE! CHANGE!
\_ McCain's name was mentioned more in the Dem Convention
than Obama's name was at the RNC. I guess the Dems have even less
to run on? The R's appear to have a more uniform distribution
whereas the Dems are completely focused on McCain and CHANGE!
http://tinyurl.com/6yhfym [nytimes.com] |
| 2008/9/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51017 Activity:low |
9/2 California hasn't paid bills for over 62 days. The government is
starving. The beast is starving. Is this what Republicans have been
dreaming of? Will a dying beast be good for everyone? Should I go
out and buy guns ammos and water filters? The message I'm getting
is that I need to be SELF RELIANT.
\_ "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he u
\_ "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he
says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the
bathtub." -Grover Norquist
\_ ammo, not ammoS
\_ You can't buy guns without a waiting period. If fit hits the
shan your ass is defenseless due to Democrats like Perata
(who has a concealed carry permit but doesn't want you to have 1)
\_ If you wait until the shite hits the fan to learn how to shoot,
you have lost already. Why do you keep deleting this reply, btw?
\_ Because I'm a liberal and I really hate guns and want to
SODOMIZE you. |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:50972 Activity:nil |
8/26 Gary Glitter spent months in a Vietnamese prison cell. Can I vote
for him too?
\_ that's a fit punishment for writing "Rock and Roll Part II". -tom
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter
\_ I know who Glitter is--I didn't ask *who* the op was talking
about.
\_ Did you see the part about how he was sent to jail in
Vietnam?
\_ BUD DAY doesn't appreciate what you are trying to imply here.
\_ OJ Simpson is a black celebrity. Can I vote for him too?
\_ Your analogy doesn't hold since Barack Obama isn't so much a
celebrity as a politician. Your analogy would work somewhat
better if you stated that the similarity between OJ and Barack
is that they're both black, but that would make you sound
racist, esp. as op drew parallels between experience and not
skin color. Would you like to try again?
\_ No, because you are incredibly stupid and not worth
conversing with.
\_ Yay! Win by annoying you! Yay! |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:50967 Activity:nil |
8/26 Bernie Ward, super-perv
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/22/BA0912G3V4.DTL
\_ Man, that article is full of all kinds of irony. |
| 2008/8/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50923 Activity:kinda low |
8/21 CA highest income tax bracket hits at 44K?
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/press/2007/07_38.shtml
\_ seems like it's 60k for head of household, which would apply
for anyone not claimed as a dependent I believe. --jwm
\_ So 90K for married filing jointly. Anyone here call that rich?
\_ I think Head of Household is when you are not married and you
pay for more than 50% of the living expense of another person
who is not a dependent of another taxpayer.
\_ Yeah you're not head of household if you are just a single
dude without dependents. (like me). fuck.
\_ Well, at least we still have one of the lowest property
taxes, and capped so that when we retire, we don't have to
worry about ridiculously amounts of tax increase! By a happy
owner. Once you buy a home in CA, DON'T EVER SELL!!! Trust
me. This is the way of life in California.
\_ ObSwami
\_ الله أَكْ!
\_ No, our property taxes are around the median.
\_ Median in rate, but because of Prop 13 they are lower than
most places if you've owned a property a long time. When
I bought my house for ~$350K N years ago it had been in
the seller's family for 65-70 years. They paid something
like $600/year property tax, which is definitely low. I
paid $4000/year on the same property when I bought it,
not that I'm complaining, because now my neighbors are
paying $8000+/year on similar houses.
\_ You know I wouldn't pay $100K for any piece of land in
inland Southern California, though I would be
willing to pay millions of dollars for Malibu and
coastal estates. S Cal inland in general is dumpy,
including Santa Ana, San Fernando, and even
Pasadena. Hot. Traffic. Dumpy.
\_ Yes, much better are New Jersey, Texas, and Florida. |
| 2008/8/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50905 Activity:nil |
8/19 Dem assemblywoman votes against budget, is thrown out of capitol
building.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=29225
\_ the aristocracy lives!
\_ Pointing this out is going to make me sound like I support the CA
dem party, but WTH: she didn't vote for because she wants a
water bond for her district, not out of any great moral objection.
This didn't stop the CA GOP spokesweasel from standing behind her
and pretending that she was just about to switch parties.
\_ الله أَكْ! |
| 2008/8/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:50771 Activity:low |
8/3 I have lived in N Cal all my life and have had a very sheltered
and liberal life. Actually it's pretty deprived as well. I've
never been to the South, and I'm wondering how accurate the
portrayal of the hicks are in the movie Sweet Home Alabama?
\_ No. Hollywood is exaggerated.
\_ What does North Hollywood have to do with it?
\_ OP was wondering how accurate the portrayal in a Hollywoor
movie was. Perhaps PP meant "Hollywood is exaggeratING."
\_ The South has been homogenized just like the rest of America -
so you'll see lots of the same fast food restaurants, parking
lots, and big box stores. More churchs, although this actually
applies more to Missouri than the "proper" South. Folks there are
generally the same mix of friendly and ignorant you'll find in
any other suburb, though the accents are a little different. The
cities are just as urban as anywhere else. Honestly Americans are
much more alike than they'd like to think - regional differences
are much more superficial now than they have ever been. This was
likely very different, say, 100 years ago, when travel was much
more difficult and expensive, and mass media consisted only of
newspapers.
\_ It depends on where you visit. If you go to Chapel Hill, you will
people as open minded and cosmopolitan as anywhere in California.
find people as open minded and cosmopolitan as anywhere in CA.
If you go to rural Kentucky, you will feel like you are in another
country. In general, the cities are like cities everywhere in
America, maybe a little more tolerant, since there is more black-
white race mixing. Rural areas can be kind of scary. I was in
Asheboro, NC last year and I saw a photo of the "old time" local
Klan chapter up on the wall of an antique store I was visiting.
I am sure he was just showing off a bit of local history, but
I think he was making a statement about how he felt about race
relations at the same time. He was not very friendly to my
Asian wife. Are you planning on visiting? If so, I can give you
some pointers. I was stationed in NC for three years and learned
some things about how to relate to Southerners.
\_ I own a house in Alabama in a smaller city, my mom lives in
Missouri near the Arkansas border (but Missouri is Midwest and
not The South), and my mom-in-law lives near Biloxi, Mississippi.
I've spent a lot of time in The South and not just in Atlanta,
Tampa, or New Orleans as I've done some touring of the rural areas
by car. I don't really remember the movie, except that the
seemingly redneck guy turns out to be a successful artist, which is
\_ But all his friends are trashy, like the friend who keeps
suggesting "Wanna arrest someone?" "Strip club?" etc etc
pretty typical of The South. Yes, people are bigoted there and
not just by race but also by religion. You even find a divide
between regular church-going people and occasional church-goers
and even the enlightened think Jews and Asians are novel/neat
as in "There's this Jewish fella over there. His family's been here
for 2 generations and he don't cause no trouble. He done told
me he don't eat no pork. Can you believe that?" Of course, I
found people in New England to be just as bigoted against WASPs,
so I hardly want to single out The South. Southerners also tend
to be classist as in Old Money versus New Money. I think
found people in New England to be just as bigoted against (other
than) WASPs, so I hardly want to single out The South. Southerners
also tend to be classist as in Old Money versus New Money. I think
everywhere might be like that, but it's very evident there
because there are so few wealthy folks to begin with.
\_ Yeah, New England types are much more unfriendly, even stuck up.
found people in New England to be just as bigoted against non-WASPs
so I hardly want to single out The South. Southerners also tend to
be classist as in Old Money versus New Money. I think everywhere
might be like that, but it's very evident there because there are so
few wealthy folks to begin with.
\_ Yeah, New England types are much less friendly, even stuck up. |
| 2008/8/3-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:50767 Activity:kinda low |
8/3 It is much better to have homogeneous suburbs than diverse cities:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html
\_ you know why "It's a small world" is such a happy ride?
because every race is segregated.. if u mixed them up
there'd be wars and genocides on that disney ride
\_ BEST (FUNNY) RESPONSE EVER. Thanks! :)
\_ I was on that ride a couple times and the only thing I didn't
like was that the music was too loud. Never though that the
whole thing was actually politically incorrect.
\_ I always knew that diversity is good EXCEPT when Latinos
and Mexicans are involved. I've lived through LAUSD for
18 years and things are in fact deteriorating. However, like
Putnam, I keep this to myself because every Liberal thinks
diversity regardless of the type of diversity is good.
\_ I'm not saying this dude's data is bad. I'm just surprised because
I think of the places I lived, and the ones that were the most
souless/didn't know anyone who lived around me were the ones where
pretty much everyone was the same. To be fair, I really wasn't
so maybe the benefit of homogenity only works when you identify
with the majority?
\_ I read "The Geography of Happiness" and apparently cultural
homogeneity is is a big element of societal happiness.
Homogeneous groups were much more like to be happy groups.
Some of what this article mentions matches my experience as well.
Any difference in norms is a potential conflict, so people do often
hunker down. I had some Mexican neighbors I liked OK in my old
house, but we clashed a few times, and I put up with a lot of
weird crap just because I didn't want to fight about it. (Who
keeps a rooster in a highly populated area?) I got along much
better with my White neighbors even though I liked the Mexicans
more.
\_ My amazingly white mormon nneighbors kept a rooster. And it
\_ My amazingly white mormon neighbors kept a rooster. And it
wasn't in a rural area.
\_ Doesn't religious diversity count?
\_ Doesn't religious diversity count? The problem is cultural
homogenaity, not race per se. In my case one group was
Mexican, and the other was CA style white trash. If you
were Mormon, you'd see those guys at church, and it would be
pretty easy to find a chance to say, "Hey, your rooster is
waking my daughter up at 4 am every morning. Why do you have
rooster?" If you don't have some sort of common cultural
raport, you have no idea how your neighbor will react of your
inquiry, and you'll tend to hunker down instead.
diverity, not race per se. If you were Mormon, you would see
them at church and it would be easy to ask why they have a
rooster waking your daughter at 4am every morning. With no
social/cultural rapport it is much more difficult to
predict their reaction, and judge how you should approch the
the situaltion. So people hunker down instead.
(Sorry, somebody squished this.)
\_ The mormonness is just to point out just how blindingly
white they were. "Step outside and instantly burn on an
overcast day" white.
\_ Racial integration is sex-based. Until they start screwing each
other's women and having mixed kids people mostly stick within
their own ethnic groups.
Therefore my new liberal government plan is arranged marriages
between races.
\_ Is that why I see so many asian chicks with white dudes?
\_ It's because the Asian chicks are gold-diggers who somehow
find prestige in dating white men and those particular white
men are too geeky to even try to hook up with hot Nordic
blondes but still won't date fat chicks. They produce mongrel
children who possess the worst traits of both.
\_ Are you a Moonie? |
| 2008/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50738 Activity:nil |
7/30 Can I CCW a gun into say, a post office? How about other
government buildings? What happens when you have to go through
the airport and they scan you, can you just show them your
CCW permit and carry your gun inside the building?
\_ Read the CA law. The permit is for CA, not for federal property.
Airports have specific regulations about guns. |
| 2008/7/30-8/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Military] UID:50731 Activity:moderate |
7/30 Can I CCW a gun into say, a post office?
\_ no.
How about other government buildings?
\_ no.
\_ Incorrect. State or City gov't buildings are covered by CCW.
\_ I'd like to see you take them into a police station
or courthouse. I'll be there with the camera taking pictures
of your surprise.
\_ I'd like to see you take them into a police station or
courthouse. I'll be there with the camera taking pictures of
your surprise.
\_ A CCW covers any local or state building or meeting
required to be open to the public.
\_ I dunno, cops go into these things all the time and they
are all armed. They just take off their side arms when
they go through the metal detector. I imagine it would
go more or less like that, in fact most cops would probably
just think you were undercover or something.
\_ right, except they actually have real badges
and you have a frigging commoner's CCW permit
\_ Of course I've *been* in a courthouse with a CCW
while carrying, no problem. (No metal detector
either.)
\_ Where? San Diego and most SFBA Courthouses screen
with metal detectors.
What happens when you have to go through the airport and they scan
you, can you just show them your CCW permit and carry your gun inside
the building?
\_ you go to jail. actually i lied. they take you to stupid
person's jail, which is deep underneath the real jail.
\_ you go to jail. actually i lied. they take you to dumbass
jail, which is deep underneath the real jail.
\_ Read the CA law. The permit is for CA, not for federal property.
Airports have specific regulations about guns.
\_ In an airport, a CCW covers you up to the sterile area. No
exceptions for firearms beyond that (see CA penal code 171.5(b)(1))
\_ If you're dumb enough to carry a gun to an airport these days,
I think you should stay home.
\_ But I want to be a hero like emarkp and save innocent
people from TERRORISTS!!! -emarkp #1 fan |
| 2008/7/29-8/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:50720 Activity:nil 90%like:50716 |
7/29 Swami! Your prediction is off by 6 months!!! You SUCK
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6opb7h [cnn]
\_ Wow San Francisco went UP by 22%. How about San Jose, Sunnyvale,
Mountain View, Santa Clara, etc?
\_ Fuck SF. Let them pay for their own stupid bridges.
\_ Based on the for sale flyers I see, prices in the parts of
SJ near Cupertino/Saratoga have gone up slightly from January.
\_ This is a typo. "SF" for Case Shiller means SF MSA, which is
SF, CoCo and Alameda counties.
SF, Marin, San Mateo, Alameda and CoCo counties.
\_ What is the peak of this graph?
http://bubblemeter.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html -GS |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Finance/Banking, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50696 Activity:nil |
7/25 not exactly WaMu:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080726/bs_nm/banks_fdic_dc_4 |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50691 Activity:moderate |
7/25 "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets
have created, and share its benefits more equitably."
Um, say what Obama?
\_ This is straightforward enough to me. What is confusing to you about
this statement? Was it the word "share" that threw you for a loop?
\_ I find it amusing that he's so clueless that he's talking to the
people of Berlin about how they threw off communism, and then
talks about reimposing it.
\_ you're a moron.
\_ You mean sharing is communism? Thanks for warning me, I had
been teaching my toddler to share, I will stop immediately.
\_ "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that
open markets have created, and share its benefits more
equitably."
Communism
\_ Public schools, free clinics, world-wide efforts to
eradicate AIDS, the US military... and everything
else your taxes pay for. Communism? No. Government?
Yes.
\_ Forcing people to share is communism.
\_ Paying taxes that fund social services that improve
the basic quality of life is part of the social
compact. Do not confuse your a failure to meet your
silly Libertarian ideals with Communism; there's
plenty of room in-between.
\_ Taking money from one group and giving it to another
is communism. Plain and simple.
\_ you're a moron.
\_ Did you actually attend Berkeley? Communism requires
the elimination of private property and the ownership
of the means of production by "the people". And we
already do this in our system, except the money goes
from the poor/middle class to the wealthy and
corporations.
\_ Did you actually attend Berkeley? Communism
requires the elimination of private property and
the ownership of the means of production by "the
people". And we already do this in our system,
except the money goes from the poor/middle class
to the wealthy and corporations.
\_ the problem with you liberals is that you
think everyone who disagrees with you is
an idiot and that you're smarter than
everyone else. Think about that for a minute.
everyone else. Think about that for
a minute. -emarkp #1 fan
\_ no, we think *you* are an idiot. -tom
\_ We are smarter than you. QED.
\_ Straw men aren't particularly fun debate
partners.
\_ He wants to raise taxes.
\_ His first action as President will be to send the 82nd Airborne
into the Hospitals to nationalize them. Next he will seize
the banks. After that, your will have Obama Party officials
spying on you at your place of work. He is a Marxist.
into the Hospitals to nationalize them. Next he will nationalize
the banks. After that, your will have Obama Party officials watching
over you at your place of work. He is a Marxist.
\_ BLACK HELICOPTERS! |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50662 Activity:nil |
7/23 DNC: gas tax dodgers
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=96282 |
| 2008/7/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50631 Activity:moderate |
7/19 Hey tom, since you're employed by the state (and receive a 6-figure
salary), maybe you shouldn't be the one arguing for higher taxes in the
state?
\- I'd be happy paying Denmark tax rates for safety, security,
cleaniness, and all the good stuff in Denmark. Your brain has
been classified as: puny and selfish
\_ Having been to Denmark, I disagree.
\_ Visitors to Denmark get access to social services too?
\_ Considering that Conservatism reached a high water mark with
the Bush/Rove/DeLay/Frist team, the only real question is can we
expect 10 or 20 years of Liberal dominance. If it is 20, you
just might get your wish.
\_ It will never happen because Americans in general are
proud and self absorbed and don't see outside their
States let along their country.
\_ Why did the New Deal happen then? How about the JFK/LBJ
period that gave us a bunch of liberal advances, including
the Civil Rights act? Your knowledge of American history is
extremely poor.
\_ Get a life. -tom
\_ You don't think it's relevant that the organization you advocate
sucking more money out of my pocket pays you?
\_ No. -tom
\_ Oh, so when Exxon execs say global warming is a hoax, you
won't object? Got it.
\_ Once again, you suck at putting words in my mouth.
Practice isn't making you any better. You also should
consider outsourcing your attempts at analogies. -tom
\_ Once again sucking at putting words in my mouth.
Practice isn't making you any better at that.
You also should look at outsourcing your production
of analogies. -tom
\_ Hush tom, the grownups are talking.
\_ Not on the motd they're not.
\_ You know, Tom, the "you" you addressed isn't the
same person as the last person you said that to.
You'd be a lot more objective and less knee-jerk
if you didn't take the motd personally. |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50627 Activity:moderate |
7/18 California state government spent $145 billion last fiscal year, $41
billion more than four years ago when Gov. Gray Davis got recalled by
voters. With all that new spending -- a whopping 40% increase -- we
ought to be in a golden age of government with abundant public services
for all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-matsusaka17-2008jul17,0,7957570.story
\_ same flawed assumption as before; using the CPI as the
measure for inflation is wrong, because both salaries and
real estate costs in the state (not just in the public
sector) have risen far faster than CPI inflation in the past 10
years. -tom
\_ Just look at the nominal values.
\_ nominal values of what?
\_ Which means exactly zero. You're saying that the adjusted numbers
aren't adjusted enough. Or that the rich should be getting soaked
more. The point remains that the state spending has increased by
a huge amount in a short time. The whining about the budget is
ridiculous, especially considering that the proposed budget will
still increase next year--mostly by stealing from other funds and
raising taxes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold18-2008jul18,0,334514.story
http://tinyurl.com/6b9koc [latimes]
\_ Yes, I'm saying that the adjusted numbers aren't adjusted
enough. State spending has increased by a huge amount in
a short time *because of inflation*; it has not increased
by a huge amount relative to the cost of doing business
in California. Actually I would expect that, except for
the prison sector, real state expenditures relative to
California-indexed prices are flat or down over the past
4 or 10 years. -tom
\_ Since you don't believe the published numbers, you'll just
pull them out of your ass!
\_ What are the published numbers for California? -tom
\_ High real estate costs don't much affect State spending
and I doubt even State salaries are up 40% in 4 years.
\_ Real estate is absolutely a major cost to the
state. So are fuel and energy. State
state.
\_ I doubt it much impacts operations. How much
real estate does the State buy after all -
especially residential real estate, which is
where the bubble was? You'll have a hard time
arguing 40% over 4 years undersells the State's
real estate cost inflation. By the way, every
business in CA has done business in the same
inflationary environment. How many have increased
spending 40% in the last 4 years? I know my
employer hasn't. More like 5% per year which is
about 23% over 4 years. Inflation hasn't been
40% over the last 4 years.
\_ California's gross state product is up over 40%
since 2000, so clearly business spending has
increased by at least that much. I wasn't
able to find 2002 numbers, but given the dot-com
crash, I'm sure it didn't increase much from
2000-2002. -tom
\_ What is your source, I can use it in my
next debate with a net.libertarian. -ausman
\_ Big difference betweeen 40% since 2000 and
\_ Big difference between 40% since 2000 and
40% over the last 4 years. Here are the
GDP numbers, BTW (in millions of current $):
(Source: http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp
2000 1,287,145
2001 1,301,050
2002 1,340,446
2003 1,406,511
2004 1,519,443
2005 1,632,822
2006 1,742,172
2007 1,812,968
So California GDP is up ~40% over 7 years.
Since 2004 it is up 19%.
\_ This is an awesome data source (and is
a pretty strong argument that The State
is spending more), thanks. Aren't classroom
sizes smaller these days?
So are fuel and energy. State
population is up over 7% since 2000, which
represents an absolute baseline for spending
increase. Median household income rose from
$46K in 2000 to $54K in 2006. And by
cherry-picking a 4-year period, you're ignoring
the fact that there were state budget cuts the
three prior years.
\_ And you're ignoring that the state was still deficit
spending in those years.
\_ So? They still had to defer all kinds of
expenses. -tom
\_ So. What? The state shouldn't be spending more
than it takes in. Period.
\_ Why not? Pretty much every business and
family spends more than it takes in, at
least occasionally. -tom
\_ Time to recall the Governator!
\_ I'd be for that in a heartbeat. -op |
| 2008/7/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:50620 Activity:nil 54%like:50612 |
7/17 More hypocrisy from Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo
[Promo/hit piece from Americans for Prosperity]
\_ It's pretty tough being Al Gore. On one hand, he wants to get
his message across. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult
to get his message across without violating his messages. On
one hand, I'd wish he would bike to conferences using a single
speed bicycle and wearing spandex. On the other hand, no one
really listens to hippies dressed in tie dye shirts shouting
"Global warming is here! Conserve!" Tough position man. What
would you do in his position?
\_ "This video is no longer available"
\_ works fine for me
\_ http://AmericansForProsperity.com has a picture of RONALD REAGAN
Oh yeah this is a GREAT message and a GREAT site RONNIE is
our GREAT HERO YES VOTE CONSERVATIVES NOW! Patriots unite!!!
\_ Translation: I feel really stupid for supporting this hypocrite,
ad hominem time!
\_ You're a conservative, why do you care what other people do
with their lives? As long as you are eco-conscious or can
help others become more eco-conscious, what do you care?
\_ Mainly just because it's annoying to have some hypocrite
harranging you. -!op
\_ Al Gore is trying to get policies enacted to force me to act in
a way that he himself doesn't. It's clear that he doesn't
actually believe in his global warming hoax since he doesn't even
do a thing to live like he tries to tell the rest of us to live.
\_ WWAGD. Bwahaha http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=33#comments
\_ Al Gore is 10 times the leader that Dubya is. Too bad the Supreme
Court selected Bush. |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50574 Activity:nil |
7/15 i stuck 'sex dungeon' in my google news alerts
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1226788863 |
| 2008/7/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50559 Activity:nil |
7/14 Customers line up in front of IndyMac bank branches in hopes of pulling
out cash
http://tinyurl.com/5k5b72 (yahoo.com) |
| 2008/7/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/BayArea] UID:50558 Activity:nil 92%like:50565 |
7/14 Mythbusters need people in the bay area to help out in September http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/07/help_mythbusters_recreate.html |
| 2008/7/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Industry/Jobs] UID:50537 Activity:high |
7/11 Regarding the below discussion about "overpaid" government
employees, here is a result of a search on all programmers
who work for the State Board of Equalization:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/766730.html
As you can see, the pay is below industry standard.
\_ You know who makes way too much in California? Firefighters.
Screw those guys. Just as soon as they're done fighting the 3000
simultaneous fires going on now all over the state and turning
my sunset a pleasant red, I expect a full auditing of their
overtime and massive firings.
\_ If they have to work that much overtime then maybe they need
to hire more firefighters. However, I bet the unions won't
allow that. There are lots of people lining up to be
firefighters and there are no positions to be had, yet these
guys work crazy overtime (which has to be unsafe). They
won't accept making their base salary amount, though, which
is what they'd have to take if enough were hired.
\_ My take all along has been that IT is one of the *few* areas that
the government underpays, which is probably why so many of you
think that government pay is low.
\_ Never worked for the government I see.
\_ Never lived in DC I see.
\_ Show me a job title and employer where the pay is high then:
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay
All I see is mediocre (at best) pay levels.
\_ How about an OC detective making $221K?
\_ Unsourced anecdotal evidence is pretty weak. I presented
you with a database with tens of thousands of salaries,
now go make your case.
\_ Happy?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deputies14-2008may14,0,1117569.story
"The average salary for federal employees is
$60,517... the Washington, DC area has an average
salary of $78,593."
(Source: http://www.fedsmith.com/article/687
"The top overtime recipient was sheriff's
investigator Theodore R. Harris, who made $120,000
in overtime, bringing his total pay to $221,000"
(Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deputies14-2008may14,0,1117569.story
(Source: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5lxapl [la times])
"City workers' average salaries will reach about
$68,850 for civilians and $93,800 for sworn police
and fire by July - placing them in the upper ranks
of comparable cities and far higher than
private-sector workers."
(Source: http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_9221826?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
(Source: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5lb8s9 [daily news])
"What was not reported was her annual salary,
which, according to a database published by the
Daily News, is $104,000. Another DWP mother in
attendance was Wendy Ramallo, the wife of Joe
Ramallo, who, according to the database, makes
$167,478 per year.
By the way, if those two drove to the meeting, they
probably drove a car you own. You see, all DWP
employees with six-figure incomes get, in addition
to their salary, a free car, paid for by you, the
taxpayer/ ratepayer.
Sara Perez and Jo-Del Navarro also spoke out, but
they "only" make $86,025.60 and $72,620 per year."
(Source: http://www.citywatchla.com/content/view/1032
"As the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
seeks a hefty taxpayer rate hike, a Daily News
review of salary data shows the average utility
worker makes $76,949 a year - or nearly 20 percent
more than the average civilian city worker.
More than 1,140 of the utility's employees - or
about 13 percent - take home more than $100,000 a
year. And General Manager Ron Deaton, who is on
medical leave, rakes in $344,624 a year making him
the city's highest-paid worker.
DWP salaries are on average higher than city and
far higher than private-sector workers'"
(Source: http://tinyurl.com/6xctu5 [laist])
LWDP database showing painters making $79K:
http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/ladwpsalaries/?appSession=735104577589687
http://preview.tinyurl.com/64ubs3 [dailynews]
Feel free to search for your own job titles at:
http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/ladwpsalaries/
Even "CUSTODIAL SERVICES ATTENDANTS" make $46K.
"Have you heard about the fire captain in the city
of San Diego who made $242,138 in one year? How
about the city lifeguard who made $138,787? It's
all true - and if you thought the city of San Diego's
pensions were generous, wait until
you see how much some city workers are being paid."
"For years, the city's powerful unions and many
city officials have claimed city workers are
underpaid - using the official salary
schedules published in the budget as their
evidence. It is time that the public be told
exactly what city workers are paid. Taxpayers
should not have to rely on an institute to dig up
the information using W-2 data. City departments
(such as the Fire Department) also put "phantom
positions" in their budget to hide off-budget
expenses such as excessive overtime. Mayor Jerry Sanders
recently discovered that 400 or more salaried positions
are not even included in the budget each year."
(Source: http://tinyurl.com/pz5wo [sd union tribune])
\_ "The average salary for federal employees is
$60,517... City workers' average salaries will reach
about $68,850 for civilian workers..." Sorry, those
numbers just don't seem that exorbitant to me, do
they to you? Perhaps there are a few departments where
employees are overpaid (and it sounds like DWP is
one of them) but to extrapolate from that to all
they to you? Perhaps there are a few departments
where employees are overpaid (and it sounds like DWP
is one of them) but to extrapolate from that to all
government employees is bad logic. I do not
begrudge someone getting paid 2X a normal salary
if they do 80 hrs/week of work and I don't
understand why you would either. It does sound like
their boss needs to hire someone new, but this is
their boss needs to hire an extra person, but this is
not always possible, as should be obvious if you
stop to think about for even a second.
\_ 1. It depends on the job being done. For an
accountant maybe not. For a simple clerk,
painter, or custodian then yes. The
argument was that gov't employees are
underpaid and that is clearly untrue. They
don't have to have 'exorbitant' salaries
for that to be untrue. I make $100K and I
don't have a free car, for instance.
2. I gave data for all federal employees, so
we don't have to extrapolate.
3. Do you really think these people are doing
80 hours/week of work based on the hours
gov't offices keep and your experiences in
working with the city/county? For
instance, in San Diego they get every
other Friday off. And they are still
working crazy OT? No way. It's a farce
caused by lax auditing. Why are people who
make $100K per year getting any overtime
at all? At my company (and most companies)
people at that level are exempt and we just
suck it up or quit. The article is making
a point that "phantom positions" are
created to perpetuate this overtime fraud.
The gov't will never hire appropriately
because it would be akin to a pay cut for
the workers. It's easier to continue with
the status quo because you have an excuse
why you are behind on work (short-staffed)
and make the paper salaries seem small.
4. Like I said, I have two sisters working
for the gov't and it's easy money. My one
sister is very honest and she always says
she doesn't have enough work to do and
asks for more and they tell her she needs
to stop working so hard and just enjoy it,
except she gets bored. She's an executive
secretary (which means she is the personal
secretary for a high-level engineer) and
she makes $70K. In another 4 years (will
have been 20 years) she can retire with
50% of her salary and free medical for
life. I don't begrudge her that, but let's
be honest about how that compares to being
a secretary at, say, Wells Fargo (where my
mom worked for many years) where those
benefits are non-existent and you would be
lucky to make $40K in that position. Put
the 'government employees are underpaid'
thing to rest. At worst, they are
compensated as well as anyone else and
usually better.
\_ You're talking a lot, but you're not
saying anything.
\_ You're a moron who can't read.
\_ Since you are the king of making up things
to support your position, I need a lot more
than "the friend of my sister-in-law over
heard at a party" kind of data. Give me a
job description and a state department and
show me a sector of employees in the
in the State of CA database. All of the data
is there for the world to see, surely if
public sector workers are so overpaid, you
can find at least one of them. $60k/yr for
a mid-career teacher, police officer or
skilled craftsman seems very reasonable,
even underpaid, to me. The majority of
local spending is on education, public
safety and public works, so that is where
the majority of employees are going to come
from. The rest of your comments are mostly
not worth replying to, but I will note that
if these jobs are so great, why aren't people
lining up to fill them? There is a chronic
shortage of police officers and teachers in
CA, hardly indication that they are overpaid.
http://http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t03.htm
Note that total overtime pay is .4% of
overall salary, so your opinion that
overtime pay in the public sector is
ubiquitous is clearly wrong headed.
\_ Plug in "exective assistant" for the
Dept of Water Resources and you will see
pay varies from $39k to $48k. |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50527 Activity:nil 80%like:50517 |
7/9 Dallas County meeting gets racial.
http://csua.org/u/lvy
\_ Do we really need every damn freeper article reposted here? |
| 2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50526 Activity:moderate |
7/9 Now we know what the definition of "rich" is: $150K/yr/household
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1069753.html
\_ Only $150K, why you poor poor thing.
\_ The GOP has no function in CA, except as obstructionists.
\_ You mean like all those Republican unions that got all of
the Governator's propositions defeated in the 2005 special
election?
\_ I notice you still can't pick one thing that the GOP
has accomplished in California in the last 30 years.
\_ That's because the California State Legislature
has had a Democratic majority for the past 30 years. So
the inability to get anything done is somehow the
minority party's fault? Try again, dumb troll.
\_ In other words, their only function is as
obstructionists.
\_ Sure maybe in the CA Legislature, but the you
must have missed my comment 9 lines above yours.
Oh wait, you're a troll. So you're deliberately
ignoring presented facts.
\_ Somehow the Republicans in Congress get things done
even though they are in the minority and they control
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA? Is it because
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA?
\_ You do realize that US Congress has a completely
different legislative process than the state of
California, right? Oh wait, you're a troll.
Is it because
they hold onto a tired and inflexible ideology which
rejects the possibility of compromise? Also, there
rejects the possibility of compromise?
\_ You're nothing but a political homer if you think
California Republicans are the only ones with
an inflexible ideology.
Also, there
have been many GOP "victories" at the initiative level.
Why not trumpet those? The extension of Prop 13 tax
breaks to the decendents of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general Conservative
agenda of advancing inherited wealth over earned wealth.
breaks to the descendants of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general
Conservative agenda of advancing inherited wealth over
earned wealth.
\_ Prop 13 is older than 30 years old.
How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are
Out"? Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
overflowing prisons and severely cutting back public
post-secondary education must count as one of the
greatest victories of American Conservatism in the 21st
century. The GOP has always hated great public
institutions like the University of California, and it
looks like you will finally get your long desired goal
of destroying it, or at least severly weakening it. How
about Prop 187? Surely eliminating schooling for the
about Prop 187? Eliminating all schooling for the
children of the poorest must rank as a great victory
in the Class War against The Poor! Isn't it every
Conservatives secret desire to have a house full of
poor, dumb, uneducated servants, too hopeless to be
anything but docile? Eliminating any chance of becoming
literate is surely a huge step in the right direction.
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one donw. C'mon
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one down. C'mon
fly your flag high, you have lots to be proud of!
\_ So pretty much the California GOP has the courts
against them now too. So, what have CA Dems
accomplished with the deck stacked so heavily in
their favor?
\_ Were you foaming at the mouth when you wrote this
rant?
\_ Yes, because obviously anyone who disagrees with
the GOP is rabid.
\_ That is the most off the rails rant I've read
in months. That has nothing to do with the
target. -!pp
\_ Still waiting for some "successes" from the
CA GOP. Don't the things I listed count
as initiatives they are proud of?
\_ Actually, if you read it it is $321K. The $150K number is just
for a child dependent exemption worth $200.
\- well there are a few way to approach "rich" ... say the
"top 5%, 2%, 1%" in the country/state/"area" and then there is
"doesnt have any money worries" ... can buy any car they want
"within reason", can vacation anywhere they want, no worries
about healthcare expenses, or college tuition for kids, has all
the house they "need". i think we operate in the latter context ...
but if you are "richer" than 98% of "everybody", can you really
say you arent "rich"? rather than picking a wealth/income level,
how would you define "rich"? the "relative income" approach or
the "opportunity" approach or something else? |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50525 Activity:low |
7/9 Got too many junk mails? Thanks to People's Republic of California,
Comrades can opt out of mailing lists. Take your pick:
Tons of free-market junk mail, or socialist controlled junk mail:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wpie/JunkMail/default.htm
\_ And what's a free-market alternative method of opting out of
junk mail? It's so damned cheap to produce and send that almost
any result makes it profitable.
\_ The free market alternative would be to refuse to accept it,
but the USPS doesn't allow one to refuse to accept mail.
\_ what would be the advantage to the delivery service of
allowing you to refuse to accept deliveries? -tom |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50524 Activity:nil |
7/9 Electric Minis for CA Only:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6qbnn9 [autobloggreen.com] |
| 2008/7/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50517 Activity:nil 80%like:50527 |
7/9 Dallas County meeting gets racial.
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/07/dallas-county-meeting-turns-ra.html |
| 2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50508 Activity:high |
7/9 Check out the graph of CA revenue vs spending
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ttws3
\_ CLEARLY, we need to cut pork, like education (for illegal
immigrants), lunch food (for illegal immigrants),
healthcare (for illegal immigrants), transportation (amigos
driving on my I-210). You see it's all about illegal amigos.
Say no to illegals, say yes to tax cuts! !dim
\_ it's hard to tell whether this guy is a nutjob, or is satirizing
nutjobs.
\_ Is this guy one of those "compassionate" conservatives I keep
hearing about? I just *love* his idea of scrapping public
health. Can you say epidemic?
\_ Look at the chart. Notice how spending increases outpace revenue
increases? -op
\_ what a surprise, given relentless tax cuts amidst growing
demand for services. -tom
\_ Next time I spend more more money than I make, instead of
cutting back on my expenses, I will just order my boss to
give me a raise so that I can keep on binge spending. That
is such a great plan, I can't believe I never thought of
it before.
\_ Noone is saying cuts shouldn't be made, but the cuts
this person came up with are beyond dumb. You can
cut services that may very well pay for themselves and
have serious quality of life concerns when they are gone
(even for people who don't directly benfit from them) or
you could go after the real pork like prison overspending.
\_ I agree. I don't agree with the cuts the guy in the url
wants to make. I think some of them are totally nuts. My
point was only that some cuts should be made and that
it is unrealistic for the government to keep demanding
ever increasing taxes to fund pork projects.
\_ How about, next time your are spending about as much
money as you make, you order your boss to give you a
pay cut, since the extra profit the company makes from
paying you less salary will trickle down to you. -tom
\_ This is just bizarre. Revenue was increasing. Spending
increased as well, just faster. I can't see any
evidence of "tax cuts" in the revenue curve.
\_ Well tom's idea is that spending has a natural
positive growth and income should have a similar
growth (by maintaining or increasing taxes). I
don't think he accepts the premise that perhaps
government spending and income shouldn't grow.
Re tom's hypo - perhaps the government should
try spending LESS than it makes and re-thinking
what services are absolutely necessary.
\_ I think my brain just popped. Does tom think that
we should decided spending first and then set
taxes to raise that money?
\_ You can find evidence of tax cuts in the legislative
record. Revenue continued to rise because *more
people came to California*. In 1980 there were
23.7 million people in California; now there are
36.5 million. -tom
\_ Overall state government spending as a percentage
of GDP has been within 1% of 9% since the mid 90s.
It has not gone appreciably up or down.
\_ Inflation-adjusted per-capita spending has
increased over 40% in the last decade.
\_ Please provide evidence for this "fact".
\_ Math is hard.
\_ http://www.caforward.org/dynamic/pages/link_10_135.pdf
\_ link:preview.tinyurl.com/65rpor
[caforward.org]
\_ Personal income has risen much faster
than state spending; obviously the
state's increase in spending is trickling
down to the people of the state.
(NB: a likely flaw in these numbers
is use of incomplete or fudged figures
for inflation.) -tom
\_ So, as a percentage of personal income,
state spending has actually gone down.
As I have asked before, why do you think
that state spending should track
inflation? Most of what the State spends
on is salaries. Shouldn't state spending
track GDP or personal income instead? Why
do you think that State employees should
expect their salaries to constantly lag
behind the private sector?
\_ Government employees in general
are compensated extremely well.
Have their numbers increased or
decreased over time? (Honest Q)
\_ Government employees are not
compensated well compared to
corporate employees; at low levels,
if you include benefits (which
are better for government
employees) people are still
paid a little better in the
industry, and at the high end,
there's nothing in the public
sector anywhere close
to the compenstation given to
industry executives. Their
numbers have increased, as
the population and thus the need
for government services has
increased. -tom
\_ Actually, government employees
are compensated very well.
We're not talking CEOs
here. We're talking rank
and file government employees.
Government jobs are some of
the highest-paying jobs around
*NOT ACCOUNTING FOR* the
ridiculous benefits. You
don't realize it, because
you work in one of the few
fields where the government
underpays. Two of my sisters
work for the gov't (county and
city) and for example the county
just hired a new 24 y.o. civil
engineer with an MS at $120K
per year. The evidence is
not just anecdotal, either.
For example, 2/3 of OC
sheriff's deputies make
$100K+ with the top sheriff
making $221K. Note that this is
not The Sheriff, but a detective.
not The Sheriff, but a
detective.
The average DWP employee makes
$77K. Locksmiths and painters
for DWP make $80K. I read
a gardener for the City made
$100K including overtime
and a transportation coordinator
(coordinates events like LA
Marathon) made $120K base + $60K
overtime. No, the government
pays quite well, the benefits
are good, expectations are low,
and it's hard to be fired.
\_ gee, then why aren't you
working for the government?
How much do you think a
sheriff's deputy should
make? -tom
\_ My industry is one in
which the gov't underpays
unless I move to DC which
I don't want to do. But,
actually, I do work for
the government indirectly.
Not sure what your point
is with that ridiculous
comment anyway. As
for deputies and prison
guards, compare their
salaries with those of
free market security
guards. I think a deputy
should be paid more, but
not *that much* more
to work the mean
streets of Irvine.
BTW, if gov't pay is so
low then why have you been
working for the gov't for
20 years - all through the
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy wealth?
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy
wealth?
\_ Because I am not
motivated by pursuit
of wealth. -tom
of wealth. (Although
I will note, you have
no clue about my
career.) -tom
\_ I was exaggerating,
but it's been 13
years according to
your own resume.
\_ Your anecdotal evidence is BS, as
I am sure you well know. I have
three family members who work for
State of California and they are
all paid poorly for their level of
experience. One is a DBA, with 20+
years of experience, who makes $80k
one is a programmer, with about 10,
who makes $60k and the last is
a secretary, who makes about $30k.
\_ IT is one of the few areas where
the gov't underpays. I won't
dispute that. However, a
secretary at $30K is about
market value. The average
pay at the DWP is $77K. That
is not anecdotal, and the
average is not brought up by
lots of $800K managers. In
fact, only about 10% of the
workforce makes more than $100K.
If you work for DWP you can
make $70-80K for just about any
job and it's easy money, too.
It's not just the DWP either.
Pay in the public sector is, in
general, below the private sector.
And even if it wasn't, why should
people who work in the public sector
expect their pay to lag and fall
further and further behind? You
cannot even answer this question,
which is why you are trying to change
which is why you are trying to
change
the topic.
\_ I have no interest in answering
that question. I am not the
person to whom it was asked.
I just want to point out that
the government wastes a lot
of money, which should come
as a surprise to no one
other than tom.
\_ Corporations waste a lot of
money, too. -tom
\_ Maybe, but here's the
point you miss:
It's *THEIR* money!
The government's money
is *MY* money.
\_ So? It's not possible
to run a large
organization 100%
efficiently; that
standard is simply
not realistic. -tom
\_ So? SO? You like
handing over your
$$$ to be wasted?!?!
Maybe the gov't
shouldn't be so large
then.
shouldn't be so
large then.
\_ It doesn't bother
me any more to
hand over money
to the government
than to United
Airlines or any
other faceless
corporation.
I think most
governmental
programs have
decent return on
investment. -tom
\_ I can't say I
agree that that
has been true
for many years
now. It was
true once upon
a time. What's
the ROI for
attacking Iraq?
D'oh!
\_ State spending as a percentage of GDP has remained
essentially unchanged since the late 80's:
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-07sfp-f2.jpg
\_ http://www.urban.org/publications/1001173.html
"State and local revenues have been relatively stable over the
last 30 years..."
Sorry to bust your bubble, buddy. |
| 2008/7/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50497 Activity:kinda low |
7/8 FREE HANS
\_ It seems like he has a decent chance of getting out in 15 years.
Would they let him use computers in jail?
\_ CA pretty much doesn't give parole to murderers anymore.
And I suspect his computer use will be pretty much non-
existant.
\_ Only 15 years for strangling his wife?
\_ 15 to life. Parole no sooner than 15 years, though the state
doesn't tend to grant parole to murderers.
\_ I know what the minimum sentence is, but I disagree with
the "decent chance of getting out in 15 years" comment.
\_ Ok, I made that up. Nevermind.
\_ Can't he get 1/3 off for good behaviour? He might be
out in 10 years!
\_ he won't behave well. -tom
\_ he's being sentenced to 15-to-life, instead of 25-to-life.
I don't think it matters at all. it just means in 15 or
25 he is eligible to apply for parole. So he applies for
parole. The Parole Board makes a decision. That decision
is 'sorry'. Even if they agree to let him out, the governor
has to sign off on it. no CA governor since Pete Wilson
has parolled a murderer. ok i think maybe Arnold just released
a woman who killed her rapist abusive husband 30 years ago.
I dunno why we even have a goddamn parole board if they don't
let anyone out.
is 'sorry'. Even if they agree to let him out, the
governor has to sign off on it. no CA governor since Pete
Wilson has parolled a murderer. ok i think maybe Arnold
just released a woman who killed her rapist abusive
husband 30 years ago. I dunno why we even have a goddamn
parole board if they don't let anyone out.
\_ We let people out. Just not murderers. Do you think
you can rehabilitate a murderer? Some, probably.
Most, I wouldn't take a chance on. What's sad is
that a lot of sex offenders do get paroled and then go
out and repeat offend. |
| 2008/7/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50495 Activity:low |
7/8 Congress approval in single digits for first time ever
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5d496t
\_ The Democrats in Congress are considerably higher, though
still quite low, at 21%:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
\_ The trick is, the Republicans are also 21% favorable.
"Congress" is too amorphous a body to have a meaningful
approval rating. -tom
\_ Also meaningless because generally people like their guy.
And since you can only vote for your guy overal approval
rating is really just a indicator of how fucked up people
think the country/economy is getting.
\_ But the comparison to previous congresses is valid.
\_ The way this congress handled issues like war spending, Farm Bill,
and the upcoming FISA bill make me want to vote out pretty much
every incumbent senator and congressman out of office regardless
of party affiliation, starting with Nancy Pelosi. This congress
has not attempted to resolve any issues that they were elected
to work on, and for the last 12 months they had been for the
most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to voters.
most part engaging in election year politics and pandering to
voters.
\_ Totally agree. Didn't we elect them to remove the rubber-stamp
practices? I don't get why Pelosi doesn't stand up to Bush
the way she did when first elected, telling the President he
needed to calm down. Since then, every confrontation the
democrats have caved. Almost all the slightly controvertial
legislation they have passed has been vetoed, why does Bush
have any credibility or sway with them anymore? Its getting
pretty annoying that the republicans vote in a complete block
but the democrats can't come to a cohesive position... ever.
\- i'm willing to wait and see what kind of hearings we get
about cheney and the other liars and theives and tortures
after the election. i can see being risk averse if it looks
like you will cruise to victory.
\_ Not exactly:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5n4kc2 [yahoo news] |
| 2008/7/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50493 Activity:nil |
7/7 Study: Gays in the military don't undermine unit cohesion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays
\_ Well heck, the Greeks knew it helped.
\_ Study funded by gay activist group.
\_ Those goddamn fags |
| 2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50450 Activity:moderate |
7/2 Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding: "Believe me, it's torture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/02/humanrights.usa
\_ Gee, how nice of him to change his mind now. Rats. Ships.
Sinking.
\_ As much as I dislike Christopher Hitchens, it seems hard to
fault him for this. He had the courage to back up his claim
that waterboarding wasn't torture by trying it out, and then
(having learned what it was like) he admitted he'd been wrong.
I wish everyone was so principled.
\_ 4 years too late... I don't have much sympathy for anyone
who defended torture as strongly as that man did.
\_ FLIP FLOPPER!
\_ And why should I care what he thinks?
\_ Because he has been a tireless defender of the technique as not
being torture and has now been convinced, by experience, that it
is. If you believe that it is not, perhaps you should try it out
yourself.
\_ Torture is any experience so horrible that no-one would consider
trying it out simply for the purpose of writing a Vanity Fair
article about what it's like.
http://sweasel.com/archives/1269
\_ If he'd thought it was torture before he experienced it, he
would not have tried it out. Now that he's experienced it, he
recognizes it as torture and would not do it again.
\_ Yah, see here's the thing, torture is something that you know
you wouldn't try it even before you try it.
\- i think that is true for "medieval" type
torture [gouging out eyeballs], and highly
likely for modern "clinical" pain-inducing
torture [electric wire between teeth] but
i dont think it is necessarily possibly to
i dont think it is necessarily possible to
know the effects of things like sleep deprivation,
and psychological/terror oriented approaches such
as mock executions [russian roulette style, fake
firing squad, blind folded and dropped from
firing squad, blindfolded and dropped from
helicopter etc] until you've "been there/done that".
anyway, i thought this was a settled issue given
that all the "warriors" [mccain etc] said "wboaring
\_ Not by a long shot. Quite a few
military members said *they'd* been
waterboarded, and said they had no
problem with us doing it to others.
\- who is a "military member" who
has said "it's ok if somebody
waterboards US troops when
captured".
is totally clearly over the line" and it was only
chickhawks [bush, cheney, limbaugh] either saying
it wasnt clear or it was like frat hazing.
i was was captured and you said you were going to
if was was captured and you said you were going to
put me in the iron maiden, i'd talk right way.
if you threatened to waterboard me, i might go
for a minute or two. --psb
\_ McCain voted to support waterboarding. -tom
\_ I missed that. A point in his favor. -emarkp
\_ I'm sorry, "emarkp", but I
think you need some introspection on
whether you're serious about your
religion and whether your support of
torture is really consistent with
that.
\_ Why the quotes? It really is me, and I
find it laughable when someone else tells
me what my religion should be.
Especially the prolific atheist
relgion-haters here (though I obviously I
don't know if you're one of them).
-emarkp
\_ The quotes were simply to open
the door to the idea that someone
was masquerading as you to make
you look bad. Now I'm forced to
go with the person below: your
"religion" is a hollow sanctimonious
shell over your hateful and vile
core.
\_ yeah, it's easy as an atheist to
underestimate the ability of
religious people to rationalize
whatever it is they want to do
or believe. -tom
\_ You should be careful trying to
apply your childish understand of
something to a grown-up discussion.
-emarkp
\_ You're right, no one can tell you
what your religion is or should be.
But thanks to threads like this one
we know that whatever your beliefs
are, they serve as little more than
a hollow sanctimonious shell over
your hateful and vile core.
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ I don't understand, shouldn't you be
calling him evil rather than stupid? This
looks like a clear values call. -- ilyas
\_ and anyone disagreeing with your opinion
is an idiot. Great logic, comrade! Welcome
to People's Republic of California.
\_ No, I am tom! Do not anger me!
\_ I disagree with people who are not
idiots all the time. But *you* are
an idiot. -tom
\_ I believe you are confusing torture with deterrents.
\_http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/Schelling.q
\_ I wouldn't try waterboarding, but I'm not a fucking
idiot like Christopher Hitchens. -tom |
| 2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50446 Activity:kinda low |
7/2 Why do people CCW or open carry? I mean, in a place such as
Cupertino or Sausalito, wouldn't you get more disturbances out and
hastle from open carry than the minute, less than lottery chance
that you'll heorically save someone from danger?
\_ Let's see. If you are a Mormon with Asperger's syndrome, you'll
feel that you're a lot smarter and better and more righteous
than everyone else and that no one can be trusted. In addition,
if you live in Chico, you gotta protect yourself because
everyone else is a nutcase -- they have very different
"values" and beliefs that you have. So in that respect, it
totally makes sense to carry a weapon.
\_ It's worth it so you can finally feel like a man again.
\_ Is it worth even responding to this crap?
\_ Wait, there really is some other reason? Let me guess, you
are just waiting for the armed revolution to start so you can
go shoot some cops, and it would really suck if you had to go
home first casue someone else might have gotten them all?
\_ My right to protect myself and my property is
constitutionally protected. Your interpretation is
bizarre.
\_ But the right to protect your right to protect yourself
and your property is not constitutionally protected.
I.e. the constitution can be changed by votes.
\_ do you really go to UC Berkeley?
\_ Yes I did. Do you?
\_ It has been many years since I took crim law, but
iirc, the US Constitution does not require the states
to provide any defenses to the accused, i.e. self-
defense, defense of of others, and defense of
property are all defense provided by state law and
are constitutionally protected, if at all, by state
constitutions. So, in one sense, your statement is
probably correct.
In the context of this discussion, I assume that you
are referring to 2d amendment personal right(s) to
keep and bear arms. And I assume that you mean that
the constitution can be changed via the amendment
process. If so, I think that your statement is only
true in a very technical sense because the amendment
process operates as designed and prevents any drastic
changes from being made to the constitution. We have
only used the process 27 times and the 27th amendment
was pending was over 200 years. This suggests that
the 2d amendment personal rights can considered
immutable because amending the constitution to remove
the 2d is about as likely as an armed revolution to
to overthrow the republic.
\_ It's really easy. The EARLIER number amendment
the less likely you can challenge it as time
goes on.
\_ If you are so afraid of the world you can't wander
the mean streets of Cupertino without packing lethal
force you are laughbly pathetic, constituationally
protected or not.
\_ I keep a flashlight on my keychain as well. Does
that make me afraid of my own shadow?
\_ Do you keep the flashlight around so that if
some scary dark looking person comes near you
you can shove it in their eyeball while shouting
"semper fi motherfucker!"
\_ Do you do that with your car instead of riding
on the bus?
\_ So you don't drive?
\_ I sure don't keep a car in my pants in order to
keep my dream of getting to run over some dangerous
looking feller in the name of justice alive.
\_ If you have to rely on someone else to protect you,
you're pathetic.
\_ See, unlike you I'm not afraid of my shadow, so
I don't need to have a gun around as a security
blanket.
\_ Dude, you don't know what it is like on the mean streets of
Cupertino. Jackbooted, BMW-riding Cupertino motorcycle cops
routinely use their gestapo tactics to ticket jay-walking
pedestrians who are just trying to save a few minutes on their
walk to TapX or I Heart Yogurt. Open carry is all that keeps
the man at bay.
\_ OpenCarry Yogurt! |
| 2008/7/1-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50436 Activity:nil |
7/01 Stevens' dissent in Heller (DC gun ban) has a few factual errors.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php
\_ Don't you have a job or something? |
| 2008/6/30-7/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:50423 Activity:nil |
6/30 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7481857.stm Please explain to me why Mugabe doesn't get arrested as soon as he leaves Zimbabwe? \_ Does he leave? Does he leave to go to countries that have the political power and will to arrest him? Does he leave to got o countries with the political power and will to arrest them who haven't given their word not to arrest him? \_ He just arrived in Egypt for an African Union meeting. \_ If you have an African Union meeting and you arrest the leaders who go there it isn't going to be very Unionious for long. \_ Hey: "he was elected, he took an oath, and he is here with us, so he is president". What's your problem, huh? \_ >.< Lines like that make the baby jeebus weep blood. |
| 2008/6/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50335 Activity:nil |
6/23 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html "And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He.s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. "But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama's got more money now." \_ "Fast Eddie Obama"? David Brooks has valid points. Shame he's got such a hard-on for a Heritage Foundation sinecure. |
| 2008/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50327 Activity:kinda low |
6/22 Who Ruined California Public Schools?
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=267
Is it true that CA is 42nd in school spending? By what measure?
\_ Oh yes, blame it on Prop 13. Why do you hate tax cuts?
\_ No, it's a simple lie. CA spending has been well outpacing
inflation, and enrollment has actually declined significantly.
\_ Other states could still have raised their spending more.
Do you have any data that supports your claim?
\_ Which means nothing. Performance has almost no correlation
with spending.
\_ So does that mean you have changed your tune and now
agree that CA is 42nd in school spending?
\_ Not the PP and I'm not sure what the right number
is, but it has nothing to do with Prop 13 as CA tax
revenues are the same as they always were.
\_ You need to explain what you mean by "the same as
they always were". Same in nominal dollars, in
inflation adjusted dollars, in inflation adjusted
per capita dollars or as a percentage of GDP dollars.
Those are all pretty different things.
\_ http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG186.sum.pdf
We used to spend 4.5% of total income on education,
now we spend 3.5%.
\_ Enrollment has declined since 1978? Are you crazy? |
| 2008/6/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50305 Activity:nil |
6/19 High gasoline prices accelerating return to the cities:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gdqop (SF Gate)
\_ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/fallows
Reading SF Gate + Atlantic is like reading Kunstler's rants.
CITY GOOD SUBURB BAD! Fucking hippies. Pasadena rules!!!
\_ This article is amusing, but unlikely. Why would China want to
collapse the American economy? This would be like a crack dealer
shooting his best customer. |
| 2008/6/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50260 Activity:nil |
6/14 The Exile:
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/russian-government-press-feedom-putin-ames-medvedev.php |
| 2008/6/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:50224 Activity:nil |
6/10 Slow down everyone!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/06/balance.slow.movement |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50219 Activity:nil |
6/10 Oops. More problems with Obama's friends.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obamas-answer-o.html
\_ Heh, nice comment from JA on the page about Bsuh Obama similarity.
\_ Did you ever figure out who killed Vince Foster? |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:50215 Activity:low |
6/10 Millions Paid to Dead CEOs Outrage Over 'Golden Coffins': Tech T:
http://www.csua.org/u/lqh (finance.yahoo.com)
"Among the more outrageous posthumous packages:
* $298.1 million for Comcast CEO Brian Roberts
* $288 million for Nabors CEO Eugene Isenberg
* $115.6 million for Occidental CEO Ray Irani
* $17 million for Shaw Group CEO J.M. Bernhard to not compete with
the firm after he dies"
I wonder if J.M. Bernhard is thinking about breaching the contract.
\_ Why should you care what someone's compensation is?
\_ It's just funny that a firm is willing to pay a CEO to not
compete with the firm after he dies. --- OP
\_ That's the wording of the author, not of the contract.
\_ see the WSJ link; it's a non-compete clause in the
contract, which still pays off if he's dead. -tom
\_ Correct. Which is different than the wording of the
author. -pp
\_ I understand now. Thx. -- OP
\_ it's still pretty lame to have a non-compete clause
pay off in the case of death. -tom
\_ duh. It is just to make sure his family gets the
money if he leaves the company by dying instead
of by leaving. It is to encourage him to stay
until he dies and not leave early to cash in on
the non-compete when he's otherwise doing a good
job. It is not lame if you accept that any
non-compete clause was worth that number. Why is
it necessary to explain such a simple concept?
\_ What better way to guarantee fulfillment of the
non-compete side of a contract than to die? |
| 2008/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:50162 Activity:nil |
6/5 It's pretty amazing to read this and think "wow, that was only 42 years
ago" http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/meaning-box-722
42 years ago there was regular rioting in Chicago because of laws
saying it was illegal to have neighborhoods where you couldn't buy
a home unless you were white. That's pretty mind blowing.
\_ the phrasing of this is interesting. It is also subtly wrong.
\_ How so? |
| 2008/6/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:50149 Activity:low |
6/4 In Venezuela, ratting on neighbor is the law
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flavenez0603sbjun03,0,4071658.story
\_ Hugo Chavez: proving at every turn that scumbaggery knows no
ideological boundaries.
\_ Yeah, he's totally breaking new ground as far as communist
strongmen go...
\_ Funny. Actually, he made several improvements to the country
and he continues to do so; he's also not breaking any ground
on the Civil Liberties front.
\_ Name those improvements. He's a thug like all other thugs.
I hope you don't tell us how he made the trains run on
time.
\_ He nationalized a corrupt oil industry and funneled
at least some of the money to improving conditions for
the poorest Venezuelans.
\_ Wow, so a corrupt politician cum dictator took
property away from corrupt businesses and tossed some
breadcrumbs to the peasants. Yay! He's my friend
now!
\_ I dunno how corrupt the foreign investment of
infrastructure part of the Venezuelan oil industry
was that he nationalized. It looks like he has
embarked on a poorly planned program of massive
socialism to placate the masses and buy their
votes to keep himself in power, without thinking
of the further economic consequences. and I'm a
bleeding heart American liberal.
\_ From Wikipedia:
"By the end of the first three years of his presidency,
Chavez had initiated a land transfer program and had
introduced several reforms aimed at improving the
social welfare of the population. These reforms
entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the
implementation of a free, government-funded health
care system; and free education up to the university
level. By December of 2001, inflation fell to 12.3%
the lowest since 1986,[38] while economic growth was
steady at four percent.[39] Chavez's administration
also reported an increase in primary school enrollment
by one million students.[39]"
And that's about it for the good. You're right: he is a
thug. That his thuggery happened to also involve some
social improvements doesn't change that. On the plus
side, he didn't suspend the constitution after the ppl
voted down his Chavez-for-life proposal. On the minus
side, hell, just about everything else. |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50147 Activity:nil |
6/3 One reason no true conservative should ever vote for McCain:
Keating Five |
| 2008/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50116 Activity:nil |
6/1 question for MOTD Armchair Economists, are home prices in CA
artificially high because of old people homeowners and Proposition 13?
are rents artificially high because property value is so high?
are rents really artificially skewed in the Bay Area because land
is more precious than gold, Prop 13, rent control and what the hell
throw in all powerful fabulous and fabulously wealthy gay couples?
\_ according to Master Dimwit, they are high because of speculation.
Speculators think it'll be high, so they keep buying until...
they're too high for speculators. In all seriousness, dimwit
will most likely say something to the effect of free-market,
supply and demand, etc.
\_ Bay Area is more expensive because of several reasons. One is
a much much stricter land use control. Lots of areas are reserves
and hippies from Sierra Club fight to preserve whatever land is
available in the Bay Area, so developers have less land to build.
The other reason is average income. N Cal on average has higher
income and educational level and attracts more immigrants who
are well educated or well to do. In contrast LA has been the
manufacturing and service hub of CA and attracts different types
of immigrants and workers. In addition LA has been sprawling
crazy in the past few decades so homes are plentiful and
cheap and attracts a much diverse populace, from those who are
super rich all the way to those who are super poor. Proposition
13 is just one of the few components, and just as important
as Prop 13 is the low property tax, which drives demand from
investors from all over the world who hold on to their investments
for decades but don't really use (look at all the empty and
expensive homes in Arcadia and San Marino), since homes in CA
have much lower tax to deal with (compared to say 3% prop tax
in Texas), which make properties in CA very good long term
investments. CA properties attract certain types of buyers
(investors) similarly to FL properties that attract certain
types of buyers (criminals... because properties in FL are not
repossessed even if you go bankrupt). All of these things make
\_ WTF are you talking about? If you don't pay your mortgage
in FL you lose your home just like anywhere else.
\_ In FL, if you paid off your home and then declare bankruptcy,
they can't repossess your property back. This is why
Al Capone "invested" heavily in FL properties, and ditto
with many criminals.
\_ You are confused about the Homestead Exemption:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/63bs5f
(No need to read the whole thing, just read the five
states that allow unlimited HE, FL is not one of them)
Also, Federal bankruptcy code changes have considerably
limited this kind of protection.
\_ Dude! Capone! Obviously we are still living in the
30s! Now why aren't you wearing a suit and hat?
CA homes highly desirable, which then drive up huge demands from
all over the world, which then drive up prices. It's all
inter-related.
\_ What makes you think rents are too high and if they are too high
then why do people pay them? All things considered I find rents
in CA reasonable compared to income. I can't believe people pay
$1000/month to live in places like Alabama. (I own a rental
home in Alabama so I know what rents there are.) |
| 2008/5/30-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50101 Activity:nil |
5/30 CA Torture Trial Airs Family Horror Stories
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/30/ap/national/main4137681.shtml |
| 2008/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50026 Activity:high |
5/22 We brought together the heads of big oil.
See that big head over there? Yeah, he runs Shell. That one? That
runs ExxonMobil. Mr. Big oil, we're here to talk about the high price
of gasoline. How could it have possibly gotten this high?
Let me tell you what we've done here in congress. We told you that
drilling in ANWR is off limits. We told you that drilling off the
coast of Florida and California is off limits. We told you, Mr. Big
oil, that there wouldn't be any new leases for drilling in the Gulf
while China and Venezuela and even Cuba pursued these leases and have
just signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. We here
in congress have promised, as all three presidential candidates have
also promised, to introduce and pass in the next term a cap and trade
legislation bill that will increase the price of gasoline according to
the EPA by an additional $1.50. Some people say it could be as high as
$5 additional per gallon.
We have said that we're shutting down oil fields in Colorado. We
won't let you develop shale oil fields in several Western states. And
yesterday we passed legislation that would let us sue OPEC with the
full understanding that they'll never retaliate. Yes. We have allowed
environmental attorneys to sue you big oil fiends for future possible
destruction of Alaskan Eskimo village which legal experts believe is
the same strategy used to bring down big tobacco. We're especially
proud of our recent action to protect the polar bear and their habitat
which just happens to be where the future oil deposits happen to be
located. We told you that you're making too much money and that we're
looking at seizing any money that we consider windfall profits. Yes.
We have allowed you to drill in some very small areas in Alaska while
simultaneously creating very generous environmental laws which have
tied up the very production we authorize through years of litigation
after you spent the money on buying and setting up equipment. We told
you through our policies that we would not allow you to build a new
refinery in over 30 years. In fact, this great country, under our
tutelage, has even reduced the number of operational refineries by half
since 1982.
We have even told your potential competitors in the nuclear and
hydroelectric industries that we would send the environmental lawyers
after them if they even dared think about building a new plant or a new
dam. We've refused to fund or allow the deployment of coal-to-oil
technology which has been around since the 1930s. We've told you that
you have to make different blends of gasoline, let states like
California dictate what unique gasoline blends you have to make for
them. We will not reduce our federal gasoline tax. We won't even
consider reducing it for the summer months.
So Mr. Big oil, tell me why exactly are gas prices so high?
\_ This guy is barking up the wrong tree. Prices are high because
demand is high, due to economic growth in India and China. The
US cannot possibly pump enough oil to satisfy worldwide demand
increases, in fact, we cannot even make a dent in it. What
grandstanding politician are you quoting?
\_ This is essentially what the hearings on gas prices are. -op
\_ Yes, we agree. I guess this guy (Glenn Beck?) has a point
on the nuclear and hydro issues.
\_ No, demand is not driving the price. Speculation is.
\_ Wow you're stupid.
\_ Should I bother showing you why you are wrong, or is this
an ideological belief of yours that is not subject to debate?
\_ Go ahead and show me, because I've seen the charts
that show current usage versus supply. Usage now is
about 12% higher than it was a decade ago. Sure,
that's higher. Not enough higher to create the crazy
high gas prices we are seeing now as production hasn't
dropped. Also, the low dollar is making gas seem expensive
to us, but if you adjust for inflation (use real dollars)
gas prices are not even at historical US highs. In
short, people are buying oil because they are worried
about supply interruptions and because they perceive
that the price will always rise. This creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy. The DOE has 3 oil-price
profiles and only one of them (worst case) has oil
prices rising from here over the next decade. If you
look at supply versus consumption versus price on a
graph you will see that consumption is indeed driving
oil prices higher, but most of it is speculation. You
think oil prices have gone from $60 to $130 per barrel
in a year because of an increase in *consumption*?!?! -dim
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/6de8js (BP usage data)
This is the most recent good data I can find, which
shows more like a 20% increase in demand. Are you
laboring under the illusion that a 12% increase in
demand (with no increase in supply) should only lead
to a 12% increase in price? The truth is, prices should
obvious that gasoline demand is pretty inelastic
meaning that people don't use it much less just because
the price goes up. Also, your factoid about the dollar
is not really true: gasoline is now at an all time
inflation adjusted high. It might perhaps not be true
if you use some oddball deflator factor. Look at
oil priced in Euros. Speculation does not increase
the consumption of oil, in fact, it will decrease it.
If your theory about speculation is correct, oil
prices should collapse real soon now, right?
\_ The truth is, dimitrious has a linear mind
ding ding ding!
\_ More of he doesn't understand the non-linear
nature of cost with inelastic demand:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics4.asp
\_ No, I never said that 12% = 12%. The curve, if you
look at it, has a certain slope/shape that does
not match the reference at present.
\_ What curve are you looking at? I am curious what
your reference for this statement is. -dim
\_ Where do you see a supply-demand curve for
oil consumption? I would be interested in your
source for this.
increase as much as needed to clear the market. It is
\_ You could say this about real estate recently,
too and yet that was driven by speculation more
than by actual need for housing.
\_ Not every increase in price is due to a "bubble."
\_ You could say this about real estate recently,
too and yet that was driven by speculation more
than by actual need for housing.
\_ Bzzt. In 1981 it was $3.29/gallon in today's
dollars.
\_ Not all price increases are "bubbles."
\_ Bzzt. According to the DOE in 1981 it was
$3.29/gallon in today's dollars. I found a chart that
says $3.17 with an all-time high in 1918:
http://tinyurl.com/emy76
Regardless, the point is that prices have been just
as high in the past. This is not ground-breaking.
\_ Speculation increases the *PRICE* not the
*CONSUMPTION* which we already established is
just a bit higher than before. -dim
\_ I think they will eventually decrease a lot from
current level, yes.
\_ I moved your comments out of line. you're welcome -dim
\_ *********FUCK YOU***********
Worry about your own fucking posts, dick.
\_ Stop putting yours in the middle of others.
Makes it really hard to read. Or are you
too stupid to organize your thoughts? -dim
\_ This guy is wrong about oil shale and coal gasification, too:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xs54d
He is wrong about most things.
\_ Your story is from before congress changed things. |
| 2008/5/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50025 Activity:low |
5/22 Bill Gross on underreporting the CPI and what it means for
the little investor:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/52vfy2
\_ http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004721.php
\_ http://www.isil.org/towards-liberty/inflation-gov-lies.html
\_ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59409
\_ Ah so it started with the Carter administration. See,
Democraps are evil!
\_ It actually started with Clinton, but that doesn't change
your basic premise. Politicians of both parties lie all
the time.
\_ LIES. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't lie. The
government doesn't lie. Why would it lie?
\_ Ron Paul has been saying this for years and people say he's
some sort of crazy racist.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr031108h.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr0305a08h.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr022608h.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr021308h.htm
http://http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr050206.htm
http://http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr042506.htm
\_ Non sequitur often?
\_ Oh it's sequitous. Here these directly question CPI:
http://http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst030804.htm
http://http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst071006.htm
http://http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr021506.htm
\_ What does race have to do with inflation?
\_ Ron Paul IS a crazy racist, irrespective of what he has to
say about the CPI. |
| 2008/5/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:50024 Activity:nil |
5/22 http://tinyurl.com/3h2zvh (market-ticker.denninger.net) Good post re current events in commodity, treasury, and stock markets. To summarize: - The Fed balance sheet is contaminated with CDOs - Money is going into commodities rather than Treasuries - Rates are going up Several more points: - Expect the commodity bubble to drive inflation in the near term. - The commodity and equity bubbles will sweep up excess credit from bad banking practices. The subsequent blow-up (occurring over 3-12 months for the undesired chaotic crash, or 1-10 years for a controlled descent) will efficiently sop up this cash. - Guess who loses their bux on: (1) The building up of the commodity bubble (2) The reduction of said bubble http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355 Excellent radio segment (.mp3) which talks about "giant pool of money" and where it goes (guess where this money is going now) \_ What's the difference between a CDO and a mortgage backed security? \_ MBS = Pool of mortgages. One structure is rated (e.g., all shares from an MBS are given a single rating, i.e., AAA). CDO = Pool of MBSs. Structure is sliced into different levels, each of which may have a different price and rating. each of which has a different price and rating. The lower tranches will have the lowest rating and eat any losses first, but have the highest yield. losses first, but advertise the highest yield. MBS and CDOs are both asset-backed securities (ABS). Now go listen to the MP3 and find out how Joe Schmoe was raking in $1M/year. \_ Funny how this guy rants and rails about Congress and does not mention the word "President Bush" even once. Where is our nations leadership during this time of financial crises? Oh, and what you call a "commodities bubble" I call the market functioning normally to get supply and demand in balance. Do you have any evidence that excess oil is starting to pile up anywhere? Copper? Coal? If prices are "too high" shouldn't that be happening? \_ He's a Republican who is likely to vote Democrat in November. Here's his anti-Republican rant from four days ago: http://tinyurl.com/5dsp98 "Commodities bubble" = (a) Hedge on the stock and bond markets (b) Huge pool of money needs to go somewhere (c) Certainly there is a supply/demand factor to commodities prices (d) Hedge on strength of U.S. economy, financial system, dollar He rants and rails? Okay. Good thing I'm here to summarize! |
| 2008/5/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50021 Activity:nil |
5/21 The Great Lie of Supply Side Economics:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5mjhk5
\_ Econ as agenda! I love that blog! |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50011 Activity:moderate |
5/19 Here's my whacky idea for how politics will go after 2008:
The (D) continues a leftward shift, alienating the center, Hillary
loving, soccer mom, family types.
\_ Why do you see (D) moving left and not more Moderate?
\_ Look at who's leading it. Obama is *the* most left in the
Senate. Olbermann, http://moveon.org, dailykos, etc. are all waaaaay
left. -not op
\_ I'm genuinely curious: what policies of Obama's do you see as
left-leaning and not moderate? Are they socially left-leaning
or culturally left-leaning?
\_ How about: universal health care
immediate withdrawal from Iraq (backed off this)
removal of funding to NASA
\_ not according to his website
raising taxes on the wealthy
\_ raising taxes or closing loopholes?
opposition to free trade
making life easier for unions
\_ through secret ballots or New Deal?
\_ Obama advocates removing oversight
of Teamsters. http://csua.org/u/lne
\_ The rest of the story:
http://csua.org/u/lnf
Seems like typical D stuff.
\_ And what in there is lefty and not moderate?
\_ All of it. You think Universal Healthcare is
moderate?!
\_ *shrug* I see a lot of Americans behind it. If
the majority want it, is it that lefty anymore?
\_ Lots of people want a free lunch, but it's
very lefty to want the government to control
business.
\_ UHC or an equivalent is considered a need
by a lot of people. This is not simply a
handout or a free lunch. Opposition to
such may be categorized as Conservative,
not Moderate.
\_ I wouldn't say proposing it is very
moderate. It's left, which is why
the right opposes it.
\_ maybe the right opposes it because
they're a bunch of morons. Or maybe
this whole argument is just another
attempt by conservatives to redefine
reasonable ideas which produce
results in every other industrialized
country as "leftist," as if that's
supposed to be an insult. -tom
\_ The CEOs of GM, US Steel and WalMart
are on The Left? Wow, you guys on the
Right must be feeling pretty lonely
at this point.
\_ Shoving more of the cost onto
the gov't means less of the cost
shouldered by the business. Many
businesses pay little tax as
it is so why do they care?
\_ So, the people and big
business both agree that
universal health care is a
good thing. So, uh, who is
against it? Oh, right,
anti-government ideologues. -tom
\_ TANSTAAFL
\_ Case in point.
\_ Every election year some obviously hack study comes out
that says "surprise surprise, the Democratic candidate is
the most liberal senator/congressperson/gov/etc" so idiots
like the poster above can go spout this crap.
\_ I'm unaware of *any* lefty idea he doesn't support. -pp
\_ What, you're saying he wants to nationalize industry,
creche your kids, mandate pharma for the proles, etc.?
Seriously, can you tell me what particularly makes him
"the most left in the Senate"? I'm genuinely interested
in hearing what you have to say, but I'd like some
substance.
\_ Did you mean "nationalize all industry?"
\_ Whoops! Yes, I did. Self-correction in 5.
\_ That's pretty funny, considering I haven't seen any
substance from Obama.
\_ Yay! You hit the fish in the barrel! Now, how
about an answer?
\_ How about how he wants to raise the capital
gains tax even though it may decrease revenue,
to be "fair" ?
\_ That would appear to be lefty, but could
also be viewed as populist... or just
popular. Here's the interview with Charlie
Gibson where he says it:
http://csua.org/u/lng
Frankly, I can't argue with this: why are
multi-millionaire hedge-fund managers paying
a lower tax-rate than their secretaries?
\_ Well, there are two possible "fixes" to
this inequity: 1) raise taxes on
capital-gains, or 2) lower income taxes.
We *know* (1) decreases overall revenue,
so....
\_ BZZZT! No. The only answer is to
call the money the hedge fund managers
make what it is: income. It is not
capitol gains *for them*. For the
money manager is it *income*. If
their income was taxed as such they'd
be paying a boatload more than their
secretaries. Their earnings are
misclassified.
\_ No, we know (2) decreases overall
revenue. Or at least every sane
economists (even those who support
tax cuts) knows that.
\_ I'm sorry, but I don't agree.
\_ clearly you're not a sane
economist. I guess that
makes you a clueless
ideologue. -tom
\_ Sane = "agrees with you"
Clearly a 100% tax rate
will maximize revenue.
\_ No, but it is quite clear
that our tax rate does
not maximize tax revenues,
and that cutting taxes
from the current rate
reduces tax revenues. -tom
\_ Cutting capital gains tax does not
raise tax revenue over the long run.
There is often a short term uptick
(bonus points if you can figure out
why) but it lowers them in the long
run, at least as long as it is below
the Laffer Curve, which appears to
be around a 40% tax rate.
\_ We should be optimizing for
GDP, not for tax revenues.
\_ Says who?
\_ We should be optimizing for
the general welfare of the
citizens of this country.
GDP growth is now almost
totally disconnected from
the general welfare. -tom
\_ Yes, comrade. A healthy,
growing US economy benefits
only corporate
industrialists.
\_ Tax revenue == general
welfare in your mind? Wow.
\_ clue == completely
absent in your mind?
Obviously. Try
reading it again. -tom
\_ Funny, I've seen lots of substance from Obama,
it just changes every time he talks.
"Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not
waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually
contradictory things." -Sowell
\_ Why would you bother quoting Sowell on
anything? -tom
\_ Because, unlike you, he's occasionally
right.
The (R) party splits.
(R1) goes to the center with McCain. Grabs all the center-left the
(D) loses, but loses the conservatives.
Conservatives form new party, (R2). (R2) has a small set of hard core
voters, similar to the smaller (D) party. (R1) party gains plurality
of seats, offices, etc, but can not rule without assistance of (D) or
(R2) in general or pass individual bills without help.
Ok, the odds of this actually happening are small but it would make
things interesting, IMO. If it does happen, you heard it here first!
\_ Our winner-take-all system of representation makes three parties
inherently unstable. If a third party does arise, it will
die immediately, or else kill one of the existing parties. -tom
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balance
\_ My prediction: Obama and the Democrats end the war and balances
the budget, following mostly Clintonian economic policy. This
\_ You forgot stopping Global Warming and starting the
Age of Aquarius.
\_ No, that waits for the second term.
stabalizes the dollar, brings down the price of gasoline and gets
the economy going. The voters reward the Dems with a filibuster
proof majority in 2010. Obama then passes comprehensive health
care reform, which ends up being the most popular program ever,
even more than Social Security, which is supported by 2/3 of all
voters. He is re-elected in 2012 in the biggest landslide since
FDRs second term.
\_ My prediction: McCain wins but not by a large margin. Not a whole
lot really changes. |
| 2008/5/16-6/13 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49975 Activity:nil |
5/16 Planned free public transit day on June 19, 2008:
http://www.sparetheair.org
\_ Except BART.
\_ Where's it say that?
\_ Sorry, no free rides on spare the air day (March 15th).
My bad...
\_ You meant May 15th (and 16th), right?
\_ ^free^taxpayer funded
\_ Is there any kind of "free" that's not funded by someone /
something?
\_ Free as in freedom?
\_ "Free" in the sense that the first reply was saying it
wasn't "free".
\_ Yes. But in this case, no. The government can not
give anyone anything for free in the real sense of the
word because the government produces nothing. The
government, on a good day, only transfer wealth from
producers to non-producers. On a typical day, the
government destroys a good portion of that wealth along
the way. On a bad day, the government flat out
destroys wealth or prevents the creation of wealth.
\_ You should move somewhere nice, like Iraq.
\_ You should actually read what I said before
snapping off a brainless one liner.
\_ So why don't anarchies like Somalia have the
world's best economies?
\_ Because no one is advocating anarchy. The
government has a role collecting taxes to raise
a common defense, building roads/bridges and
other infrastructure projects. The government
has no business taking from one group of people
to benefit another group to empower themselves
at the ballot box. The government does not create
wealth. The government can enable/assist others
to do by so building infrastructure or destroy
wealth creation through taxation and regulations.
\_ Some regulations are good of course. E.g. to
protect common resources like air quality, to
prevent fraud, or prevent cabals/monopolies
from screwing people.
\_ But the govt is taking from one group
(taxpayers) to build toll-free highways to
benefit another group (drivers).
\_ What % of taxpayers drive? Honest question.
\_ "The government does not create wealth" is
a completely meaningless statement. Want to
\_ It's not meaningless, it's false. Learn the
difference. -- ilyas
know the #1 employer in California? UC.
UC also does more research and invents more
things than any company in California.
Unless your definition of "creating wealth"
is limited to "giving money to the CEO",
it is obvious that the government can and
does create wealth. -tom
\_ So UC is the #1 employeer. So what? Its
not like UC is self-sustaining - w/o tax
revenues, government, including UC, can't
operate. When the government starts making
a profit independent of tax revenue and
starts sharing that profit with the people,
then one can say that government has
created wealth. Since that day will almost
certainly never come, government cannot
create wealth.
\_ I was going to respond to this, but
it's simply too stupid. But here's
a hint: wealth takes forms other than
cash. -tom
\_ I'm not pro-socialism but this is not
accurate. In the simplest case, if the
state owns a mine and operates it then
technically it creates wealth. Maybe
you should define "create wealth".
\_ Well my definition is pretty simple:
wealth is created when an operation
is able to repay its creditors, cover
its operational expenses, and still
has money left over that can be
distributed to its members/investors.
Can government run its operations
such that repays its creditors (the
taxpayers), covers its operational
expenses, and then still has money
left over that can be distributed
to the taxpayers?
I can agree that parts of the
government can create wealth under
this standard (e.g. the USPTO or a
mine in your example), but as a whole,
government cannot create wealth. There
is no incentive for it to create
wealth and most of its operations are
not designed for wealth creation (I
suppose if our government started to
follow the British colonial model and
plundered from the places it invades,
then our government could generate
wealth, but I hope this is not where
we are headed).
Perhaps tom is right that government
can create wealth in non-quantifiable
ways. But, that kind of "wealth,"
unlike dollars, euros, &c. can't be
used to better your life independent
of location, so I don't think it
counts.
\_ It's obvious that education
hasn't bettered your life. -tom
\_ Actually my UC engineering
degree was quite worthless.
Mostly the moderate financial
success I have had was due to
things I did outside of my ug
education along with private
professional school. And the
cost of my ug degree was more
than paid for by my tuition
and the taxes I and my parents
have paid over the years.
\_ yes, but some people make
it through Cal and actually
are not complete morons
afterwards. Sorry you
couldn't manage it. -tom
\_ Yes. For instance sea water is free.
\_ Sure. "Planned free sea water day on June 19, 2008!"
\_ "All you can drink!" |
| 2008/5/15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49957 Activity:high 66%like:49954 |
5/15 When will this windfall be taxed?
http://csua.org/u/ljk
\_ My favorite quote:
"You'd be taxing success here," Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate
vice president for government, community and public affairs
complained in a quote that will soon be framed and hung in my
office. "Over time, this would put us at a real competitive
disadvantage, which would drastically hurt the Commonwealth."
\_ Amusingly, everyone else seems to have missed this. -op
\_ Missed what? Glenn Beck is still a tool. and a troll.
I hate you for making me think about him today. You win.
\_ Missed the quote from Kevin Casey you moron.
\_ why didnt you point it out, furryboy?
\_ I figured "everyone else seems to have missed THIS"
pointing to the quote was sufficient.
\_ Yes, this is quite ironic.
\_ my brain is hurting from trying to parse this article.
Harvard == GIANT UNREGULATED HEDGE FUND!!!!!!!!!!
you know there are real live unregulated giant hedge funds
out there who do actual shady documented crap, they probably
don't concern themselves with giving out degrees.
\_ The fact that this is from Glenn Beck explains it all.
GO IRAQ WAR IT IS THE RIGHT THING!
\_ But Glenn Beck apologized for misleading America and being
a cheerleader for an incompetent and corrupt Administration.
Right?
\_ "But while their financial statements may look similar, their
missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria,
develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS.
Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread
the radical political views of some of their professors." Oh
that's right Glen Beck. Harvard (which he had just been writing
about a sentance earlier.) just exists to spread radical politics!
THOSE DAMN FIFTH COLUMNISTS AT HARVARD. You read this shit and
take it seriously? Do you have more braincells than God gave a
chihuahua? This dude makes the chewbacca defense seem reasonable.
\_ toy poodles are even stupider
\_ url?
\_ Yeah. Never mind the universities spend far more money on useful
research and training in engineering, fundamental sciences, life
sciences, and yes, also in medicine. Neither the views of
humanities faculties are necessarily politically radical.
I have taken 3-4 humanities courses and never felt that
the instructors were necessarily biased, much less spread
radical views (although I know such people exist). This man
discredited himself after that paragraph.
\_ yeah, whoever posted the url... glen beck is not a noted
economist. people pay attention to him. im not sure why.
he's not as mean spirited as Rush. that might be it.
\_ This windfall is even more disgusting:
http://csua.org/u/ljp (Times Online)
\_ Why is ExxonMobil's profit disgusting?
\_ It's disgusting in terms of the massive subsidies they still
get despite these sorts of profits.
\_ You're an idiot. Do you know how much they paid in taxes?
\_ Probably 35 percent on earned income, minus the
gajillion deductions any giant company with an army
of tax lawyers at their command should be claiming.
if you're talking about that recent email floating around
about how Exxon already pays 40 percent in taxes...
oh dont get me started.
if you're talking about that recent email floating
around about how Exxon already pays 40 percent in
taxes... oh dont get me started.
\_ IIRC, they paid more than 2x in taxes than they had
in profit. |
| 2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:49950 Activity:high |
5/15 CA Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080515174435.xgo31cvp&show_article=1
So much for law.
\_ Must people in ORANGE COUNTY are disgusted by this. -oc
\_ I don't hate gays. I like gays. I am straight. I'm fine with
gays getting married. marry who ever you want. I believe
that in the united states, children are served best by having
a present mother and a present father in their life. not divored.
someone around up until they leave the nest. now notice i mean
a 'female mother figure' and a 'male father figure' does this
make me a flaming homophobe? help me motd, you are my only hope.
\_ No it makes you an in-denile homobphobe.
\_ No it makes you an in-denial homophobe.
\_ Not necessarily a flaming homophobe, just ill-informed as to
what serves children best. I'd argue that a stable home-life
with love, attention, and discipline is better than simply having
a female mom and a male dad at home.
\_ What would Glenn Beck think?
\_ Perhaps true and fits in with my own bias, but I would like to
see actual studies before I made such a statement. Would you
have The State take away children if their parents get a divorce,
too? The fact is, people do things I disapprove of all the time,
but that doesn't give me the right to try and regulate their
behaviour.
\_ If you're into gay marriage, you MUST check out Planet Unicorn
HEYYYYY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJD1ura7G4
\_ Not sure what you're implying... actually I know what you are
implying. Courts interpret the law. So it's... the law!
state props suck anyway. Given enough money I could hire
a vast army to get my geeks should be forced to swear
CA state props suck anyway. Given enough money I could hire
a vast army to get my Geeks should be forced to swear
forged iron slave collars and 20 sided dice prop on the ballot.
It's far to easy to get your pet legal initiative on to the
It's far too easy to get your pet legal initiative on to the
ballot of the largest state in the country, which is insane.
\_ I'm implying that laws should be interpreted based on how they
were written. It's the only protection we have against tyranny.
\_ And I think the Court's job is to determine if a state prop
is constitutional. The Court decided the state prop is
not constitutional. I'm more afraid of being tyrannyized
by a CA state prop than the court, what about you?
\_ More afraid of the court, really. 7 people telling the
rest of us what to do, who aren't subject to election?
\_ They're subject to recall. In all seriousness, I really
am more afraid of specious CA ballot proposition
stuck on the ballot with not very well thought out
consequences, than the state supreme court. I really
do think that it's a lot better to have your law
painfully go through the House/Senate bill process
(and hopefully die in committee) than for it to
magically pop up there one day because someone
with too much money hired 1000 people to stand in
front of your local supermarket and have you sign
their petition.
\_ Admittedly, I don't think the court would have
outlawed eating horse meat. -!pp
\_ So you don't trust the voters, but you do trust the
judges. Okey doke.
\_ How do you like the CA prop system? What if
get a ballot init to outlaw Catholics?
\_ See, that's why we ratified the constitution.
The individual laws have to conform to the
constitution. However, a judge redefining
language long after that document is written is
a huge mistake. Fundamentally, the power rests
with us, the people. I vastly prefer the prop
system to activist judges.
\_ The opinion talks about this at some length.
\_ The opinion (link:csua.org/u/lji deals
with this question directly and in detail.
Have a look at pages 107-116, starting with
"The Proposition 22..." and ending before
"After carefully evaluating...".
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
\_ The opinion (csua.org/u/lji) deals with
this in detail. Look at pages 107-116,
starting with "The Proposition 22..." and
ending at "After carefully evaluating...".
\_ Judges are supposed to decide if a law
is constitutional or not. They are the
check on just any insane law getting passed.
\_ How did the CA SC redefine language?
\_ The word "marriage"
\_ The word marriage has only ever
legally meant a contract between two
consenting adults according to the
CA constitution. No redefinition
there. Try again.
\_ Unconstitutional laws are by definition unlawful.
\_ I just don't get it. Let's allow gay marriage, they'll just
marry each other and becomes extinct. It's how nature
\_ not if they get artificially inseminated and raise
hot lesbians. mmmmm lesbians.
works. it's like someone who has cancer and demands society
to recognize them as healthy. Well fine, you'll just die,
it's the best proof that you are NOT healthy.
\_ Actually how nature is supposed to work is, gay marrying each
other will have no offspring, so their disease is self
contained and when they die the disease dies with them.
But now they want to adopt, and corrupt their
offsprings. This must be out-lawed.
other will have no offspring, so their disease is self contained
and when they die the disease dies with them. But now they want
to adopt, and corrupt their offsprings. This must be out-lawed.
\_ I would so vote for a constitutional amendment labeling you
an idiot.
\_ This is the perfect time to get a wedge issue like gay marriage on the
ballot and raise all of those Republican value voters from the dead to
vote in the November election, assuring McCain's future 100 year
reign of darkness after he wins and declares elections a quaint
honorable custom favored by my honorable opponent, until our boys
in Iraq stop dying. Great timing, gay people!
\_ This is the perfect time to get a wedge issue like gay marriage on
the ballot and raise all of those Republican value voters from the
dead to vote in the November election, assuring McCain's future 100
year reign of darkness after he wins and declares elections a
quaint honorable custom favored by my honorable opponent, until our
quaint custom favored by my honorable opponent, until our
boys in Iraq stop dying. Great timing, gay people!
\_ This is by far the most hilarious post. Thanks! |
| 2008/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49946 Activity:nil |
5/15 Sign the angry renter petition! No bailouts!
http://angryrenter.com
\_ Angry renter? How about the 99% of mortgage holders who pay their
bills *and* the taxes that would fund a bailout?
\_ Actually a product of a billionaire and a politician:
http://www.csua.org/u/lk4 |
| 2008/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49942 Activity:nil |
5/14 If you don't vote for Obama you're a racist
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/navarrette/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
\_ The author didn't even recognize Obama is not exactly, to borrow
his phrase, "black American".
\_ Really? He's not American? He's not black?
\_ He wasn't raised as an American during his formative years. |
| 2008/5/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49901 Activity:moderate 57%like:49908 |
5/8 Next time a CA politician says we need more moeny for schools, remember
this:
http://www.johnandkenshow.com/archives/2008/05/07/another-lausd-waste
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,1,718733.column
\_ These guys are lying to you. The school cost $230M, not this
sculpture. How much did the sculpture cost?
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,1,718733.column
\_ The sculpture cost over $40M. The original budget for the high
school was less than the sculpture alone. See the LA Times story.
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,1,6298591,full.column
\_ The *theater* with tower cost that much, not the sculpture.
Still a tremendous waste when kids don't even have books.
Public education is a sham. |
| 2008/5/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49886 Activity:low |
5/5 "Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_he_me/pandemic_rationing_care
\_ I vote for football players, then politicians, then lawyers
\_ Very old people, people with chronic conditions, people who
have other problems making them likely to die. Thing is,
amongst the rest, who gets allowed to die? Males?
\_ The obvious answer is the ALPHA MALE. One Alpha breeds
with all the females.
\_ You Mormon!
\_ Welcome to triage.
\_ In a real pandemic everyone is going to die. The doctors won't have
a cure right away, if ever, and no one is going to run around asking
victims to see their driver's license, prior medical, financial and
educational history before treatment. This is just silly stuff. |
| 2008/4/29-5/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49853 Activity:kinda low |
4/29 How Frederick Douglass addressed the 3/5 issue:
"I answer.and see you bear it in mind, for it shows the disposition of
the constitution to slavery.I take the very worst aspect, and admit all
that is claimed or that can be admitted consistently with truth; and I
answer that this very provision, supposing it refers to slaves, is in
itself a downright disability imposed upon the slave system of America,
one which deprives the slaveholding States of at least two-fifths of
their natural basis of representation.
"A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black
man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the
constitution.
"Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the constitution encourages
freedom, by holding out to every slaveholding State the inducement of
an increase of two-fifths of political power by becoming a free State."
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/douglassuos.htm#three-fifths-clause
\_ Quite impressive, the human ability to rationalize. He practically
sounds like a Randroid. -tom
\_ The irony police are overwhelmed with tom, send in the irony
national guard!
\_ The 3/5 compromise was made by abolitionists who wanted to weaken
slave states. Go back and read history tom.
\_ It was actually done by both sides, hence the label used
"compromise."
\_ Yes, but the slave states wanted the slaves to count as 1
person.
\_ ...with their votes cast by the slave owner. -tom
\_ You are confused. The slave owner still only had
one vote. The 3/5 rule was for the number of seats
that state got in congress.
\_ Right, so if the slaves were truly free to vote,
and at 1:1 representation, the state of Georgia
might have more seats in Congress, but the people
in power in Georgia would lose power. -tom
\_ Well, at the time women were counted as 1
person but couldn't vote. People under
voting age are still counted as 1 person but
obviously can't vote.
\_ Parents are the legal representatives of
their children; slave owners and slaves
have diametrically opposed interests. -tom
\_ And womenfolk?
\_ Personally I think women's suffrage is
a good thing--you disagree? -tom
\_ The US had the choice to allow slavery, or not allow
it. It is pretzel logic to claim that, presented
with that choice, deciding to allow slavery but make
it somewhat less attractive was "encouraging
freedom." There's also no reason to believe that
slaves would vote the same way as their masters;
giving slaves full votes would likely have led to
abolition via democratic processes, for example,
rather than civil war. You could say that the 3/5ths
rule meant that "Georgia" had less power than New
York, but the people who actually had power in Georgia
were strengthened by the fact that their slaves couldn't
vote themselves freedom. -tom
\_ The current congress has the choice to continue war or not.
And? I thought you lefties thought it was conservatives
that only think in black and white.
\_ Do you think that the current Congress deciding to
continue to fund the war is "encouraging peace"? -tom
\_ Are you trying to change the topic?
\_ Umm, the US had the choice to allow slavery, or not exist.
You know when the constitution was written right?
\_ I thought you trolls believed in the power of the
free market. -tom
\_ Whaa? Am I talking to some sort of eliza program
based on tom rantings here?
\_ The idea that the US could not have existed
without slavery in 1787 is ridiculous. -tom
\_ It seems pretty obvious that the South would
not have signed a constitution that outlawed
it. Hence, the US would not exist, at least
as we know it.
\_ It's not necessarily obvious. The Southern
Colonies might have conceded, or they might
not have. That they were never forced into
position where they had to make the decision
is not evidence of which way they might
have jumped. Interesting counterfactuals
proceed from both eventualities.
\_ Don't let that whole Civil War thing
stand in the way of your hypothetical.
\_ Don't let a lack of understanding of
the causes of the Civil War or the
nearly century-long gap between it
and the signing of the Constitution
stand in the way of a one-line quip
full of sound and fury signifying
nothing
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on the motd?
did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright vow to travel
back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb? What's going on?
\_ is there some reason the 3/5ths compromise is suddenly big news on
the motd? did Hillary finally get behind it? Did Reverend Wright
vow to travel back in time and rip Dred Scott limb from limb?
\_ Rev. Wright would more
likely wish to rip Taney,
CJ, limb from limb.
What's going on?
\_ Assuming this quote is correctly attributed to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass call me crazy, but
on this one I'm going to go with the smart guy who lived through
it over tom.
\_ In what way? Frederick Douglas and tom speak to utterly
different audiences: FD to a world where legalized slavery is
still considered a possibility, whereas tom speaks to a world
where slavery is an abhorrent concept. FD had to be almost
painfully cautious in expressing his beliefs, whereas tom is
free to express his with very little fear of danger to his own
physical person. Had he had his 'druthers, FD might have said
something more strident and provocative. --erikred
\_ FD wrote tons of provocative stuff. Start with the wiki
link. Not buying it. Also tom is claiming the union could
have somehow existed with the south agreeing to end slavery.
No. Ridiculous. If that were the case there would have been
no need of the 3/5th "compromise". You really think they
didn't talk about all this stuff at the time? Wow!
\_ FD also had his house burned down. I'm sure they talked
about it at the time; that doesn't change the fact that
deciding to encode slavery in the Constitution is not
"encouraging freedom." -tom
\_ /shrug. FD was being politic, working with what he had
at the time. It would be interesting to see what he had
to say post-Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, 14th
Amendment. Also, pp's point vis-a-vis that the union
could not have existed without a 3/5ths compromise is
speculative. Carry on. --erikred |
| 2008/4/22-5/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/RealEstate] UID:49797 Activity:nil |
4/22 Yes, they are illiterate peasants.
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=61193
\_ "Back in January, he became the first Colorado lawmaker censured
by the House, after he kicked a newspaper photographer for taking
his picture during a prayer." Sounds like a classy guy.
\_ He was in prayer, and someone was at his feet clicking away. He
nudged him away with his foot. And what does that have to do
with the correct statement that most (if not all?) illegals from
south of the border are indeed illiterate peasants?
\_ Do you have a link for that? Just curious.
\_ http://cbs4denver.com/politics/bruce.photographer.kick.2.636572.html
"Bruce told the committee that the photographer goaded him and
was responsible for creating a disruption. Bruce also denied
that what he did was a kick, saying he gently pushed the
photographer away with his foot."
\_ Colorado house votes 63-1 to censure him. Did all those
Republicans who voted for the motion fear Political correctness?
\_ Colorado house votes 62-1 to censure him. Did all those
GOP members who voted for the motion fear PC?
http://www.csua.org/u/lbz
\_ so he calls it like he sees it, and gets in hot water. This is
classic stifling effect of 'political correctness'
\_ THE MAN IS KEEPING HIM DOWN!
\_ being a jerk has always been impolitic |
| 2008/4/14-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:49749 Activity:nil |
4/14 LA is facing a budget crisis. The city's a shithole. Ditto with
80% of the S Cal cities.
\_ Unlike beautiful urine-soaked San Francisco.
\_ Golden shower in the Golden State.
\_ http://www.danheller.com/sf-top.html
\_ Doesn't mention how all of these sites smell like urine.
\_ You have your nose in the gutter, when instead you
should have your eyes upon the stars.
\_ surprisingly, people like LA more than SF, according
to Mr. Google:
http://appleorangescale.com/?wd0=san%20francisco&wd1=los%20angeles |
| 2008/4/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:49744 Activity:low |
4/14 The Conservative solution to the housing mess: print lots of money.
http://www.csua.org/u/l9t (WSJ)
\_ And the solution to the federal deficit. What is a better
solution to cut your deficit by 1/2 than inflation? MORE TAX?
\_ LESS SPENDING?
\_ Let's cut social programs.
\_ Agree. Let the homeless people go rampant on the street,
and let the desperate and starving ones carry their
struggle in their 'hood. Let's put them away somewhere
far so that we don't have to deal with them, ever.
\_ (inflation is, effectively, a tax on people with savings)
Let's designate that place as Southern California.
\_ Can we put them in all the empty McMansions in the exurbs
\_ I think these places are called SF, Berkeley, Oakland,
Hollywood, Venice, and Santa Monica.
\_ Sadly, criminals don't stay in one place. Therefore
a better solution is to put them far away from
the civilized world (e.g. putting criminals in
S Cal)
\_ Northern Cal seems to have more of an affinity
for these people based on voting trends and
anecodotal evidence. Southern Cal on the
other hand (e.g. Orange County) does not
except for the cities I mentioned.
\_ You have obviously never been to downtown
Los Angeles.
\_ Skid row? Skid row is a perfect example
of how poorly the homeless in SoCal are
treated and how unwelcome they are. For
example: ordinances against camping on
the street, ordinances against sleeping
on the sidewalk during the day, and so
on. The ACLU and LA constantly clash.
\_ (inflation is, effectively, a tax) |
| 2008/4/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Food] UID:49688 Activity:low |
4/8 Fattest States:
http://calorielab.com/news/2007/08/06/fattest-states-2007
\_ "California not getting fatter" only because starving
immigrants are making the average less, while fat lazy
trailer trash whities from Riverside and the Inland Empire
keep moving inland towards Las Vegas and Arizona.
\_ Erm... Mexico is the second fattest nation after
the U.S.
\_ I'm talking about LEGAL immigrants you dits, like those
\_ dits?
skinny nerdy INDIANS who took over 1/2 of our company.
Oh well at least they work 2X as hard for 2/3 the pay.
Go company stock!
\_ You are so funny. You should go into stand up. But you
might need to throw in a few "white people drive like
this, black people drive like that," jokes. You know,
just to spice it up. Also maybe a joke about how women
love to shop.
\_ How about guatemalans and el salvadorans?
\_ It's true Mexico is about to overtake the USA in obesity.
Is Kuwait still fatter than the USA?
\_ I seem to recall that hispanics have the fastest growing
obesity rate.
\_ Given that rice prices are going up, and a bigger percentage of
CA residents compared to other states eat rice, this will
probably become more true.
\_ Don't you mean lice?
\_ http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080407/cm_csm/efood_1 |
| 2008/4/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49680 Activity:moderate |
4/7 In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
\_ If you add more people to the system and not more dollars this
will happen. Universal care will end up costing taxpayers more
money for a reduced (or the same) level of service - and don't
give me this BS about how preventative care will save money. If you
think that's true then make the Universal system include only
preventative care.
\_ Well, any solution that amounts to layering a bureaucracy on
top of the existing system is dubious.
\_ ...well, hell, if you don't believe preventative care will
save money, how about you go ahead and stop receiving any of it
and let us know how you're doing in about 10 years?
\_ I think you missed his point. -!pp
\_ Not if his point was that preventative care will save
\_ Not if his point was that preventative care won't save
money or cut costs in a Universal healthcare system.
\_ Do you mean 'will not save?'
\_ Er, yes. Will fix soon and erase both of these
comments.
\_ Preventative care won't save money if it then leads to
expensive procedures anyway. However, I'm all in favor
of free medical exams. Free clinics funded by the government
do this already. That's the extent of it, though.
\_ http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/04/prevention-cost.html
-- ilyas
\_ Excellent: _some_ preventative medicine will save costs;
indiscriminate spending on unproven preventatives will
raise costs. That's important to know so's we can focus.
\_ Does early cancer screening save costs, improve
quality of life, or neither? I would argue that
overall it might improve quality of life, but it
doesn't lower costs. In fact, it adds to costs
because you have the cost of the screening plus the
costs of the treatment which is much the same either
way. On top of that, as the article points out,
you've extended a life so that you can have more
expensive screenings and ultimately (in many cases)
a recurrence anyway. Prevention works for conditions
which we have cures for like polio. It doesn't work
so well for cancer, heart disease, and such which
is probably where most of the medical $$$ go anyway.
\_ Have you included the value of saving the lives
of fully-productive adult members of society in
your calculation? [Hint: No.] -tom
\_ We are comparing prevention to no prevention +
treatment. Are you claiming that the former
actually saves more lives (aside from the
known beneficial cases, e.g., vaccinations)?
-- ilyas
\_ The data shows that the cases where preventative
care actually does save productive lives are
very rare, except for those few known things like
vaccines or a single colonoscopy at a certain
age.
\_ This depends entirely on what you consider
preventative: is abstinence education prevent-
ative? how about safe sex classes including
information on condoms? It makes sense, though,
that certain testable measures are much more
reliable than, say, handing out pamphlets.
\_ No, because over 1/3 of the current costs of the medical system
go to the "free market" beauracracy. All those countries that
go to the "free market" bureaucracy. All those countries that
have introduced universal health care have cut costs. I leave
it as an exercise for the reader to discover how this could
possibly have happened.
\_ US government != European governments. As history proves
over and over again, US government = inefficient beauracracy
that cannot be trusted, and hence we have no choice but
to rely on the free market.
\_ You mean inefficient like the US Army or Marine Corp?
\_ Our military branches are efficient at torture.
\_ They save costs because you die while waiting to get the
surgery you need because of rationing. The free market
can allocate resources much more effectively than some
bureaucrat can. If you really want to cut costs you should
eliminate insurance entirely. Right now people don't pay
attention to whether their doctor charges $1400 versus
$1200 for a procedure. If it's within the customary
averages insurance companies are going to pay it.
However, if that extra $200 comes out of their pocket you
can be sure people will pay more attention to costs. Our
current nightmare of employer-sponsored HMO plans is
basically already Universal Healthcare for the working
class. Sure, you can purchase individual coverage but how
many people eligible for an employer-sponsored plan do
that? (And if they do, not many employers refund their
portion of the premium!) For the elderly we already have
Medicare. Universal health care is a step in the wrong
direction. Eliminate virtual-mandatory participation in
these plans and watch both doctors and patients become
much happier as they split that 1/3 overhead that HMOs
currently enjoy. I pay $600/month for health insurance if
you count my portion and my employer's portion and I am
under 40 and healthy. That's your UHC tax right there.
Refund it back to me and let me decide how to obtain
medical care. Don't legislate away the only choice I have
(not to participate).
\_ Savings have to come from eliminating bureaucratic fat,
better experimental study design (so we actually know what
works), and more personalized medicine (relying on averages
works), and more RUSSIAN medicine (relying on averages
is expensive and kills people). People who just want
Universal Healthcare <tm> basically aren't thinking about
the problem, they are just shouting a political meme.
-- ilyas
\_ You mean how the free market so efficiently allocated
resources during the dot-com bubble and the housing
run-up and collapse? Simply repeating your ideological
position does make it any more persuasive. Yes, the free
market rations health care according to ability to pay and
state run systems allocate them according to need. Guess
which one gets more bang for your buck? People die in both
systems waiting for health care.
\_ What exactly was wrong with the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> bubble or
the housing run-up? It's how markets work. I'm sure
you far prefer the former Soviet Union which didn't
have those "problems". Bureaucrats cannot decide
"need" as well as dollars can. I argue that more
bang for the buck is the one that eliminates the
middle-man.
\_ The medicare and VA bureaucracy is much more
lightweight than the HMO/medical insurance one is.
I prefer what works, not what my ideology tells me
"must" work.
\_ I think you are the one with an ideological
problem here.
\_ Another issue is that people without insurance or ability
to pay still get care in emergency rooms. I don't know
what the $ numbers are for those cases. But most med
insurance is pretty obviously not very efficient. If med.
insurance should be mandatory it should have really
high deductibles. The biggest problem with insurance
is that it neuters market forces towards the medical
industry. With most insurance plans, all doctors and
all drugs cost similar amounts, barring some brand
name vs. generic category things. The consumer as you
say has little reason to look for medical "deals".
And insurance is expensive, and those who aren't insured
freeload.
\_ Exactly. There is no reason to shop around. When
shopping for a new doctor how many people inquire
as to his rates? How many times do you pay your
bill at the doctor *after* services are rendered?
High deductibles and large co-pays make sense, but
I do not think that's what the UHC people have in
mind. Anyone who has spent time at a free clinic
(or knows someone who works at one) realizes what a
disaster that is for all involved. We should be
looking for a more streamlined solution, not a
bigger and more difficult to administer solution
with mandatory participation that will screw
middle-class taxpayers even more than they already
are while doing nothing to improve medical care.
\_ I agree with everything except for your conclusion.
UHC works very well in the places it has been tried:
the US Army, VA hospitals, Canada, England, etc. In
this country, we will probably have to have a two
tier system, more like England, rather than a
mandatory participation system, like Canada, though.
\_ Do you know anyone in the military? My gf's
mom was an Air Force and then Army nurse
(active duty) for 30 years and when she
retired from nursing she continued to work
closely with Tricare, NIH, VA, and State Dept
(believe it or not they are involved for things l
like sharing patient data between branches of
military) as a consultant. She was also a
hospital administrator for a military hospital
and her daughter (my gf's sister) is Air
Force reserves, former Army, and works
full-time for the VA right now. In addition,
my gf's dad and stepdad were both military
officers and my gf's sister's ex-husband is
active duty Army who spent time in Iraq. I
can say from my experiences at military
hospitals (visiting) and from the stories
I've heard that I do not want military
medicine or the VA as a model for anything.
\_ I grew up on military bases all my life. My
father was a hospital administrator for the
Navy (35 years service). While I would not
suggest that OCHAMPUS is by any means perfect,
it provided adequate health and dental coverage
for us throughout my childhood. I would
consider it a fine model for basic services.
--erikred
\_ The key words you used were 'adequate'
and 'basic services'. I would say
'substandard'. I wouldn't go to a military
hospital unless I had to. Lots of military
people like it because it's free to them,
but if I had a serious illness I would
rather it be treated elsewhere. Also, ask
your dad about the waste that goes on. For
instance, military hospitals require the RNs
to be trained in almost every discipline.
Private hospitals only require nurses train
in the field they work. I think that part
of the reason that military healthcare
seems cheap is that many costs are
hidden. For instance, doctors' salaries
are very low (which scares me in itself)
but there are other benefits they receive
which many think makes it worth their while.
You will not be able to hire doctors
privately at those salaries because the
total package needs to be evaluated
(e.g. retirement benefits, travel benefits,
and so on). I am not sure if studies that
examine the costs of military medicine
account for these externalities. The
military hospitals receive many benefits
private hospitals do not just by virtue
of being part of the military machine
and yet the quality of care still sucks.
\_ I was a medic for three years, so yes
I am familiar with the military medical
system. I think it is fine. The VA
system is even better. We can easily
hire doctors at the pay level that the
military pays them: that is what MDs
make everywhere in the world, except
here. The AMA artificially keeps the
supply low, to inflate salaries. I am
surprised that such a purported free
market cheerleader would not be aware
of this fact.
\_ Many people would dispute your
assertion re: AMA. The AMA does
not have this power. Less than
20% of physicians are members and
the AMA has no direct regulatory
authority. Also, many countries keep
MD salaries artificially low. Spain,
for instance, recruits MDs from
Eastern Europe and Third World
nations at low salaries and
holds them hostage with visas.
It's not worthwile for Spaniards
to even bother with medical
school at those wages. The
salaries of US doctors are high
and it's one reason we have a
high standard of care. Plus, US
doctor salaries have actually eroded
over the past 40 years.
\_ The AMA controls licensing for
medical schools, which is how
they keep the number of doctors
low. Show me proof that MD salaries
have eroded over the last 40 years,
because I don't believe it. Maybe
for primary care docs, but almost
assuredly not for specialists.
Salaries are high due to monopoly
pricing power, not quality.
\_ The AMA does no such thing.
The government controls
this. Sure, the AMA is a lobby
but they can't mandate anything.
http://tinyurl.com/e33gk
http://tinyurl.com/4yn35s
\_ Your articles provide support
for my claim that an
artificial shortage of MDs
has been created. And a four
year snapshot of MD salaries
from 10 years ago doesn't
prove much. Lately MD salaries
are going up:
http://www.csua.org/u/l96
\_ An artificial shortage of
MDs has been created by
whom?
\_ AMA of course.
Why is it so hard to
get a medical edu.?
Actually learning the
stuff isn't that hard,
but getting into the
school is. -!pp
\_ The articles dispute
that the AMA has any
such power.
such power. It is
the gov't that you
trust to admin UHC
which is the problem.
-/
http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/newsRoom/newsRm_acGlance.asp
"The ACGME's member organizations are the American Board of Medical
Specialties, American Hospital Association, American Medical
Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the
Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Member organizations each
appoint four members to the Board of Directors, which also includes
two resident members, three public directors, the chair of the Council
of Review Committee Chairs and a non-voting federal representative."
The AMA is one of the people on the board of the organization that
certifies medical schools, but is not the only member.
\- Might be of interest: WSJ article on non-profit hospital profits:
http://tinyurl.com/55v9th
\_ Nice to know, but in the end it is the government (through Medicare)
\_ Nice to know, but in the end is it the government (through Medicare)
that funds residents. In theory, we don't need any more accredited
programs to churn out more doctors. We just need more students in
the existing programs.
\_ In other words, the AMA (amongst others) controls licensing for
medical schools, which is what I said. The AMA also agressively
lobbies the government to underfund medical education, but that
is a bit more complicated as there are other players. But for
generations, the AMA has done everything in its power to keep
the number of doctors artificially low. Nice to see that some
people are waking up to the fact that this might not be a good
idea afterall.
\_ This is what you said:
"The AMA controls licensing for medical schools"
(This statement is not really true as the AMA does not
have sole, or even majority, control. They have input.)
"which is how they keep the number of doctors low."
(This statement is not really true either since, as I
pointed out, the number of residents is largely
determined by the government.)
The AMA is a lobby out to protect the interests of
doctors. Wow, what a shocker. Next you will tell me that
UAW is trying to protect American autoworker jobs. However,
the AMA always gets blame for artificially limiting the
number of doctors and the reality is that they don't have
that capability. They have the desire, but let's not
overstate their authority. The biggest party at fault is the
government - the same government that people want to run
Universal Health Care.
\_ You said "the government controls this" which is entirely
false. "The government" is you and me, put the blame
where it belongs.
\_ You can increase funding for medical residents? You
should get on that. |
| 2008/4/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:49648 Activity:nil |
4/2 http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/should-drivers.html?nup=1&mbid=yhp "Yet motorists in Los Angeles County might be paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump -- or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration fees. The purpose? It would help fight global warming." Yeah. Let's do this here in the Bay Area also. |
| 2008/4/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49637 Activity:nil |
4/1 The Masculinist Coalition
http://masculinists.org/updates
\- YMWTGF("Harvey Mansfield", manliness)
\- Professor Mansfield touched me. I am lewis@soda. |
| 2008/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49593 Activity:nil |
3/28 Google Maps is lame.
From 34643 Allegheny Ct, Fremont, CA
To 1309 Elmer St., Unit A, Belmont, CA
Yahoo Maps: via Dumbarton Br, 18.3 miles
Google Maps: via San Mateo Br, 23.2 miles
\_ Yeah, google maps really hates the dumbarton for some reason. |
| 2008/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:49541 Activity:low |
3/23 Democracy comes to isolated kingdom - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/l3q
'"If you had a referendum, even today, Bhutan would reject democracy.
That's the ground reality," said Khandu Wangchuk, the burly, gravel-
voiced former foreign minister who is running for a seat in the
western town of Paro. "But there's no use wishing democracy away."'
Between the Democratic presidential nomination and the Taiwan election
yesterday, this is strange news.
\- Bhutan is not a "normal place". The "gross national happiness"
would be a lot lower if not for massive indian subsidies.
would be a lot lower if not for massive Indian subsidies.
Imagine Hawaii without govt handouts, and the govt not turning a
blind eye to Hawaiian price discrimination etc. For example
Bhutanese can buy cars heavily subsidiezed by find from India,
which they then turn around and sell at a profit to Indians ...
rinse and repeat. Also they have no foreign policy/defense
expenditure etc.
Bhutanese can buy cars heavily subsidized by India, which they
then turn around and sell at a profit to Indians ... rinse and
repeat. Also they have no foreign policy/defense expenditure etc.
And this doesn include airport, power, road building etc
subsidies or outright construction. Bhutan = leech.
\_ The Feb. Natl Geo paints those subsidies as India buying hydro-
electric power. Is this not a correct depiction?
\- I have not read the National Geographic article, so I
cannot comment on that, but there is very large development
subsisdies as well as non-developmental subsidies from
India. Bhutan doesnt do anything other than moderate
tourism. Bhutan = leech. |
| 2008/3/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49436 Activity:high 80%like:49431 |
3/12 Spitzer's Kristen, 5'5" 105lbs revealed. Don't drool!
http://www.pagesix.com/story/spitzer+s+hooker+revealed
\_ ANOREXIA!!!
\_ No way is that woman 105 pounds.
\_ How about this one:
http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sportbikebabe4cx4.jpg
I'm guessing 5'5" 100lbs.
\_ More like 115-120.
\_ Depends on how tall she is. 115-120 is not thin for a
woman who is 5'2". More like 95-100. Models are
usually about 5'9" 120.
\_ Well look at the MOTORCYCLE!!! The in-seam height
of a CBR600RR is about 32-32.5". Extrapolate, and
you'll get the actual height. I can't do it now
because I'm at work.
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/12cnd-kristen.html
\_ Liberal new york times.
\_ You crack me up. So, when the NYT reports the biggest scandal
of the moment, and it happens to be to a hypocrite Dem, that
means they're not Liberal? Or what does your post mean?
\_ http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html
\_ Wait he paid $5K a trip for her? WTF I wouldn't pay over
$285/session for this woman. I can get better looking
women for only $300-500/session.
\_ Why do you go to hookers?
\_ C? Looks more like a B to me.
\_ Some of us have seen real breasts. That's a nice full C in that
photo.
\_ My ex had D and my wife has A. I've seen and touched them
countless times. IMHO the ones in the pic look closer to A
than to D. So I guessed they're B. -- PP
\_ So in other words you have very little boob experience. |
| 2008/3/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49431 Activity:nil 80%like:49436 |
3/12 Spitzer's Kristen, 5'10" 105lbs revealed. Don't droll!
http://www.pagesix.com/story/spitzer+s+hooker+revealed |
| 2008/3/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49404 Activity:nil 88%like:49402 |
3/10 Why there won't be a second Florida primary:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yz4s2 [new republic] |
| 2008/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49402 Activity:nil 88%like:49404 |
3/10 Why there won't be a second Florida primary:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8da17f52-5cff-4a48-9d49-a7d2293aefd9 |
| 2008/3/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49392 Activity:moderate |
3/8 So here is a question: it's conventional widsom that CA and NY
are Hillary States. However, I dont really meet a lot of pro-Hill
people ... but most of the people I encounter among whom this
politics comes up are high incomes 30 somethings ... so not really
Hillary constituency [menopausal women and economic losers and
Hollywood insiders?] ... so does anybody here live in a heavily Hillary
pocket of CA? If so, who and where is this crowd? Stockton? North
Hollywood? Malibu? Palo Alto PTA?
\_ You probably don't hang out with enough Asians or Latinos.
\_ Asians above age 45 are afraid of/dont trust a Black man?
There are a lot of younger, high incomes, liberal Asians in the
Bay Area. Which Asians are you talking about?
\_ Look at the demographic or by-county breakdown of Obama vs.
Hillary voting in CA, that's all I'm saying. The by-county
breakdown is particularly interesting.
\_ What does O's race have to do with it? I thought only the
evil republicans were racists. Please help me out here.
\_ Racism has nothing to do with party affiliation. Does
that help? ok tnx.
\_ Do you know any women at all? Almost all the women I know are voting
for Hillary, most of whom are in there 30's or above and have good
educations and jobs. These women live in San Francisco and
Riverside.
\- do all the hillary women you know wear pantsuits?
i have talked the small number of hillary-women i know
out of supporting her by mocking/shaming them ... by
making them feel dumb or hypociritical. well at
least they publicly claimed to have switched.
\_ FWIW, Obama won San Francisco county 52% to 44.5%:
http://csua.org/u/kzw (latimes.com)
She cleaned up in Riverside, however.
In more recent elections, Obama has been splitting younger and
educated women, however...only the older women have been
sticking with her by big margins.
FYI, all of the women I know voted for Obama with the exception
of my mom. No argument seems to persuade the older women out of
the "But she's a woman" argument.
\_ Right and since her support skews female it is obvious
that a majority or close to it of San Francisco women
voters voted for her.
\_ One more note on this - after a recount, Obama picked up
8 more delegates in CA when the vote was certified this
week. This was not widely reported. I'm not sure what
the "official" vote totals ended up looking like.
\_ My mom (in her 60s) voted for Obama. Most women I have
talked to are in favor of HRC, though. |
| 2008/3/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49391 Activity:nil 88%like:49381 |
3/7 CA judge outlaws homeschooling?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2x2g2y (sfgate.com)
\_ "The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest
teachers union." surprise, surprise, surprise. -crebbs [formatd]
\_ You know, I don't have any use for religion, but I have even less
for meddling government bureaucrats. Hey Teacher! Leave those kids
alone! |
| 2008/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49381 Activity:high 88%like:49391 |
3/7 CA judge outlaws homeschooling?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
\_ "The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest
teachers union." surprise, surprise, surprise. -crebbs [formatd]
\_ You know, I don't have any use for religion, but I have even less
for meddling government beauracrats. Hey Teacher! Leave those kids
for meddling government bureaucrats. Hey Teacher! Leave those kids
alone!
\_ "The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union."
surprise, surprise, surprise. -crebbs |
| 2008/3/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49371 Activity:nil |
3/6 No one remembers that the national Dems warned FL Dems not to have
their early primary? And FL Dems chose to do it anyway (deciding not
to have a caucus later)?
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml
\_ I remember, why did you forget or something? The FL voters
are always trying to twist the rules to their advantage, remember
2000?
\_ That wasn't the voters |
| 2008/2/29-3/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49299 Activity:nil |
2/28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk_O-nhlA4 \_ Hillary cackles in response to serious questions as technique to avoid answering same questions. Amusing but not really meaningful now since her campaign ended Feb 5th. |
| 2008/2/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:49241 Activity:high |
2/24 so who here is up for giving FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to
AC Transit so they can completely foul up east bay city traffic by
making bus only lanes up and down shattuck all the way down
International, closely mirroring BART (why? no clue), and
to give San Francisco 1.5 billion to 6 billion dollars to
build a 3 stop subway from Chinatown to the ballpark (they
claim it'll cost 1.5 billion, this thing is going to go under
the most densely populated spot on the entire west coast, yay
sure it'll only cost 1.5 billion.
\_ Roads are fucking expensive. Traffic costs a shitload of money
to deal with. That's why the "trains aren't efficient" idiots
don't have a leg to stand on.
\_ Trains can be efficient, but you keep trying to cram that
square peg into round holes. In *most* instances, trains are
poor solutions to transit problems. There are *some*
instances where they work, but they are few and far between.
\_ yes, those few and far between places are called "cities"
\_ Cities of a certain size and density that are also
built around a central core of which there aren't many.
\_ yeah, cities with downtowns are so rare. uh, not.
\_ How many factors did I cite? Cities that possess
all 3 are rare. For instance, LA and San Jose have
only 1 of the 3 (size). Many have downtowns but
not size or density. The concept of a downtown
is a turn of the century idea and the concept of
people commuting from suburbs to a downtown for
work is from maybe the 1930s and 1940s. It
hasn't been that way for a long time. How many
people out of the Bay Area population commute to
downtown SF for work? Not that many. Not even Tom.
Isn't it like 5%? (350K out of 7M) And that's
for a dense city with lots of high-paying jobs.
(Note: LA and SJ obviously have downtowns, but
these exist mostly in name only.)
\_ Seriously, I bet I could name hundreds. Do you
really want me to start? Anytime you have enough
density of population trains are the way to go.
\_ Just name 5 in CA.
\_ SF, LA, SD, Sacramento all could benefit
from significant rail infrastructure. Oh
no, that's only four in CA! You must be
right! -tom
\_ All of your cities are too big and lack
a real city center for a real train
system. Trains can supplement an auto
system but never replace one. The idea
is simply ridiculous.
\_ Oakland. There, that's five.
\_ Yay! What do we win? -tom
\_ Are you kidding? I didn't say to
just list names of cities in CA.
\_ Those are all cities in CA which
were built on rail transit. It's
absurd to suggest that rail transit
can't work in them. -tom
\_ Sacramento's farebox recovery
ratio is 20%. You call that
working?!
\_ Better than the 0% that the
roads bring in. Farebox
recovery is a red herring. -tom
\_ Roads are not 0%. Every
car on the road is
contributing through
fuel taxes and through
the purchase of the car
itself.
\_ If you count taxes,
the train system is
doing just fine, right?
Enough with the
irrelevanices. -tom
\_ That's a disingenuous
response. You know
damn well that fuel
taxes are equivalent to
train fares as a
'use tax'.
\_ And what percentage
of the total cost of
auto usage is
recovered by fuel
taxes?
\_ I dunno. Feel
free to calculate
and share.
\_ Oh, so *now* you come up with a new
requirement. Any city built before 1950
is probably going to be dense enough to
support rail. That does exclude most of
California's flash-in-the-plan unsustainable
California's flash-in-the-pan unsustainable
suburbs.
\_ $400M just for marking the lanes or paving new lanes? URL please?
\_ I'm not a big fan of the BRT proposal. I'm not sure about the
Chinatown proposal; it would be better if it went a little further
into North Beach. $1.5 billion is not that much money for a major
infrastructure project; the Bay Bridge east span is costing
four times that much (before they calculate the overruns). -tom
\_ $400M is also the ballpark for the Caldecott fourth bore and
the Devil's Slide tunnel. -tom
\_ It was stupid to build the caldecott with 3 tunnels and it
was stupid how much politics has gotten in the way and
increased the price of the 4th bore over the last few
decades everyone knew it was needed.
\_ Obviously the free market didn't think it was needed,
then or now. -tom
\_ Why should the free market provide what the gubmint
provides? You cannot compete with the government.
\_ The Caldecott was completed in 1937; the third
bore was added in 1964. The free market had 40
years to put in a tunnel there. Why didn't they?
The Bay Bridge could have been replaced, another
toll Bay crossing could be done privately. Why
aren't these things done? Because they're huge
money-losers.
\_ So if they are money-losers then why does
the government waste money on them? Sounds
like you are wising up.
\_ The purpose of government isn't to make money.
-tom
\_ Sign I saw today:
"Paved roads: yet another example of
government waste."
Maybe the government should consider what
makes financial sense before committing to
spend money that isn't theirs.
\_ If it's making investments on behalf of the
public, the investments should have some
real value to that public. Of course the
problem again is accurately quantifying the
benefit of such shared resources, who
receives that benefit, and who should pay.
And what other things might we use those
resources for?
Do I, living in the South Bay, really give
a shit about the Bay Bridge? I wouldn't
personally pay to use it. Would it stimulate
economic growth of the area? I don't know,
maybe it just screws with the natural
market-driven path of development in other
directions.
\_ There's no such thing as a "natural
market-driven path". It's a tautology.
Yes, the government should evaluate
different ways to invest public money
to "promote the general welfare"
(remember that bit?)
As I've already noted many times, the
cost/benefit equation is much better
for rail than for roads; the analysis
has been done. The only reason the
U.S. doesn't build more rail is
politics and the power of the
corporations. -tom
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/winston/200605-aeijc.pdf
Every $1.00 spent on highway construction returns
11 cents in congestion reduction benefits. -tom
\_ No point in drilling an extra bore. New roads
become filled to capacity almost immediately
anyway, mostly with frivolous trips. There is
an almost unlimited appetite for "free" ways.
\_ I like the way you think. Since there's no
point in providing a service that will *gasp*
just get used(!!!) we should only provide
services people don't need or want. They won't
get used and we'll save a lot of money. Bravo!
\_ Why didn't they? Because government regulations
make it impossible for non-government to do such
a thing. Duh. You can't just build your own
bridge anywhere you damned well feel like it.
You're just trolling now, right? You can't
actually believe this stuff.
\_ Perhaps you could list all the proposals
private companies came up with for building
new tunnels and bridges in the Bay Area.
Surely there would be some interest in a
new Bay crossing, even if it required a toll.
And private industry is (ideologically) so
much more efficient than government, they
should be able to do it cheaper, right?
Why didn't they try to supply the demand?
-tom
\_ You are right, they should spend twice as much and run it all
the way to Fisherman's Wharf. Someday they will, I am sure. We
spend more then $1.5B in Iraq every week.
\_ Iraq? Yawn. Has nothing to do with anything. "We've spent
money on dumber things before!" is not a reason to spend money
on some other dumb thing, even a somewhat less dumb thing.
\_ Stop wasting all that money in Iraq and we will have money
for all kinds of useful things, like transit. |
| 2008/2/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:49225 Activity:low |
2/24 I'm about to buy a home in an unincorporated city, what are
some of the ramifications of having a home in an unincorporated
city? Does that men we're screwed if the road/sewage/water
need repairs? What about tax and other ramifications?
\_ I live in an unincorporated area. A lot of it depends on who
provides your services. It's usually the county. If you live in
a rich county it can be good. A poor county might mean you
don't get good services. Taxes will be less. In my particular
case, we get better police and fire services, worse roads
and utilities, more freedom when it comes to building codes
and ordinances (can be a plus or a minus), worse humane society,
and worse library system.
case, we get better police and fire services, worse roads, worse
electric utility, more freedom when it comes to building codes,
zoning and ordinances (can be a plus or a minus), worse humane
society, and worse library system. No difference with schools in my
situation (which again can be better or worse - some uninc.
areas have their own school system and others use a nearby district
and it can vary which is better). The sewer and water are handled
by my county either way. In short, the bad part is that there's no
one to complain to and the good part is that there's no one
placing restrictions on you. If you like HOAs you might not like an
unincorporated area. If you like more freedom you will. My
county has more money and so a plus is that when we want
something expensive all we have to do is convince our county
supervisor. That means we can get expensive things a small city
may not be able to afford if we can make a case for them. (A certain
amount is budgeted by the county for our district and that is not
true in incorporated areas where the county figures the city should
pick up the cost.) Essentially, we have access to a bigger
pool of funds to use on pet projects like redevelopment zones,
parks, and libraries. (Even though our library system is worse
than the nearby city that's just because theirs is really
extensive. Ours is very nice for an area our size.) Over the
years there have been many votes to incorporate or to be
annexed to the nearby city and they have all failed, so the
majority of people must like the status quo (probably don't
want to pay the additional 0.25% property tax in exchange for
being told what to do).
\_ Thanks Unincorporate City Guru! It's very very useful!
May I ask which county or city you live in?
\_ The answer is: it depends. Who provides sewer, water, power
and heating gas? Is there a chance your neighbors are going
to get together and vote you all a tax increase to pay for
more services? Read up on what a Mello-Roos is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos
\_ Communities, incorporated or not, can vote taxes for
themselves. It's not really relevant to the discussion.
Mello Roos is tangential as well. Unincorporated areas don't
necessarily have Mello Roos fees. I would guess most don't.
\_ An area without water, electricity or sewer is much more
likely to vote a tax increase to fund those things than
an area that already has them.
\_ Sure, but what does that have to do with incorporated
vs. unincorporated? Absolutely nothing.
\_ You know of incorporated areas with no sewer, water
or electricity? In America???
\_ Yes. All you have to do is leave the cities. Go to
the central coast of CA for instance and you will
find homes which are part of a city but which get
water from a well and use septic for waste. Hell, La
Canada Flintridge just got a sewer system in the last
10 years and it's a wealthy city. The residents voted
to pay for it and some people got majorly screwed.
My boss had a $40K bill for his portion *and* he
had just installed a new septic system just a few
years before. Yes, it is an incorporated city (1976). |
| 2008/2/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Humor] UID:49223 Activity:nil |
2/23 it would be reall funny if huckabee somehow won the nomination
\_ I'd never vote for him, but you've got to appreciate a man
with a sense of humor. Good on him for doing Weekend Update on
SNL. --erikred
\_ I would love to see it, since I always thought Huckabee was
sort of like some SNL character to begin with.
\_ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hac-UHi56Xc
Probably not good for long, since YouTube deletes SNL
clips mighty quickly. --erikred
\_ key word: somehow
\_ Already gone.
\_ On the SNL site now: http://csua.org/u/kw9 |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:49214 Activity:nil |
2/22 House GOP plaigarizes new season of 24:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9iXX1fT3A
\_ Dude this is awsome!
\_ Yeah, they've got the Jerry Bruckheimer vote in the bag.
\_ key word: usually |
| 2008/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49162 Activity:nil |
2/15 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5y6nS4ErwjpwekMrJe53uPrnTcwD8UQCMEG2 :wq le |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49148 Activity:kinda low |
2/14 Seriously, does a black man really have a chance against a more
experienced (though controversial) white Caucasian candidate?
Is America really ready for a black President?
\_ What is this "experience" that she and everyone keep talking
about?
\_ Is America ready for a 72 year old President?
\_ Reagan was 70-78 years old during his presidency.
\_ What is this "experience" that she keeps talking about?
\_ Someone had to mind the store while Bill was busy with
the staff.
\_ Given how people are talking when interviewed, this really
appears to have become a non-issue.
\_ Americans vote for charming winners that appeal to their hearts
while right wing people vote for smarties (or at least those
who seem annoyingly smug about their superier intelligence)
\_ Please tell me this
was edited after the fact.
http://csua.com/2008/02/04/#49061_
(stop deleting this asshat)
It's not about the policies, damnit.
\_ Oh look, it's Mr. MAINSTREAM AMERICA posting again.
\_ Really? I thought right wing was anti-smarty. It's the
liberals that always say they're the smart people.
Big city elites and all that.
\_ Rush always says that Democrats are a bunch of crack
smoking welfare moms. Does he mean welfare moms with
PhDs? Don't forget the illegals and lazy Union thugs.
Are these all supposed to be intellectuals?
\_ Think Presidents David and Wayne Palmer. But one hopes that
Michelle Obama is nothing like Sherry Palmer.
\_ I love conservatives. When it comes to policy, 'racism doesn't
exist anymore.' When it comes to candidates, 'OH NOES BLACK GUY
RUN FOR THE HILLS!'
\_ Why do you listen to Rush?
\_ After seeing Presidents David and Wayne Palmer in action,
America is totally ready for a black president. A black
first lady, however, is a different story. Hopefully Mrs.
Obama is nothing like Sherry Palmer.
\_ This country is not ready for a black president. This contry
isn't ready for a female president either. However, it is ready
for a moron president (http://www.presidentmoron.com |
| 2008/2/14-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49141 Activity:kinda low 75%like:49133 |
2/13 Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gpm64 (part I - http://ourfuture.org)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/27ejwh (part II - http://ourfuture.org)
\_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
\_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
and set up strawmen?
\_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work
directly for the state."
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
from there.)
\_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS. If
what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
socialism. ok thx.
\_ What sucks about your PPO?
\_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
medical system.
\_ Move to Canada then.
\_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
improve America? -tom
\_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
the arguments at the links above are specious. I
think the government needs to get *less* involved
in health care, not more. If you want Canada's
system, go to Canada.
\_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
where are you going to go? -tom
\_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
\_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
of high quality.
\_ Cuba!
\_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
\_ This is my favorite:
"We'll have rationed care
Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
"Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
Um, yes. That's called capitalism. This is saying, "socialized
health care would be better because socialism is better!"
-emarkp
\_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care. -tom
\_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
\_ and that's good because...?
\_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
results and give you a choice of where and how to
spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
are trying to change the system so the onus is on
you.
\_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
people die, it's the natural order of things.
\_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY. Evolution
doesn't care if it operates fairly. Fairness
is a human peculiarity.
\_ Darwinism does account for luck where
both the lucky and unlucky offset each
other hence you'll still find order in
any chaos system.
\_ It's lots of fun for those who lose
because of bad luck, isn't it?
\_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
ends up being a larger public health cost than
vaccine would be. -tom
\_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
\_ Socialist.
\_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
concerns are a known area where markets alone
can't optimize the problem, because the costs
and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
Another example is stuff like national parks
and open space. The actual value of open space
to the society at large or in the area is hard
to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
convincing arguments with respect to health
care.
\_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
anything.
\_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
however: regulations prevented investment in
more power infrastructure.
\_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
we really need.
\_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
\_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
myths about Canada's healthcare system.
emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
criticisms of capitalism follow, then
praises of capitalism (by way of the
free market, i.e., competition), then
bad examples of said competition, then
qualifications based on possible limited
regulation, followed by ironic
invocation of "socialism," followed by
literal reference to socialism. At what
point does any of this point to the US
system somehow being better?
\_ dumbass
\_ Yay! You're contributing!
\_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted. All limited resources
must be rationed some how. I only know of 3 ways, money,
politics, and violence. The Free Market uses money for a
variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
political rationing, rationing. It's just a matter of
common language use.
\_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
\_ I love this argument:
- Universal health care is Socialism! Capitalism rox! F U TAXES!
- Our health care system sucks! We need Canada's system! OBAMA!! |
| 2008/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49133 Activity:high 75%like:49141 |
2/13 Mythbusting Canadian Health Care
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers
\_ Oh sure, you'd expect this from free-market deniers.
\_ Care to respond to the arguments or just blather
and set up strawmen?
\_ "1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly
for the state."
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick.
This is a joke. It's a semantic nit-pick. (And goes downhill
from there.)
\_ All I can say is that I have one of the best PPOs money
can buy in the USA, and it SUCKS DONKEY BALLS. If
what Canada has is socialism, then bring on the
socialism. ok thx.
\_ Move to Canada then psb.
\_ That wasn't psb. --also not psb
\_ Maybe your PPO isn't as good as you think. My
current one sucks, but my previous one was awesome.
If yours sucks then it doesn't indict the entire
medical system.
\_ Move to Canada then.
\_ yeah, because who would want to do anything to
improve America? -tom
\_ I don't think it would be good for America, and
the arguments at the links above are specious. I
think the government needs to get *less* involved
in health care, not more. If you want Canada's
system, go to Canada.
\_ If the system changes and you don't like it,
where are you going to go? -tom
\_ Excellent non sequitur, sir!
\_ Mexico, where health care is cheap and
of high quality.
\_ Cuba!
\_ What exactly sucks about it? That it's not free?
\_ This is my favorite:
"We'll have rationed care
Don't look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the
most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.
"Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large
numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay."
Um, yes. That's called capitalism. This is saying, "socialized
health care would be better because socialism is better!"
-emarkp
\_ no, it's saying that capitalism rations care. -tom
\_ No, capitalism puts care on a market.
\_ and that's good because...?
\_ Because markets are a proven mechanism for optimizing
results and give you a choice of where and how to
spend your money. What's good about socialism? You
are trying to change the system so the onus is on
you.
\_ Evolution is also a proven mechanism for
optimizing results. Just let all the poor, dumb
people die, it's the natural order of things.
\_ Don't forget about the UNLUCKY. Evolution
doesn't care if it operates fairly. Fairness
is a human peculiarity.
\_ It is a fallacy that markets optimize results.
An obvious failure case in the health realm is that
markets don't provide universal vaccine, which
ends up being a larger public health cost than
vaccine would be. -tom
\_ I'm not saying everything should only be driven
purely by markets. So provide free vaccine. Next?
\_ Socialist.
\_ Exceptions don't mean it's a fallacy. "Commons"
concerns are a known area where markets alone
can't optimize the problem, because the costs
and benefits aren't easily quantified or owned.
Another example is stuff like national parks
and open space. The actual value of open space
to the society at large or in the area is hard
to accurately capture. I'm open to discussion
of what constitutes such cases but I don't see
convincing arguments with respect to health
care.
\_ Proven, you mean like how the markets put CAs
power out a few years back? And gave us M$ as a
monopoly product? No one seriously believes in
unregulated markets as a mechanism for optimizing
anything.
\_ No one seriously promotes unregulated markets,
dumbass. Power markets are a laughable example
however: regulations prevented investment in
more power infrastructure.
\_ Then if you agree we need to regulate markets
you are just arguing over how much "socialism"
we really need.
\_ Regulation (laws) is not socialism, dumbass.
\_ I'm confused. op posts article debunking
myths about Canada's healthcare system.
emarkp makes comparison to socialism.
criticisms of capitalism follow, then
praises of capitalism (by way of the
free market, i.e., competition), then
bad examples of said competition, then
qualifications based on possible limited
regulation, followed by ironic
invocation of "socialism," followed by
literal reference to socialism. At what
point does any of this point to the US
system somehow being better?
\_ Well, it's true but oddly twisted. All limited resources
must be rationed some how. I only know of 3 ways, money,
politics, and violence. The Free Market uses money for a
variety of good reasons, but sometimes it doesn't work.
However, we are so used to the free market that we only call
political rationing, rationing. It's just a matter of
common language use.
\_ No, it's saying "fears of rationing care are based on a
fictional lack of rationed care in the US."
\_ I love this argument:
- Universal health care is Socialism! Capitalism rox! F U TAXES!
- Our health care system sucks! We need Canada's system! OBAMA!! |
| 2008/2/13-18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49131 Activity:moderate |
2/12 Why does Feinstein keep getting elected by California? She's like
our version of Lieberman.
http://tinyurl.com/34kexz
\_ Last chance to stop it:
link:secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=363
\_ because the democrats are too wimpy to run anyone plausible against
her. She's a serious sell-out. -tom
\_ What has she sold out on?
\_ Follow the URL. OP: thanks for the link -- I was looking
for that info myself yesterday.
\_ Patriot Act. DMCA. Iraq. Mukasey. FISA. Death penalty.
Flag burning, for chrissakes. -tom
\_ Who is your ideal office holder? (Among all national level
elected figures).
\_ how is that relevant? DiFi is inches away from being
a neocon. -tom
\_ Shows how far left you are. Ask your NRA friends
what they think of Feinstein.
\_ It's "far left" to be against the Patriot Act,
DMCA, and FISA? -tom
DMCA, FISA, and the flag burning amendment? -tom
\_ I wouldn't call Feinstein "far left" but
she's certainly not "inches away from
being a neocon". She's not even close to
a moderate right winger let alone a neocon.
\_ So she has a few votes you don't like. What
about the rest of her zillion year voting
record? No politician is going to agree with
you 100%. What politician has a 100% record
with you?
\_ ...? If you have perhaps a half-dozen hot-
button issues, and she screws you over on
all six, the rest of her record becomes
increasingly irrelevant.
\_ Her voting against one's personal HB
issues doesn't make her a sell-out. I'd
still like to know the candidate anyone
here agrees with 100%.
\_ How would you define "sell-out"? -tom
\_ What candidate has a 100% track
record with you?
\_ Someone who mostly votes
against party lines and/or
constituents' desires. Since
Feinstein keeps getting
re-elected it looks like the
voters are happy with her
record. I am. Not everyone who
votes 'D' is as far left as you.
\_ What credible liberal candidate
has run against Feinstein?
The fact that she can beat
a tool like Michael Huffington
by less than 2% (failing to
even get a majority) is
hardly an endorsement. -tom
\_ Someone would run
against her if they
thought they would win.
\_ prove it. Party politicos
tend to smack down
serious challenges
from within the party.
-tom
\_ Not if there's a
person in office
they dislike and
who opposes their
ideals.
\_ Medea Benjamin?
\_ Har. Oh, and DiFi is
also from Stanford. -tom
\_ Who do you consider to
be a credible liberal?
\_ Isn't that a plus?
That she's smart?
\_ Who do you consider to
be a credible liberal?
\_ executive summary: she voted against removing telecom immunity
for illegal wiretapping from the FISA Amemdments bill passed
by the senate.
\_ so?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/krr
Summary: very pro-choice and anti-gun, but other than that,
mostly a moderate. |
| 2008/2/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49088 Activity:moderate |
2/7 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241324358751455.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Biofuels actual worsen warming and other problems, while gov't mandates their use. Score another one for meddling, overbearing, incompetent government. \_ You might want to look at who's really backing biofuels. -tom \_ How is that relavent to the point being made? \_ How is that relevant to the point being made? ADM and their ilk are backing it. Many of the environmentalists (at least the organizations) have come around and realized that only tools were supporting this, but guess what, it will continue to recieve giant subsidies. -crebbs will continue to be mandated and subsidized . -crebbs \_ The issue, then, is the power of the coporation, not "meddling, overbearing government." -tom \_ Govmnt is always acting on some's behalf. Usually some large already powerful organization like a corp. The difference is that the coporation does not have the power the forcibly take my money (without getting the government to do it for them). and use it fuck shit up. Only the Govmnt has this and use it to fuck shit up. Only the Govmnt has this power, which is one of the reasons continually expanding the power of govmnt is a bad idea. (see Hayek for others (and more lucidity). It is also why the point made by top is relavent and it is not why the point made by top is relevant and it is not reasonable to try to move blame being rightfully assigned (a piss poor use of government power) to "the big evil corporations". (even if, as in this case, a particular big evil corporation certainly does share culpablility). -crebbs does share culpability). -crebbs \_ LIBERAL RANT ALERT BELOW! LIBERAL RANT! \_ Government doesn't inherently work on behalf of coroporations, although that's certainly been the case in the U.S. since Reagan took office. The more you weaken government, the less it has the ability to fight against the control of large powerful organizations. The fact that conservatives beholden to large corporate interests have been championing deregulation and lower taxes is not coincidental; it is quite intentionally meant to foster a specific pro-corporate ideology, that the purpose of the government is to protect coporate interests. -tom \_ If the government was limited to essential functions, instead of messing around with stuff like lightbulbs and fuel percentages, then corporations could not do this. Same goes for income tax shenanigans that corporations do: a simple fixed tax scheme would go a long way towards preventing those. \_ If coporations ran everything except "essential functions", we'd be worse off than we are. -tom \_ No we wouldn't. Yay! \_ Cf. Free Market in Baja California. \_ You're an idiot. \_ You're an asshat. Are we ready to talk like adults now? \_ The farm lobby? \_ Whoever cornered the corn market in Mexico? \- cornholio? \_ Isn't that guy worth more than Bill Gates now? \_ President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. See, it's all Bush's fault: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23057867 |
| 2008/2/6-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49078 Activity:high |
2/5 How about this instead of the BS below:
I found out my school district spends $16K per child and it's
ranked in the bottom 1/3 in the State. Please explain why the
State deserves more of my dollars. A family of four is not getting
their $32K worth. In fact, many people in my city put their kids
in private school even though the government is spending $16K/kid.
That's a shitload of money for the government to waste. This is
how well the government manages your money and the education of
your kids. --dim
\_ Nice. You forgot to mention that we need to deport Mexicans
who are leeching off of tax dollars, that we need to be
tough on crimes, and that we need to build bigger jails.
\_ As opposed to... giving amnesty, being soft on crime,
and shutting down jails?
\_ Yay! Binary worldview!
\_ You know, countries that don't provide social services end up
having other problems like huge crime rate, mafia, gangster,
child gangster, prostitution (e.g. Brazil) and that affects
everyone from the middle class all the way to the upper class.
I guess this huge disparity is one of the main reasons why
nice LA/OC/SD homes are mostly gated communities with private
security guards.
\_ How about the State spend that $16K/pupil in a way that
makes sense instead? Many private schools educate for less
than $10K/pupil and even the best are at no more than
$24K/pupil. Please tell me why the education is substandard
at those rates. If the education was better maybe some of
the poor kids stuck in public schools would contribute more
to society and feel better about their prospects.
\_ You can't compare costs of private and public schools
directly, because of the selection bias of private schools.
(Kids of poor families with uninvolved parents don't go to
private school). -tom
\_ Ah. This is the hew and cry of the liberal. When one
\- did you go to private or public school?
it's "hue and cry". --your common law
consultant
\_ Seems to be both now, although
originally "hue and cry":
http://tinyurl.com/3bh7fm
http://tinyurl.com/32tod4
\_ If you're going by current usage,
that's a pretty liberal definition
of "seems to be both". Google has
548,000 hits for "hue and cry" vs.
888 for "hew and cry", a ratio of
about 600:1. For comparison,
"their" vs. "thier" gives 58:1.
\- no, "hue" is correct.
if hew is commonly used in
error, it is still an error,
\_ That's not really how our
language works.
\- i said "commonly used in
error" not commonly used.
common usage as slang or
as a short cut is one
thing ... there isnt
a requirement to use
say "whom" ... but in the
case of a word with a known
origin, there is a right
and wrong. somebody can
call herself "candee" but
if you spell the sweet
that way, it is wrong.
say "shall" vs will ...
but in the case of a word
with a known origin, there
is a right and wrong.
eventhough geeks like
virii, that is not correct
since its not from a latin
word for one.
either in latin nor english
today.
\_ And it's not even
commonly used in error,
according to the Google
stats above.
as with "toe/tow the line".
note that your second link is
not to the "official" nyt,
where "hue" is used.
of the schools in my district scored highly even with
mostly black and Hispanic students people like you
said the same thing. It's self-selecting, the principal
shipped out the bad kids, and so on. Nevermind the school
was a shithole for 20 years before that. Now parents want
their kids to attend there and the effect is snowballing.
You have to start somewhere and putting kids in an
environment conducive to learning is part of that.
You cannot allow a few disruptive kids to destroy the
entire system and the education of millions. The
teachers and administrators are very upset that that
school is doing well, which shows how sick the system is.
\- look i dont disagree with you that $16k/student is a
lot, but a couple of points:
1. the selection bias is a huge issue. my private
high school spend something like half what public
schools spent but they could choose who to take.
they didnt have govt mandates to meet special
education needs of of either handicapped students
or the pain in the ass factor of difficult
students.
2. surely you realize you can be matched one for one
with outrages in the private sector. the bart
supervisor making +$150k or the NYC school janitor
who is filed fishing on his boat during school hours
is trivial compared to corporate welfare, and the
or the golden parachutes for incompent but not
criminal executives in the private sector. private
industrury make be more efficient at many things
and one of them is extracting resources from the
govt.
\_ red herring: there is corporate graft so gvt
graft is ok. it isn't. gvt graft is far worse
because they extract my money by force and they
choose how much to extract. if a corporation
is run poorly they will go out of business. i
do not have to give them my money if they provide
a poor product or service or charge too much.
"surely you realize" this.
\- corporate graft [agaist shareholders] isnt
the same as corporate welfare or graft agaist
the govt. i'm not talking about high CEO
salaries, backdating options etc. more things
like no bid contracts, "socializing losses" etc
that is "theft from the taxpayers" just like
fraud in the oakland school district ...
except they are better at it and the amounts
are more. see savings and loan bail out,
agriculture subsidies etc.
\_ Uh huh, and this happens *only* because
the gvt has that money available because
it has taken it from tax payers. once the
gvt takes your money, it matters little if
they piss it away on public or private
theft. a corporation can not take
anything from me in a clean-gvt environment.
clean the gvt and the rest automatically
follows. you can not clean your sort of
gvt-aided corporation theft while the
gvt is dirty.
\- this "starve the beast" analysis is
ridiculous. you are choosing between
what is possible not what is platonic.
"the main reason american soldiers get
killed is because we sent them to war"
-> people in favor of war hate the troops
BTW, if the corporations can influence
what the standard is for breach of
fiduciary duty and can get directors and
officers insurance, then they certainly
can rip you off. you should read
barbarians at the gate for example.
do you know how conflicts of interest
work in practice during LBOs? you might
also want to read james surowiecki.
\_ I never said starve the beast. The
rest of your stuff has nothing to do
with what I said. I said a clean gvt
will not give my tax dollars to corps
for stupid/corrupt things.
\_ I don't think you will find too many
people arguing for a corrupt gov't. There
have been arguments about how to best
allocate resources for as long as their
have been gov'ts, which is to say since
the beginning of recorded history. What
kind of things do you advocate to help
clean up gov't, other than your somewhat
ambiguous notion that it should be
smaller? It seems to me that campaign
finance reform might be a better place
to start.
\_ I didn't say it should be smaller,
just that what they do have should be
spent more wisely and less wastefully.
If there was real oversight of budgets
we stopped all earmarks, and corps
were no longer 'citizens' with rights
and were not allowed to donate money
to politicians, that would go a long
way to clean gvt. What is your
solution?
again, read somebody like martin wolf.
i think there are a number of outragous cases
where "sepcial need" students have disporprotionate
resources spent on them, but just like heavy public
medical subsidies of "lost causes", it's a hard
problem.
\_ Like the birth-right citizenship person before you, it
sounds like your issue is with problems in how the education
system is run, not necessarily the system itself. Although
it may be more work, fixing the system is likely to prove
less expensive and more beneficial to society as a whole than
simply abandoning the system entirely and jumping to vouchers
spent at private schools or academies (many of which are
founded by people looking to make a quick buck by preying on
parents who are frightened of a public education, and many
of which are destined to go out of business in less than five
years).
\_ It's impossible to fix the system. It doesn't want to
be fixed. The solution we are proposing is to form our
own school district and secede. I guess you can call
that 'fixing'.
\_ It's not impossible to fix the system. It will, however,
take a lot of work, dedication, and determination. I
understand that this is not as sexy as, say, vouchers
for private schools and military academies, but the
end result is a stable, beneficial system.
\_ People have been trying to fix this problem for
20 years now. There's a point where you just say
'Screw it' and start from scratch.
\_ For most people, this point is when their kids
have graduated, which means we have to count on
a new crop.
\_ We should forcibly bus the kids from gated communities to
ghetto public schools. That way we ensure a level playing
\_ I see you are a budding Jonathan Swift, but FWIW we did this.
That's how the schools got screwed up to begin with. Then the
parents who really cared took their kids out and sent them
private, leaving behind only those too poor or unconcerned. It
had a devastating effect. Now our 'racially integrated'
schools have no caucasian or Asian students and the other
kids who want to learn are screwed. It's so much better now.
field. We should ban private schools. We should also ban
marriage, so that gays, bisexuals, and non-sexuals will
not be disadvantaged, and kids with single parents won't
be disadvantaged over kids with married parents. Actually we
should take kids away at birth and randomly assign parents
for them. We should make food and housing free for all,
and energy for heating and cooking and lighting and hot water,
and health care, because all those things are basic human rights
needed for survival. We should ban automobiles and ban wasteful
single family housing structures. All housing structures shall
be randomly assigned but with economic and ethnic backgrounds
balanced, and mandatory "community learning sessions" shall take
place 3 days per week. Community job centers shall provide
equal-opportunity employment, with jobs to be defined by
each employee.
\_ This is truly brilliant.
\_ at least school districts are more incompetent at stealing
your tax dollars than halliburton. i do think we should
stop glorifying school teachers ... i've some school teachers
who were smart but quite a few seem to be glorfied day care
personnel. but at least the rank and file teacher arent as
venal as school administrators. but again even they arent
ken lay, dennis kozlowski etc. you should read martin wolf.
\_ Oh, you're just selfish and hate children.
\_ Motd says you're contributing to the common social good and you
should be happy to be paying these taxes because there is no
other possible way to educate children other than turning them
over to the state for several hours a day. The schools can get
better only by raising your taxes even more. Teachers are
starving. Students are failing and not learning the right
things. It is all your fault.
\_ Incorrect: it's not op's fault, it's your fault.
\_ I'm in favor of 100% tax rates and therefore maximum
government revenue for maximum social good. how is it my
fault, comrade?
\_ Not your comrade, you filthy communist bastard, and
there's your problem in a nutshell: some regulation and
government organization != communism. Embrace compromise.
\_ This isn't about regulation. This is about control.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. And you,
comrade, obviously are in need of higher taxes. For
the common social good, of course. Embrace social
good.
\_ Marriage is slavery! All men are rapists! Dems
tax and spend! You're missing a lot of !!!
\_ Where did you find this out? Considering the general veracity
of the "facts" you state on the motd, I would need verification
before I would believe it, especially considering average per
pupil spending in CA is half that. -ausman
\_ Average spending per pupil does not account for things like
facilities. From CA DOE:
"This amount includes the cost of employee salaries and
benefits, books and supplies and replacement of school
equipment. The current expense of education does not include
non-instructional expenses such as construction and
acquisition of facilities, benefits for retired employees
and food services."
CA spends about $70B dollars each year to educate 6M K-12
students, or almost $12K per student per year - not the $7K
you often see quoted.
you often see quoted. Maybe more. Not sure if $70B considers
locally voted indebtedness or funding sources like PTA.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/6010/agency.html
Our district has a lot of facilities for the number of kids
(since so many have been lost to private over the last 40 years)
and has been shuttering schools, which is ridiculous in itself
when you consider that almost everywhere else they are building
more schools and complaining about a shortage of space. --dim
\_ Your math is off quite a bit as there are really 6.4M K-12
students and some of the Dept of Education budget is for
adult education. The best I can figure the real numbers are
67.5B/6.4M kids = $10.5k/student, not the $12k you bandy
about. But you have a point that the Dept of Education takes
\_ You are splitting hairs here. $10.5K is still a lot of
money. You can go to a good private school for that money
and actually receive an education. The best public
school districts spend more than $10.5K I'm sure.
That's just what they get from the state and federal
governments as far as I can tell.
\_ Plenty of people go to public schools and get a perfectly
fine education. Things could always be better, but
there is lots of evidence that the schools in CA are
getting better. I will probably send my daughter to
improving. I will probably send my daughter to
\_ Plenty of people go to public schools and get a
perfectly fine education. Things could always be
better, but there is lots of evidence that the schools
in CA are improving. I will probably send my daughter to
public school (and I can afford private). The best
public schools rival the best private schools in
education quality, so I am not sure what point you
are trying to make, except perhaps that a great
education costs quite a bit of money.
\_ 1. The best public schools do not rival the best
private schools. There are some very good
public schools, but no one is ever going to
confuse those with an Exeter or Groton. Of
course, those schools cost quite a bit more, too.
I realize that.
\_ Compare Stuyvesant's Ivy League admission
rate to Exeter's.
\_ Can I send my kid there? I live in CA.
Also, talk about self-selecting.
Also, talk about self-selecting. BTW,
I think Exeter's rate is higher. Stuyvesant
sends more in terms of numbers because it
is larger. Why would one want to go to
a private university anyway? I am offended
that you would use that as a metric
instead of looking at the rate of
acceptance to glorious UC.
\_ Exeter is probably a bit higher, but
they are in the same league anyway.
I don't think I would want to send my
child to boarding school anyway, but
maybe I will feel differently once she
is a teenager. If you really want UC
admission send them to Lowell High
which is in SF.
2. No one has a problem with the top 10% of
public schools. It's that bottom 90% (and
especially bottom 30%) that's the real problem.
3. Personally (and this is just my preference) I
wouldn't send by kid to even the best public
wouldn't send my kid to even the best public
school. However, I still think a quality
"public" education is important, because not
everyone has that choice in the current system.
a large "tribute." You still haven't provided any evidence that
they spend $16k/student in your district.
a large "tribute." You still haven't provided any evidence
that they spend $16k/student in your district.
\_ Sorry, but I cannot find this online. Is it really
far-fetched when the average is $10.5K? Like I said,
we have a lot of schools and a shrinking number of
kids which makes the overhead higher than most places.
(I read it is 2x higher than the state average.)
\_ Why does everyone else's esstimate of per pupil spending
\_ Why does everyone else's estimate of per pupil spending
in CA differ so widely from yours. You are the one
making the outrageous claim here, back it up.
\_ What do you want me to do? I can't find it online.
Take it or leave it. I don't think $16K is
outrageous when the average is $11K.
\- ausman: the range in CA is really wide. that number is plausible
for a state school district, but it is hard to imagine it is
in such a poorly perfomring school district ... i.e. not
saratoga or CA. i can believe high spending per student with
poor performance in a place like SF (NYC spends something
like 14k per student ... but the top hedge fund guy made more
money last year than all the NYC teacher put together ... for
three years). but all that being given, i was wondering if the
number was correct as well.
\_ SF has generally good results and does not spend that much
per pupil. link:preview.tinyurl.com/2jxbxb (PDF)
\_ Hmm, I forgot SF public schools was very heavily
asian. I am guessing that keeps costs down. I was
just thinking about the white flight and minitory-heavy
side. Might be interesting to look at oakland hills vs
oakland flats.
\_ The experiment has already begun. Google "oakland
school district demographics"; the first hit is a 2007
report noting that OUSD is hemorrhaging students,
particularly African-American students; they're "out-
migrating" to non-bankrupt School Districts (cf.
articles on fraudulent enrollment in cities like
Hercules).
\_ Perhaps you should move to San Francisco:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33293.html
\- special announcement: there is another long piece on ADRIAN
FENTY and MICHELLE RHEE's Washington DC school reform program
on TV tonight. it is about halfway through the MACNEIL-LEHERER
SHOW today. n.b. FENTY and RHEE are respectively the mayor and
school chief for DC. they are also both about 37! the evil
arlene ackerman was in DC before she came to SF. ok tnx. |
| 2008/2/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49072 Activity:nil 66%like:49063 |
2/4 Shriver is vomiting for Obama.
\_ For whom do you expect her to vote? A Republican?
\_ He got her pregnant? |
| 2008/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49063 Activity:nil 66%like:49072 |
2/4 Shriver is voting for Obama.
\_ For whom do you expect her to vote? A Republican? |
| 2008/2/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:49054 Activity:nil |
2/2 Did anyone get a CA vote-by-mail ballot where it says
"No postage necessary if mailed within the United States"
but the same mail also says to apply 58 cent postage? |
| 2008/2/1-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:49046 Activity:high |
2/1 Just out of curiosity, are there any registered Republicans here on
motd? -emarkp
\_ Tell us what you think about the Iraq War. Was it a right
decision?
\_ We're mostly flip flopping Independents and are not as rigid
and brain dead as most of the ultra right wing Conservatives.
\_ I am. But I always vote Democrat. I'm also the same guy
who is trying to seduce the hot 30 year old Mormon.
\_ by the way, how's that going?
\_ I register Republican and vote for the 2nd or 3rd weakest
person in the primary hoping to dilute their hope of winning.
The Party of Corruption must go away.
\_ So both the Dems and Repubs then? -emarkp
\_ The corrupt party IN POWER needs to go away. That party
is currently R, but when D's take control, I will vote
them out as well. -smart independent
\_ Dems = Good. Reps = Evil.
\_ Another flaw of this political system.
\_ I should be I guess, but I'm Nonpartisan. I can't vote in the
R primary in CA. I hate the mainstream of both parties. I'm
not sure what I'll do for the primary. I guess I'll go and vote
in the D one for the hell of it.
Ok I've decided to vote for Obama. I would vote for him over
McCain in the general election anyway.
Ok I've decided to vote for Obama.
\_ I am also "decline to state" and I didn't think choosing
the R primary was an option this year. My ballot says I get
a choice of D or some other smaller parties, but not R.
\_ Yeah, that's what I'm referring to, the CA R party
excluded the independents. But we could have registered R
up until the Jan 23rd or some such.
\_ Why would the R party do that? I would imagine more I
voters choose R over D.
\_ Probably not this year.
\_ Not this election. --erikred
\_ I registered undecided. Its sad that the Republican party excludes
us undecided's from their primary. I guess they don't care about
our our feedback on which of their candidates would appeal most to
the undecided folks, and would rather cede the 'undecided' vote to
the other party in the real election -- the one that actually counts.
\_ Yeah, I'm rather disappointed that I can't vote in the R primary
this time. The canidates are actually kinda good. The Ds
have scum and dumb.
\- it just seems arrogant and stupid. The R members are most
likely to vote for an R in the election, regardless of which
of their candidates get chosen in the primary, so the real
election gets decided by who gets the most of the the
'undecided vote' (assuming a even distributino of R and D's).
It's stupid to marginalize the undecide voters' appeal in that
situation.
\_ Of coure the reality is that the CA distribution is
heavily Democratic, so much so the Republicans might as
well not bother holding a primary here.
\_ Yeah, no way an R can win an important office in CA
\_ Yeah, not like the governorship or ... anything ...
\_ Except he's a RINO.
\_ Exactly. It'll never happen. About as likely
as an R President from CA.
\_ All you people complaining about not being able to vote in the
primaries because you're not registered should have changed your
party 2 weeks ago. There's a simple form you can use to change
party up to 2 weeks before an election in CA.
\_ I've been a registered Repblican for nearly 15 years, but I think
I will probably switch to Independent b/c the party has gone all
kook in recent years (well, except for the Governator).
\_ What are you looking for in your political party/candidates?
\_ I guess I'm looking for people who are willing to think
things through and come up with reasonable solutions. I
just don't see the current crop of GOP and Democrats as
willing to do that. Currently both the Dems and the GOP
kind of weird me out - the Dems on social issues and the
GOP on the Religious Right & the War in Iraq. I think we
need more reasonable people like the Governator running
the country.
\_ I agree that both parties stink right now. One wants
big government and handouts like universal health
care. The other one wants to erode our civil liberties
and bankrupt the country fighting wars. Candidates
should stop pandering to the populace and do what
makes sense.
\_ The current Admin is rooting for three of the four
things you complain about plus tax cuts for the
plutocrats. What makes sense is universal healthcare,
even if it's work-based; what doesn't make sense is a
first-world nation with working-poor.
\_ Illegal immigration directly impacts the poor. It
dilutes the value of uneducated, unskilled labor.
It also adds more poor kids into public schools
whose parents don't pay taxes, thus lowering the
education quality for the poorest people.
A welfare state is incompatible with lax
immigration policies.
\_ This I agree with. Because I believe in the
promise of America, I support lax immigration
policies and a free market state. Hardcore
liberals fail to realize that their alternative
is a socialist state with strict immigration
policies. That almost sounds like fascism to
me. They sweep that part under the rug.
I think it helps more people to be able to
migrate here and fend for themselves versus
keeping everyone else out but having a populace
of fat and lazy sheep.
\_ Too late. LA is full of lazy fat sheeps
who blast hip-hop music on 101/405/210/5
710 freeways in their SUVs. You know what
annoys me even more about S Cal? People
leaving their dogs alone 12-14hrs a day
in the backyard, barking non-stop and
annoying the hell outa everyone else. The
only good thing about LA is the abundance
of cheap gardeners for their beloved lawns.
\_ I am vehemently opposed to universal healthcare.
I am also opposed to non-working middle class,
like in Europe. Pay for other people with your
dollars, not mine. BTW, if you want free
medical, retirement, education, and housing then
there's the US military waiting for you.
\_ I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War, but
that didn't stop you from spending my tax
dollars on it. Get used to being out of power
for a while. Move to Canada if you don't like it.
\_ I'm not an R and I'm glad Bush is leaving
office.
\_ Did you vote for him?
\_ Unless you went to private schools all your life,
earned every penny you've spent, and inherited
nothing, I find your petty Libertarianism
utterly unconvincing.
\_ Did you return Bush's tax cut to the IRS?
-- ilyas
\_ No, I reinvested in hookers and blow.
\_ I find your petty Liberalism utterly
unconvincing. -- ilyas
\_ Touche', Academic Libertarian living
off the grant teat.
\_ This is complete shit, sorry. The welfare
state exists and using it has nothing at all
to do with whether one believes it should
exist.
exist. If you were in communist Russia, would
you not eat the government bread?
\_ I'm not trying to convince you. If you
like socialism then Europe is waiting for you.
If you like American values then you are
in the right place.
1. Yes, except for UCB which I sometimes
regret, and a year in elementary school
which was a waste of a year of my life
\_ Your parents paid for private schools
almost your entire life and yet you
claim you will not inherit anything.
How is that possible?
\_ They spent a lot of their money on
private schools instead of on
themselves. I am sure when they
die I will get a bill and not a check.
Private schools are not completely
filled with blue-bloods and you
can qualify for aid.
\_ The money they spent on your
education _is_ your inheritance.
You benefited from their benefits.
To pretend that someone, somewhere
along your line didn't benefit from
social progams or position from
birth is simply dishonest.
\_ Using your definition we all
inherit from our parents. I
think that's a stupid
definition.
\_ Not all of us go to private
schools.
\_ Non-sequitur. Did you
not benefit from your
ancestors in some manner?
\_ You're making my point
for me: we are all
beneficiaries of the
system. To pretend that
you earned everything
you have on your own
merits is ridiculous.
\_ Nobody is saying that,
nice straw man.
What is wrong with
families supporting
each other? Why do we
need "the system" to
replace that? That is
out of some Orwellian
dystopia, not America.
\_Are you a 1st
generation immigrant?
There is nothing
wrong with that, but
it might explain some
of your half-cocked
ideas about what
"America" is.
\_ "The system" is
not "my ancestor".
2. Of course,
3. That's right.
However, I'm not Libertarian. They are too
far to the right. I'm just practical. I
understand that most candidates running
now wish to bankrupt the country, whether
on idiotic sojourns to Iraq or by
government handouts. To be honest, Arnold
S. is my brand of government and I'm not
the person in this thread who already
mentioned him. I am socially liberal but
fiscally conservative and I really, really
hate socialism and socialist policies as a
product of my European family, most of
whom can't wait to get the hell out of the
shithole that is Europe.
\_ You speak as if it were not possible to
provide minimal assistance and public
services and yet not put us in deficit:
Where were you when Clinton gave us the
surpluses? Also, which shithole Euro
nation did you flee? The socialist Nordic
states seem to doing just fine.
\_ Those surpluses were fleeting and
the product of a gigantic bubble we
won't see again for decades. Clinton
(and government in general) had nothing
to do with it. However, they did
manage to spend that money. BTW, I
think at issue here is what 'minimal
assistance' means. It means different
things to different people.
\_ More of your GIGO thinking. Government
shrank during the Clinton era. Clinton
had nothing to do with this?
\_ Had more to do with revenues
increasing than any shrinkage
of government. BTW, what the
hell is "GIGO"?
\_ Garbage In Garbage Out
What do they teach CS students
these days?
\_ Heard the term, but never
saw it referred to with
that acronym. Makes
sense now that I know.
\_ How did increasing revenues
lead to a smaller gov't headcount
and decreased real per capita
gov't spending?
\_ My family is from France, Germany, and
the Netherlands. My French relatives
in particular cannot stand France
anymore and are selling their
property to move to places like US
and Canada. More would come to the US,
but for GWB giving us a bad reputation.
The EU has not been a good thing for
Western European citizens. It has made
everything expensive, eroded social
services, made people work harder
(or for the first time in their lives)
and brought in an influx of cheap
labor from Eastern Europe and
Russia. Now that Europe is finally
grappling with the same problems the US
has been it is clear that their model
needs to change. It is certainly not the
direction the US needs to move in.
They will collapse before we do
without serious reforms. The people
in countries like Denmark are living
in la-la land and think that they
will be immune to the problems facing
countries like France, but they have
their heads in the sand.
\_ Boewulf is cool man!!! Go Scandinavia!
\_ Norway is rich because of oil. The others
aren't doing that great. Aside from that,
"seeming to do fine" is not a meaningful
point of discussion.
Communist USSR, Vietnam, and China "seem
to do fine" also. The USA seemed to do
fine with slavery.
\_ Denmark boasts happy people, a strong
economy, and socialized medicine. Not
a lot of oil. Life is good. Wtf was the
slavery/communism thing about?
\_ Denmark is the size of my living
room.
\_ OK, how about measures like crime
rate, literacy rate, infant mortality,
life expectancy? The US scores
poorly.
\_ And yet we are the wealthiest
nation in the world. I think
a lot of those measurements are
meaningless. What matters more
is what the top 10% are doing
and not the conditions of the bottom
10% who are just drains on
society anyway. Do you want to
compare standards of living of
the top 33% of Americans with
the top 33% of <pick your
nation>? I am not necessarily
advocating throwing the poor to
the wolves, but this is the
country where that poor person
can die a billionaire. The
price to be paid is that some
people are chewed up and spit
out. I prefer a system that
rewards ability even if it
means some people fare a little
worse (but still *very very well*
compared to most of the world.)
The US takes in the dregs of
humanity and provides for them.
Of course the averages are
going to suffer for that. Most
of them (if you ask them)
wouldn't move anywhere else.
They love having opportunity!
Why do you insist on telling
people what they want?
\_ Let them eat cake.
\_ The US is the antithesis of
the French monarchy.
\_ In its purest form, yes.
The current tax cuts for
plutocrats bring us closer
to Le Roi du Soleil.
to Circus du Soleil
\_ Great: Now prove that the US
system rewards ability.
Income mobility has decreased
in the U.S. since the
pre-Reagan years, and the U.S.
has less income mobility than
most European countries.
(Obligatory Reagan answer:
poor people just want to be
poor). -tom
\_ What data do you have saying
income mobility decreased or
is less than Europe? Maybe
some people do want to be poor.
Maybe the welfare state
encourages that. Why is it that
certain immigrant groups do
much better here than others
or than certain poor natives?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/kp7
The Economist magazine
on class mobility in the US.
(They also say it is higher
in Europe, but not in that
article).
\_ That's not data, that's
an article headline.
I can't get to the rest
of the article.
\_ I put a copy in
/var/tmp/economist.mobility
for you and added
/var/tmp/economist.america
for good measure.
\_ Ok, how useful is
it to talk about class
and average incomes
in an essentially
socialist country?
For example the NYTimes
thing compares gen-to
gen income growth. But
this would of course
take longer if there
is a wider range to
start with. Wealth
disparity: is it an
inherent problem to be
addressed?
The e'ist also points
out that the poor are
better off in absolute
terms than they ever
were.
This is also in the
context of an America
that is not free of
welfare, so it is not
really an appropriate
example for comparison.
Denmark is too small
to be appropriate
anyway.
\_ I'm not the one
making the
extraordinary claim
that there is more
opportunity in the
US than elsewhere;
or even more oddly,
that the relative
lack of social
services in the US
*causes* greater
opportunity.
Where's the evidence
for that?
-tom
\_ Well, the evidence
shows a) more ppl
*believe* they have
opportunity, and b)
the successful ppl
in the US are
apparently more
successful than
those elsewhere.
\_ or the system
is rigged in
favor of the
rich. -tom
\_ Do you think
we should allow
there to exist
rich people?
Maybe we should
have an asset
cap?
\_ Do you think
we should
allow both
obscene wealth
and abject
poverty to
exist in the
same society?
-tom
\_ Allow? I
think
obscenity
is subjctve
and you have
a personal
choice to
give wealth
to the poor.
But remov-
ing wealth
seems a more
efficient
solution to
that issue.
The excess
wealth will
naturally be
auctioned
out to the
"have nots"
and bring
everyone
closer to
avg. Unlike
handouts, it
scales to
any level of
national
wealth and
does not put
a drag on
economy.
\_ I'm calling BS on the
class mobility in Europe.
It is still very
important who your family
is/was in Europe. I
have a Czech friend
in France who is a
scientist there (and who
was also one here).
He told me their system
allocates N slots for
scientists and you have
to wait for one to open
up before you can be
hired. The allocated
slots are filled with
people resting on their
laurels and their
cronies. A surprising
number are based on
nepotism. If your dad
was a famous scientist
or politician then you
will likely get a slot.
He says this is in stark
contrastely get a slot.
This is in stark contrast
to the US, where the
brightest students get
a slot no matter. Sure,
it matters who you are
here, too (GWB) but not
like in Europe where it
seeps into every day life.
\_ The pluaral of
anecdote is not data.
/var/tmp/economist.europe
From the NYT:
http://www.csua.org/u/kpb
A nice book:
http://www.csua.org/u/kpc
\_ Let's put this in a
way you will
understand:
How many Euros come
to the US for
opportunity vs. how
many Americans go to
Europe seeking
opportunity? You went
to Cal. How many
classmates went to
Europe for grad
school/postdoc and
stayed there? How
many Euros came here
for grad/postdoc and
stayed here? There
is a lot more
opportunity in the
US, but it's funny
that Americans are
often not those who
take advantage of it.
You can lead a
horse to water...
I think that helps
explain the above
numbers.
\_ Even when all the
evidence points\
against you, you
continue to believe
a false proposition
An unwillingness
to learn is not
conducive to
success.
\_ The evidence does
not all point
against. Irony.
\_ I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. |
| 2008/1/14-18 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48947 Activity:insanely high |
1/14 Why do we put up with plurality voting for stuff like primaries?
When the "winners" get around a quarter to a third of the vote
something is broken. We should have IRV. And also, national
popular vote for president.
\_ IRV is not monotonic. What you want approval voting. -dans
\_ Actually I'd rather have IRV. I think we discussed this
before though. I think monotonicity is mostly irrelevant.
The arguments I've seen against IRV are either wrong (use
a misconception of what IRV is) or else cite concerns
about tactical voting. But we have tactical voting now.
The question is whether the situation is improved. I
believe we can be a lot more confident in broad support
of an IRV winner than a plurality winner.
\_ Uh huh. But approval voting has all the advantages you just
described, doesn't suffer from being not monotonic, and
elimnates tactical voting. As a practical matter, have you
ever tried to count the votes in an IRV system? It sucks,
and is completely opaque. -dans
\- See Arrow Impossibility Theorem
\_ Thank you for supporting my point. -dans
\- I am not supporting your point.
you pretty much cant eliminate tactical
or various other pathologies. if you think
you can, you dont understand the Arrow Thm ...
which is of course quite possible.
\_ Actually, you're the one who doesn't understand
it. Voting systems can and do eliminate the
pathologies mentioned, it's just that a given
system cannot eliminate *all* of them. Tactical
voting has a very specific definition in this
context, and you don't seem to understand it.
Indeed, all the arguments I've seen that suggest
approval voting is not strategy free seem rooted
in the same misunderstanding you hold. -dans
\_ What is the specific definition, and who
decides it? If there are problems that don't
fall into your specific definition, who cares
what the definition is, if the problems are
real? The fact is that approval voting does
not allow ranked choices and has its own
pathologies/strategies/whatever.
\_ Pathologies != Strategies. Obviously
approval voting does not have ranked
choices, but that's not the point. The
point is that all forms of ranked choice
voting I've seen add significant complexity
to the process, and can produce oddball
results where people's choices get
permuted. Both of these considerations are
unforgiveable. -dans
\_ Approval also adds complexity to the
process. IRV is being used already so it
is clearly a manageable complexity and
obviously "forgiveable". Oddball results
I think you're just wrong about.
\_ It does not have all the advantages. It does not eliminate
tactical voting, duh. If I approve A, but like B better
than C, I could vote B even though it hurts A's chances.
That is tactical. It does not let you rank your choices
which is the entire point. How is monotonicity relevant?
Who gives a shit?
With approval voting, approving another candidate could
lead to my preferred candidate losing. How is that
better?
\_ You're just wrong. If you vote for A and B in approval
voting, then you're saying you're okay with either A or
B, and there's no way your vote can help C, who you
don't approve of, win. In IRV, if you vote A as you
first preference and B as your second, you can actually
cause C to win. Whoops. -dans
\_ Show me a realistic example where that happens.
\_ Read the literature. -dans
\_ I have. It doesn't happen in any realistic
case. I believe, and I'm not alone in this,
that your concerns about being monotonic
totally irrelevant.
\_ You're making the assertion.
\_ It's not my job to do your homework,
especially when if you're just going to
assert that my example is unrealistic.
Don't be disingenuous, and don't bring a
knife to a gunfight. -dans
\_ I've done my homework and think you're
wrong. Many <learned authorities>
support using IRV. Show me where we
"cause C to win" by voting A. I think
you're selectively playing fast and loose
with terminology.
Examples of this problem:
Math Prof at Temple University:
http://www.csua.org/u/ki3
Wikipedia: Instant-Runoff Controversies:
http://www.csua.org/u/ki4
-dans
\_ I read the first example in the first
link and it's ridiculous. Range voting
is obviously less intuitive when you
have averages, and his first example
shows C winning even though the
majority of the voters either dislike
or know nothing about C.
The discussion of monotonicity also
shows how irrelevant the concern is.
Yes, it is unrealistic: it proposes
looking at the results after the fact
and saying "if I had done such and
such then the outcome would be
different". How would you ever know
to that detail how others would vote?
You could easily end up accidentally
electing C. The reality of the example
is that it is close to a 3 way tie
and any winner is "reasonable". Most
importantly, the result of the
"honest" IRV is reasonable.
And how would you translate that into
approval voting? All voters ranked
\_ <cut mostly irrelevant comments -op>
How would you translate the example
to approval voting? All voters ranked
all 3 candidates. Does that mean they
approve them all?
approve them all? Let's say they each
approve their top two choices. Then
B wins. But what if the supporters of
A, being crafty, decide to withhold
their approval of B, to make A win?
In this way, "lying" helps them. So
regardless of your terminology the
same "problem" exists.
\_ I am not advocating for range
voting, merely citing an egregious
flaw in IRV. Since we're asking
for citations, kindly cite all
future unnecessary changes of
subject and strawman arguments you
plan to make before continuing this
discussion. -dans
\_ I'm sorry you're too dense to
comprehend. I'll give up now.
I mentioned the range voting
because the source advocating it
as realistic means the source is
dense.
\_ You're right. I am dense.
If I was sparse I would have
also asked you to list all
ad hominem attacks you would
apply before continuing the
discussion. -dans
\_ The ball was in your
court and you gave a
worthless response so I
responded in kind.
\_ No, it doesn't. They approve of
both A and B. One of A or B wins.
Notably, in most actual ranked
choice systems, e.g. San
Francisco, you must rank all
candidates. Whoops. -dans
\_ In the example below, A or B
still wins. So it is the same.
Perhaps it is merely a bad
example. I found this one far
more convincing/damning:
http://rangevoting.org/CoreSupp.html
However, I still don't agree
with that article's conclusion.
Pairwise comparisons aren't so
meaningful. In this example,
C and G are sharply split: you
have those 5 voters in the
middle who rank C on top and G
on the bottom, who give their
votes to M.
votes to M. Condorcet isn't
provably the best winner.
(Example from the link:)
voter1: A>B>C
voter2: A>B>C
voter3: A>C>B
voter4: A>C>B IRV EXAMPLE.
voter5: B>A>C
voter6: B>A>C
voter7: B>C>A
voter8: C>B>A
voter9: C>B>A
One of IRV's flaws is that it is not monotonic
and dishonesty can pay. In the example, suppose
voter1, instead of honestly stating her
top-preference was A, were to dishonestly
vote C>A>B, i.e. pretending great LOVE for her
truly hugely-hated candidate C, and pretending a
LACK of affection for her true favorite A.
In that case the first round would eliminate
either C or B (suppose a coin flip says B) at
which point A would win the second round 5-to-4
over C. (Meanwhile if C still were eliminated
by the coin flip then B would still win over A
in the final round as before.)
In other words: in 3-candidate IRV elections,
lying can help. Indeed, lying in bizarre ways
can help.
\_ It sounds like your grief is with the imple-
mentation of IRV (i.e., mandatory ranking of
all candidates). If you allow voters to NOT
rank all candidates, this problem appears to
evaporate.
\_ And lying in approval voting can help. So what?
But you said "In IRV, if you vote A as first
preference and B as your second, you can actually
cause C to win." You haven't shown an example of
that, which is what I asked for.
\_ No, it can only hurt. Casting a vote for
someone you don't want in office helps them.
Not voting for someone you do want in office
hurts them. -dans
\_ Most real people have a top choice. If
everyone only votes for who they really
want then AV reduces to plurality voting.
\_ Really? Show me data. You realize
this flies in the face of a fairly
large body of psychological,
sociological, and hci research about
choice, and peoples ability to
effectively express their choices.
-dans
\_ Well *I* always have a top choice.
The problem with plurality winners
that the majority of the votes
did not count. A minority is able
to elect the winner. With IRV,
the rank system ensures that your
preferences get factored in to
the outcome. No, IRV does not
eliminate tactical voting: with
a field of strong candidates with
divergent voter preferences there
would be tough choices to make as
to which of your top 2 choices to
rank first. But that's perfectly
fine: it's inherent to any runoff
system. AV does not solve the
problem that IRV solves. It still
decides the winner based only on
plurality. IRV also solves the 3
candidate spoiler problem while AV
does not.
\_ I've read the wiki and other articles on most of the voting
methods. Although interesting most of them ignore the increased
complexity of the system over a simple, "mark an X next to my
favorite and drop it in the box" method we use now. Some people
say that various methods of anti-voter fraud are too high a burden
for voters and are discriminatory but that's nothing next to the
complexity of several of these alternative voting schemes. What I
got from my reading is that each of these other methods has a
different idea of the 'best' way to determine a winner but their
idea is based on their own notions of fairness. Fairness is not a
measurable absolute.
\_ Approval voting is not complicated. Instead of mark an X next
to my your favorite candidate, you mark an X next to any
candidate you would accept in office. The winner is the one
with the most votes so its notion of fairness is pretty close to
that of plurality voting. -dans
\_ If it "pretty close" then why not just do the simpler way
we already have now? Seems like added complexity for no
reason.
\_ It eliminates spoilers and, more importantly, would make
it possible for us to grow viable third parties. -dans
\_ What you call a spoiler I call a low support third
party candidate. For example, I don't think Nader
ruined Gore in 2000. If those people really wanted
Gore to win, they understood the voting process and
should have voted Gore not Nader. I also don't see
the need for third parties. What has happened in this
country to third parties is the two major parties have
absorbed their platform when it became popular enough
eliminating the need for the third party without
causing the instability of a multi party mush that you
see in some other countries in Europe, Israel, etc.
In those place you end up in a situation where an
extremist party with a normally trivial number of votes
gets joins the majority party coalition and ends up with
power that far exceeds their vote count in the general
population. I don't see that as a positive.
\_ So in other words, you believe something, and
whenever someone presents evidence to the contrary
you redefine the terms to suit your purposes and
state that the evidence is irrelevant. Awesome!
P.S. Your assessments of the American two party
system as well as politics in "Europe, Israel,
etc." show an impressive degree of ignorance. -dans
\_ Why did you have to make this personal? What is
wrong with you? How about you provide some
actual facts or even some contrary opinions
instead of personal attacks? I think if you call
me a "douche" like you normally do, you'd look
really extra super duper smart. Good street cred.
\_ There's nothing personal about this. I
present facts, cite source, you repeat the
same arguments, change the subject, and
dissemble. Nothing personal about that,
unless you think my pointing out that your bad
form is 'personal', in which case, get a
thicker skin, and maybe join a debate or
forensics society. And, yes, you're being a
douche. -dans
\_ Of course it completely misses the point that "I could live
with this bozo" vs "I really want this guy" are two seperate
things. While IRV does have some theoretical issues, in
any real world situation they don't actually matter worth
a damn. Oh and as to how to count votes, well guess what,
there's this magical thing called software.
\_ Okay, "mark an X next to any candidate you want in
office". Don't be a douche. Of course, since you're
advocating a voting system that, by your own admission, is
so complex that it requires software to effectively
implement the count, you have shown yourself to be utterly
unqualified to take part in any discussion of voting
systems and methodologies. -dans
\_ Suppose I have an election with a total bozo (B) and
2 pretty good candidates. (A and C). Out of 100
people 99 like A and C but like C better. But 1
person likes A and B. In an approval vote system
that gets you candidate A. But if B isn't in
the race that gives you candidate C. Thus having
B in the race changes the results UNLESS people vote
with the knowledge that B has no chance. I'm not
saying it is likely, but then again neither are the
contrived IRV problems, and IRV has big wins because
ranking matters.
\_ By the numbers, more people wanted A. Get over it.
-dans
\_ No, more people "approved" A. But the vast
majority wanted C. There is a difference.
\_ Now you're just arguing with semantics. -dans
\_ No, because if C wasn't in the race the
\_ No, because if B wasn't in the race the
result would be different. But because
you have decided on a set of criteria that
happily ignores that you don't think it is
a problem. You've decided "tactical voting
is bad" and then defined tactical voting
in a nonsense way so that you don't have to
admit that in ANY voting system there will
be tactical voting. Oh and once again
in real world situations IRV is much less
likely to be broken and much less likely
for a small group of tactical voters to
throw an election. Plus it gives you
ranked choices which are a win.
\_ You're ignoring his point about ranked choices.
Don't be a douche. I've yet to see a case where
IRV produces results that are "unreasonable". (Where
"reasonable" is intuitive, since no one result is
provably "best" for all voting scenarios.)
Don't be a douche. Show me some cases where IRV
produces "bad" results and let's talk about how
bad they really are.
\_ Preference inversion (i.e not monotonic). Done.
-dans
\_ How's that STD going dans?
\_ Awesome! I've got a sentient talking boil on my ass that
likes your philosophy, and wants to know if you have a
newsletter it could subscribe to. As a practical matter,
would you actually make fun of someone who had an
nasty and possibly life-threatening disease? Wow, what an
asshole! -dans
\_ the most common STDs are not life-threatening.
\_ Yeah, 'Sorry about your syphilis man, Haw Haw!' like
I said, what an asshole. -dans |
| 2008/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48921 Activity:high |
1/9 California wants to control the temperature in your house
http://csua.org/u/kfn (Utility Consumer's Action Network)
\_ That's great news. Thanks.
\_ Yer welcome.
\_ "Thanks to efficiency standards, California's demand for
electricity has remained flat since the late 1970s even as its
population has doubled, Gottlieb said." Remained flat since the
late 1970s? Really?
\_ You were right to be suspicious. Gottlieb is apparently wrong.
http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-47992.pdf
This says that annual electricity consumption in CA went up
from 167 TWh in 1980 to 258 TWh in 2000. That's significantly
less than double, but not "flat".
\_ Residential use versus commercial use?
\_ if you read the PDF.... but anyway, ALL of {commercial,
residential, industrial....} went up, NONE doubled.
\_ How is this worse than a rolling blackout? |
| 2008/1/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48910 Activity:high |
1/8 Ron Paul says he didn't wright the vile things in his newsletter.
Ron Paul lies.
http://csua.org/u/kfc [LGF]
\_ Whether or not he's lying, he allowed it to be published. I've
had vague doubts about Ron Paul, and this morning, I finally
realized why. Paul's espoused ideology ultimately comes down to
every man(*) for himself. I don't trust someone who is motivated
purely by self interest, but isn't willing to come out and say it.
-dans
(*) As an aside, I say 'man' here because Ron Paul is a misogynist.
His views on the role of women in society are a throwback to the
middle ages.
\_ Please cite a primary reference for Paul's view on role of women.
\_ a) His stated views on abortion and a woman's right to choose.
b) His newsletters. Go read them. -dans
\_ Anti-abortion == middle ages? You're nuts. Women have the
right to choose not to fuck people.
\_ the constitution is not "freedom to NOT do things."
It's freedom TO.
\_ That's a really stupid statement. You don't have the
freedom to kill a baby. Abortion has little to do
with the Constitution. Personally, I see both sides
of the argument: I don't care about it as an issue
and a candidate's view on abortion doesn't matter to
me.
\_ Odd, it's not "every man for himself", it's that the government
shouldn't intervene in what every man does.
\_ I may be mistaken, but I don't get the sense that Ron Paul
is espousing the ideologically pure libertarian viewpoint I
think you're referencing. I am curious though, if you strip
the government of power, how do you effectively avoid society
turning into a free for all? -dans
\_ The impression I get of him is that he's trying to push
towards a pure libertarian stance. Unfortunately, he's a
hypocrite. However, how do you define "free for all", and
how do you see it as being bad? -emarkp
\_ What is "pure libertarian"? He's not advocating removal
of government. He's advocating limited government based
on Constitutional principles.
\_ That's what I meant by "pure libertarian". -emarkp
\_ Is he really a hypocrite? Let's imagine I am an
opponent of public schools. Am I a hypocrite if
I send my kid to a public school? No, because
that is the existing system. I'm not sure just
what you're referring to however.
\_ He's a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into
bills and then votes against them. -emarkp
\_ He's a hypocrite because of what he's done as a
rep, not because of anything in this
discussion. For instance, he adds pork to
bills, and then votes against them so that he
can bring pork to his district and also say he
votes against it. -emarkp
\_ That's why I brought up the school analogy.
\_ so if you're taking political ideologies to their extremes,
you'd perfer the opposite, where the government controls everyone
and everything, for their own good?
\_ 1st, the things weren't that vile and a couple of them have been
lied about. For example the article in question did not "support PLO
terrorists".
2nd, a philosophy "based on self-interest" is not necessarily
against the common interest. Communism vs. capitalism. We know
that EVERYONE is motivated primarily by self interest, that's
human nature. Even when you help someone else you're doing that
because it makes you feel good. This is how markets work and why
they generally perform better over time than management by fiat,
no matter how selfless the masters. So many supposedly well-
intentioned efforts end up doing more harm than good. Wasting
public resources on pointless wars and bloated government
programs hurts everyone.
\_ please let us know when you finish reading Atlas Shrugged. -tom
\_ let me know when you have anything interesting to say.
\_ Holy shit, I agree with tom. I actually believe in such a
thing as enlightened self interest, but the self-interest
Ron Paul espouses doesn't qualify. -dans
\_ why not?
\_ GOLD STANDARD. |
| 2008/1/3-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48882 Activity:nil |
1/1 Yahoo! Weather for Newark, CA today:
High: 61, Low: 40, Current: 34.
What??
\_ I've seen this all the time. No explanation. |
| 2007/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48845 Activity:nil |
12/20 ultramonkey has a stupid name and appears to not have been updated
So the dumbducks in Congress are legislating what type of light
\_ Oh my god. You are dumb. Suppose what you said was
\_ You're an idiot who didn't read the link or pay
\_ You're a fucking dumb ass. If you had a $10k chandelier
anyone of having no sense of taste? You're a moron.
\_ Seconded, the op sounds like a dumb ass.
\_ Wow, you're dumb and don't even realize it.
\_ You know what is even dumber about this idea? In probably 10
is going to look pretty stupid in 10-20 years, I bet.
\_ Wow. The PM's at your company are either assholes or idiots. -dans
dumb to decide those arent the numbers you
\_ 'linear combination of arrogant and dumb',
people who believe stupid rhetoric about "death taxes" or
if you say "candidate X is either a moron or a liar". 2. many
positions are morons and scientists ... so they probably do
weak/stupid -- witness our tolerance for predatory lending.
to take advantage of stupid ones? Morally OK?
Granted, government can't protect stupid people
bastards who're taking advantage of the stupid. You know,
\_ congratulations, you're not stupid! Now how would you
feel if by a combination of having been born stupid
stupid ones over? Now, do you think you're smarter than
stupid and doesn't attack the problem. It exacerbates it by giving
price to some dumb shmuck. There are far more cases of people
don't agree you're either stupid or in |
| 2007/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48832 Activity:moderate |
12/18 Can anyone explain why so many Republicans keep claiming that tax
cuts raise government revenue, even when they know it is not true?
http://www.csua.org/u/ka9 (WashPo)
\_ Because in a high-tax environment, it's true? Tax RATES aren't the
same as tax REVENUE.
\- yes, "everybody" acknowledges this may have been true
in say the eisenhower era, but it's disingenuous to imply
this holds true today.
\_ Well the relationship between tax rates and GDP growth
isn't an exact science either.
\- "we dont know what 'causes cancer' ... how can you
say smoking is bad for you?" "evolutionary theory
cant explain fainting goats ... so it's 'merely'
a theory just like ID is a theory."
\_ You are a tool for two exciting reasons! Firstly,
science is powered by scepticism, so it is never a
vice. Secondly, you seem to think economic
causal theories are as well understood as an
extremely well-studied medical special case.
-- ilyas
\_ when was the last time you took a shower?
anyone ever asked you that?
\- no, it is more like second guessing a
jury verdict .. it could be wrong, but
substituting your opinion when you dont
know any of the details of the case and
havent heard the arguments is crazy.
so maybe decrasing tax rates increases
revenue down to 10% MRT, but if 95% of
the econ profession believes revenues go
negative somewhere between 80 and 40%, it's
seems some linear combinaion of arrogant and
dumb to decide those arent the numbers you
\_ 'linear combination of arrogant and dumb',
that's a good one. I think I'll borrow it.
-dans
will operate with. even if there are a couple
of smart guys here and there who (sincerely)
disagree. i am not saying it is TRUE, i am
saying it is what you must operate on unless
you have some extremely heavyweight reason
why you dont. peter duesberg might have some
"heavyweight" reason to disbelieve the
HIV->AIDS theory but for Thabo Mbeki to
disbelieve it require some explanation
other than "well as a world famous biologist,
in my opinion, here are the flaws in the
science ...". There are some questions where
there are truely split opinions among
experts ... like say on the mechanism of
planet formation [http://tinyurl.com/37oy55]
[rumor is you are an expert on "the stars"?]
but supply side econ not such an example as
applied to the US today. you also seem to be
unaware of the different quality of certain
econ predictions. there are econ predictions
about certain equillibium conditions that
are not speculative because there are clear
forcing functions [arbitrage] ... so while
there might be lots of competing theories
about the level of exchange rates [CIP, UIP,
PPP etc] the cross exchange rate parity
prediction is a strong one.
(one more thing: yes science is powered by
scempticism, e.g. the H PILORI example, but
these pols and motd posters arent DOING
SCIENCE, they are running for office or
trying to justify a policy. they arent being
sceptical. they are usually lying and some
some small number there may be some other
expedient explanation.). -danh (the planet)
\_ That last bit is 'high priest thinking.'
You don't need to be Doing Science to be
a sceptic. Criticism isn't a privilege of
the knowledge producing class. Now it is
true most criticism/scepticism of any given
theory that DOESN'T come from scientists
themselves will generally be silly or
misguided. However, this isn't always so,
and it is very important that there remain
outside channels for challenging the current
status quo in science. This is because
science, for a number of reasons, is
particularly susceptible to 'mafia effects.'
-- ilyas
\_ This is all well and good, but it's
orthogonal to the point that supply-side
economics is believed to be bunk by the
economic establishment, and while it may
not have the imprimatur of of the COBE
experiment, it's pretty damned good
science. -dans
\_ That's pretty funny considering what
"imprimatur" means. -lewis, nihil obstat
"imprimatur" means. -psb
\_ imprimatur: Official
approval; sanction.
I guess I just can't do funny.
-dans
\_ Historically from the Pope
giving out an official decree.
\_ See also http://csua.org/u/kaa (New Yorker)
\_ It's called faith based government -- tax cuts raise government
revenues because we believe they do. Tax cuts also cure cancer
and bring endangered species back to life.
\- IMHO: "they" do it because "they" can get away with it.
\_ Post a link to your blog, windbag.
so the question degenerates to "why can they get away with it?"
well aside from "there is a sucker born every minute" [e.g.
people who believe stupid rhetoric about "death taxes" or
"double taxation" etc] type explanations [and remember, in
america in 2007 we have three people running for president
who can say "i dont believe in evoluation" and not be sent
who can say "i dont believe in evolution" and not be sent
packing on the hayseedmobile], i believe there are two
pathologies in american journalism that leads to the pols
not being called on this: 1. fear of having "access" cut off
if you say "candidate X is either a moron or a liar". 2. many
journalists are experts at "journalism", not a subject area.
so they are trained in things like "objective/neutral view
points", "presenting both sides" rather than having subject
matter expertise and being able to render judgements. now they
kind of research they may be good at is "digging up connections,
influence, following the money" ... or maybe digging up gossipy
thigns like who'se campaign is in trouble when they present the
things like whose campaign is in trouble when they present the
election as a horserace ... but they are not good at evaluating
substance in areas like climate science, economic science etc.
those are trickier areas than say evolution where the two
postions are morons and scientists ... so they probably do
positions are morons and scientists ... so they probably do
ok there. now the nice part of "america 2007" is the blogosphere
contains many people who are not journalists but ARE subject
matter experts. these people are much better at holding the
journalists and pols feet to the fire. but of course they dont
generally have the giant podium the MSM journalists have.
of course some exceptions: paul kurgman has a big podium
of course some exceptions: paul krugman has a big podium
[but he isnt a journalist. i know many journos kvetch about
the blogosphere, but to the complain about giving a plum
column to a non-journo? i am glad the NYT gave it to PK and not
some random liberal journalist.]. james suroweiki also an
exception. i think his finance coverage is really good. one
reason the e'ists science coverage is decent is they look
for "science people" who have some writing talent, rather than
a journalist to has some interest in science. i guess the one
thing that might be worse than the "silly objectivism" of
some journalists might the the ones that forget they are
journalists, like gary taubes' pronouncements about "fat
research".
\_ Why don't you ever post your name, unreadable screed guy?
-jrleek
\_ If you don't know that's partha, you have better things to
do than motd. How exactly is it unreadable?
\_ Massive wall of text, lost interest and skiped the rest
\- supply side economics -> wall of voodoo
about 10 lines in. This is the motd, not a novel.
\_ You are too short for this motd thread....
\_ I don't care if higher taxes raise or lower government revenue
over time. My goal is not to maximize government income. My
tax goal is to pay as few taxes as possible while getting the
minimum government services required to run the country smoothly
and safely. (And I didn't need an unreadable 2 page rant to
explain).
\- "what do people owe each other" merits a longer answer than
say "what is your favorite color". a personal statement of
perference is a different beast than the search for the
explanation to a normative or empirical question. you have
have offered a 6line reply, but "your tax goal" provides
neither insight into accuracy of supply side economics nor
its "cost free" adoption by all the R candidates.
\_ I think this is a good and admirable goal (and one that I
share) but I think we should have that discussion honestly,
not lie to the voters and claim that tax cuts are "free"
which is where the Republican Party is now.
\_ Ron Paul doesn't say this. It's not "the Republican Party"
it is those particular men who say this.
\_ Okay fair enough. But it is stated as true by all the
other candidates. There is some economic sanity left
in the Party, but you have to admit it is in the
minority these days.
\- Brad de Long [ucb dept econ] heavily covers the gap between
economists and pols on supply side econ. of recent postings,
see this "straight from the laffer's mouth" article:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/12/justin-fox-on-a.html |
| 2007/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48824 Activity:nil |
12/17 When the state comes to you for more taxes, remember how they're
spending your money right now.
http://www.knbc.com/news/14866201/detail.html
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_7745781
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7733735
\_ And software never goes over budget or over schedule in the
private sector, right? |
| 2007/12/5-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Recreation/Food] UID:48747 Activity:nil |
12/4 Where do people buy those candies that reads "It's a boy!" or "It's a
girl!" Any pleaces in the San Mateo or Fremont area? Thanks.
\_ Preston's Candy & Ice Cream
1170 Broadway, Burlingame, CA
they have a lot of nice candy too, in addition to the gimmicky
baby candy. I recommend the honeycomb, rocky road, and the
hot cocoa kits. -brain preston
http://prestonscandy.com
\_ Cause cigars are so your grandparent's generation.
\_ the chocolate shop on telegraph has chocolate cigars.
you can get them online too. They are a bit pricey but <shrug>
\_ so are babies
\_ The Candy Store in San Francisco on Vallejo b/w Polk & Van Ness
is really, really awesome. I've seen "It's a g/b" cigars there.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/TZJ7a4slnPGIjIMkMbuFyw
\_ Go to SF, they have "Congrats, it's a gay boy!" cards.
\_ And in The South, you can get "Congrats, it's a Redneck" card.
\_ Thanks for all the responses. Party Land in San Mateo carries it,
but the girl kind is currently out of stock. Party America in Union
City has both the boy kind and the girl kind in stock. -- OP |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:48733 Activity:moderate |
12/3 Perot was right:
http://www.csua.org/u/k50 (SF Gate)
\_ about what, dubya being an idiot?
\_ Ron Paul > Perot
\_ Damning with faint praise?
\_ What was bad about Perot? Was Clinton better?
\_ <doubletake> Huh?!?
\_ It's R code. A vote for perot was a vote for clinton.
\_ Perot was a protest vote for those who thought the
party was drifting. The contract with america was
the response to that protest. Then it all fell to shit. |
| 2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48671 Activity:moderate |
11/20 If gas price doubles, what are some states that'll suffer more
than the others? Farm states? States that lack cities/mass transits?
\_ States where residents pay a larger proportion of income for fuel.
In consumption per capita the top states are Wyoming, the
Dakotas, Alabama, and South Carolina. California is #51 (list
includes DC). In consumption per $ GDP the top states are
Mississippi, Montana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
California is again #51. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/yvsxav
\_ California and NY both have residents who pay a lot for fuel,
*and* have to have goods trucked in to large population centers.
Your gas will cost more, but so will your vegetables.
\_ The expensive states spend more as a proportion of income
on things somewhat unaffected by fuel prices like housing and
insurance and less on things like vegetables. I also
suspect that fuel costs are a smaller proportion of
operating costs as a percentage of sales price in states
like CA where items like food are so expensive relative
to other states.
\- you're sort of on to something, but i think a more
correct "econ dept" analysis is "wealthier people spend
a smaller fraction of their incomes on non-discretionary
purchases, and thus they can more easily adjust to price
changes. you can drink "second growth" wines instead of
premier crus as the dollar falls. you can decide to stay
in star-- hotel on your vacation if the if you are
spending more on gas around the year. but that is
different than trying to change your food or utility
bill 24x7." however this is analyzies the "welfare" or
"utility" impact, not the prices. but when you say
"suffer" that's what you mean. obviously a "luxury tax"
on +100ft yachts will raise the price, but you cant
really call that suffering. anyway, again you are on to
something when you look at prices and the composition of
expenses but you have to factor in substitution effects.
and in that case i'd look at "rich" vs "poor" rather
than cost of living. [e.g. poor people in the bay area
dont have high heating bills in the winter].
an interesting philosophical detour is to look at the
"utility monster" aspect to this. although this is
better looked at across more disparate populations, like
say us vs china, rather than california vs alabama.
per diminishing marginal returns, somebody making $10k
a year will get more utility from making an extra $1k
per year and thus lose more from not making the extra $1k
compared to somebody making $100k. however the question is
if the $10k person has sort of adapted to low expectation
but the spoiled and weak person at $100k sort of expected
to keep getting raises and "suffers" serious shopping
withdrawal, who is really suffering more? obviously it
is hard to suggest public policy should compensate the
whiney/subjective utility.
\_ You think vegetables grow in Montana? There is actually
quite a bit of economy of scale in shipping vegetables to
large urban areas. I wouldn't be suprised if it actually
cost more to ship to smaller morkets that are closer.
cost more to ship to smaller markets that are closer.
\_ Umm.. I know some people who grow vegetables in Montana.
Hence, yes, I think vegetables grow in Montana. They also
grow in California, and many other places.
\- Famous Montana Potatos. there are a lot of cerial
\- Famous Montana Potatos. there are a lot of cereal
crops grown in montana, although i dunno how much
of this makes econ sense and how much of this is
because of crazy subsidies.
amazingly enough, there is a proposal to grow
sugar cane in the imperial valley [read desert +
massive water subsidies = crazy plans]
\_ I used to live in Montana. No one is growing any
significant quantity of vegetables there, unless
they are using a hot house. It freezes too late
and too early. |
| 2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high |
11/19 Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
thing. No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
properties sold to pay for the tax.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
\_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
on it. Now it's mine. I should be able to do what I want with it.
Taking it from my estate upon death means giving it to other people
who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it. Giving it to my
family & friends means giving it to people who physically,
emotionally, and/or financially helped me earn it. For example,
a man who spends all his time working has less time to spend with
his family. It cost the family something. When dad/husband is
dead, the least they should get is the money he earned for them
while away from them. Neither the government nor any strangers
getting 'entitlements' are entitled in any way to his earnings.
They already got their cut when he earned it. I have no interest
in hearing from the ultra wealthy about their solutions for the
country which always seem to involve things that don't hurt the
billionaires or their families in any way. Buffet is obviously
a great investor but he is in no position to dictate social or
tax policy for the Little People. He should stick with what he
knows: investing in successful companies other people built.
\_ You say you should be able to do what you want with your
money and not be taxed on the transfer. When you buy goods from
a merchant, you pay sales tax, even though you've already paid
\_ not all states have a sales tax. i also have a choice to
buy elsewhere or not at all. death is mandatory.
taxes on the money you used to pay the merchant (presumably).
Wealth is taxed more or less whenever it changes hands; why
should it matter if the transfer is due to death instead of a
voluntary transfer? And if you think the government didn't
help you earn that money, you need to brush up on both your
civics and your economics.
\_ the government helped. they got paid the first time.
i see no reason to pay them a second time when my family
hasn't been paid the first time and it cost them a lot
more than it did some random government chosen recipient
through random vote-buying 'entitlement' program.
if you want to tax the rich, just go for it and create a
straight wealth tax. go tax buffet a few billion a year
(i think 10% is fair) just for having money.
\_ Good luck getting your ideas implemented into law.
\_ Would you prefer to return to hereditary aristocricy? This guy
is another rich guy doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes
and would rather that someone else pay it for him. What else is new?
\_ The important thing isn't income disparity (which is increasing)
but lifestyle disparity (which is decreasing). -- ilyas
\_ What does this even mean?
\_ What it means is that income differences matter less and
less. There was a thread on this in the past. Personal
computers, cell phones, reliable cars, electronics, etc.
are getting cheaper and better all the time, which means
the poor in America can afford many of the same 'bits
of lifestyle' as the rich. This is why a straight
income comparison is misleading, the rich spend more and
more of their surplus on 'brand differentiation' not
quality. -- ilyas
\_ Not so sure of this. Look at the crappy food the poor
eat. The lead-based toys and other cheap Chinese imports
from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and their
lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
eat, their lead-filled toys, and other cheap Chinese
imports from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and
\_ It's a free country, people are free to eat and
play whatever/whenever. Ultimately, people are
responsible for their own actions. If they want
to smoke to death or play with lead laden toys,
that is their choice.
\_ Sure, but there are a lot of people who
cannot afford a healthy lifestyle even if
they want to live one. This isn't about
choice, but about opportunity. The poor eat
far more often at McDonald's because of the
price and they pay for it with their lives.
Many would probably prefer organic grassfed
beef burgers, but it's not an option for them.
\_ Like I said, this is a free country, if the
rich can afford more options, then they will
pick the better options. So what? It's been
like that way since the dawn of mankind.
How are you going to "solve the problem"
for the poor? Communism? Socialism?
More regulations?
\_ You're arguing against your own strawman.
I didn't say we need to do anything about
it. I am just disputing the assertion that
lifestyle disparity is decreasing even as
income disparity increases.
\_ I dispute that notion about McDonald's.
McDonald's is not cheap when compared to
home cooking using modest ingredients.
For example, just cooking rice/potatoes/
any commodity staple, cheap veggies,
and some cheap meat from Safeway is going
going to be healthier and cheaper than
McD's in all likelihood. However McD's is
fast. Maybe some of the poor have no time
to cook, because time is a luxury. But
I think it's mostly their own laziness:
most people can do better than McD's.
(You don't even need meat, of course.)
\_ You're very wrong. I cannot make a
double cheeseburger for myself for 99
cents even if I use the worst
ingredients I can find. Yes, I can eat
plain white rice for cheaper, but that
misses the point. My girlfriend and I
cook a lot - more than most people -
and it's always the same or more
expensive than eating fast food. Sure,
the quality is better, but it costs more.
It's cheaper than a good restaurant
meal, but not by much. Restaurants have
economies of scale that I can't match.
Maybe if you have 9 kids you start to
get close.
\_ In terms of actual food value the
rice is better, so it's not missing
the point.
Anyway, the 99 cent cheeseburger
uses frozen, crappy meat and not a lot
of it, and ultra cheap buns that are
mostly air anyway. The cheese is process
cheese. If you make your own you would
spend more because you'd use better
things, but you don't have to. There's
nothing else on that except condiments.
I think you can pretty easily make meals
that have more "food value" than those
burgers per dollar. If you really
wanted you could also cooperate with
other poor families to create that
"economy of scale" thing.
\_ We're not talking about "food
value". I am using McDonald's as
an example of the type of fast
food that the poor eat and
comparing it to the type of fast
food that the wealthy eat. If
you want to talk about cooking at
home, then the wealthy can live even
better. Your argument is "Don't
eat fast food at all" which misses
the point of the comparison. BTW, I
would be very unhappy if I ate plain
rice every day and I would harm myself
or others.
\_ We're not? I am. You said: "poor
people eat McD's because of the
low price... pay for it with
their lives... would prefer
organic grassfed". I'm just
saying that if they wanted to
they could eat tasty alternatives
that are healthier, or for not
much more, cook their own
hamburgers. I'm not saying
not to eat fast food. I'm saying
that it's a choice.
Many millions of people eat
"plain rice" every day.
\_ If you tried to subsist on a
diet of only rice, you would die.
\_ That's not what I suggested in
my original reply.
their lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
quality is much better. Are you one of those people
who thinks a handmade leather Italian shoe and a
machine-made shoe made in Mayalsia out of rubber
are equivalent because they provide equal utility
and the main difference is 'brand differentiation'?
The wealthy live better and tend to live "smaller"
in that they care more about things like
environmental toxins and political issues in
faraway lands. The poor just want the cheapest shoe
possible, regardless if it will turn their toes green.
Important products that everyone used to have, like
organic food, are now only affordable to the wealthy.
Those products are more important to a good quality
of life than the fact that LCD televisions are now in
reach of the common man.
\_ It's true that some things that were more available
in the past like organic food or hand-made furniture
are less available/more expensive today, but you are
being disingenious by ignoring the VASTLY LARGER
number of things that were invented and
made affordable to the general population. Again,
it's true that premium brands tend to be better made
(although not always, for instance luxury car brands
tend to be less reliable than hondas/toyotas).
I am merely saying that the gap in lifestyle has
been shrinking for the last 100 years. If you are
truly concerned about 'the gilded age' trends,
you need to look at lifestyle, not income. Of
course, 'lifestyle differences' are much harder to
quantify and talk about, we are not talking about
numbers in a bank account. -- ilyas
\_ In general, a bigger bank account means a
\_ In general, a bigger the bank account means a
better lifestyle. A much bigger bank account
means a much better lifestyle. I don't think
this has changed very much. I know where
you're coming from (a king in 1400 lived less
well in many ways than we commoners today)
but I don't see a trend where this disparity
has really changed much over the last, say,
40 years at least. In fact, the gap seems to
be widening if you look at statistics like
home ownership.
\_ Yes, of course income is strongly and
positively correlated with lifestyle quality.
My claim of decreasing lifestyle gap comes from
the observation that mass production,
specialization, and other capitalist
institutions result both in innovation
(invention of additional ways to improve
lifestyle), and efficiency (current lifestyle
improvements strongly tend down in price).
The only way for the lifestyle gap to be
increasing is if the number of qualitative
lifestyle changes was increasing faster due
to inventions than existing lifestyle
to inventions faster than existing lifestyle
was trending down in price. But there is
little evidence for this. Innovations
to differentiate products for wealthy
consumption seem to favor premium brands as
value-in-itself, various 'intangibles'
(like hand-crafted assembly), and health
and environmental consciousness. These things
are valuable, but that the rich increasingly
turn to these things is hardly evidence of
a widening lifestyle gap. -- ilyas
a widening lifestyle gap. (I would
be surprised if long term home ownership
trends weren't strongly positive, btw). -- ilyas
\_ How about looking at home ownership or
at the number of dual income families
compared to, say, the 1950s? Even in my
own family in the 1970s, neither my mom
or dad had a college degree and they
worked entry level jobs. They still had
a house in the suburbs, two brand
news cars, and sent the kids to private
school even though my mom took 5 years
off work to help with the kids. That
still happens in parts of the country,
but the fact that it's much less common
now is evidence that the gap is
increasing, since the rich live as
well as ever and yet the middle class
lifestyle is eroding.
\_ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
-- ilyas
\_ Home ownership has been trending up
since the 50s (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
\_ But if you look at the numbers
you'll notice that it's the
over65 segment which rose even
while more and more families
became dual income households. I
think that is significant. I also
don't think dual incomes have as
much to do with social norms as
with the need to make ends meet.
I think you acknowledge that
there is greater income disparity.
I think it is patently obvious that
what follows is a lifestyle disparity.
You can't point to a shrinking
disparity because of this
nebulous 'brand differentiation'
without more data that I haven't seen
you produce.
\_ So that's it? That's your
evidence? All this is evidence of
is that housing costs rose faster
than effective income. You need a
lot more comprehensive argument to
counteract the vast evidence for
my conclusion (for instance look
at the availability of consumer
electronics since the 70s, or
car quality, or power/price of
personal computers, or a thousand
other things). There is more to
lifestyle than a house, that's why
I say you need to average over
everything. -- ilyas
\_ Most households spend over
50% of their net income on
housing, so it's a lot more
important than anything else.
You can say that electronics has
gotten better since 1970, but
how does it follow that the
disparity between the quality of
the lifestyles of the rich and
the poor has gotten smaller?
I don't think the standard
of living now for the lower
classes in the US is higher
than ever, but it certainly
is for the wealthy. QED,
unless you want to make the
argument that the lower
classes (or even middle
class) are living better
than ever. From my observation,
I wouldn't say the middle class
lives a better lifestyle than
the 1950s even we now have
a lot more gadgets and the
average car is nicer than it
was.
\_ Your notion of 'better'
is strange and confusing.
-- ilyas
\_ Here's an idea to
help you understand: Look
at household debt now
versus at some point in
the past. Having more
useless crap doesn't mean
we live a better life.
\_ So cars, personal
computers, the internet,
home electronics,
medical advances, etc.
are 'crap?' Gotcha!
The number of dual income families has
apparently been trending up since the
50s, but that in itself is not
evidence of a 'squeeze' (but changing
social norms for women). Neither is
your anecdote. -- ilyas
your anecdote. Even changing percentages
for specific expenditures like housing
or healthcare is not, in itself,
evidence of a squeeze. (This is why
lifestyle is difficult to talk about,
you have to average over everything).
-- ilyas
\_ So you admit that people are working
longer hours, getting paid less and
having to commute more, but in the
face of all this, you claim that their
lifestyle has "improved." How about
the fact that crowding has increased
over the last decade? Food insecurity?
\_ Is it true the vast majority of
"food-insecure" adults are
overweight?
\- panem et circensus. lcd televisions in the reach
of the common man keeps people from boredom
and involved in petty politics and/or
revolutions. lcds and football games are like
the romans bread and circuses. feed 'em so they
dont starve, and keep 'em entertained...and you
wont have to worry about public unrest. it was
true in roman times, and it's at least as valid
today. panem et circensus
\- ps b i am gay
\- ps i am gay
\_ This is not psb's voice, btw.
\_ There is so much wrong with this I'm having a hard time starting.
1) False dichotomy
2) Are you saying we don't have a hereditary aristocrisy? I
guess the Kennedys don't exist?
3) Anyone with enough liquid assets can easily get around this
by:
- setting up a non-profit and donating money to it
- appointing their children as the board of directors and
compensate them quite well
4) I've just started my own business. The death tax would force
my kids to sell off my share.
\_ Who do you propose to pay the tax burden instead? How long
has America had an inheritance tax? This guy (and you) all
made money knowing full well what the rules are, why should
we change them in the middle of the game to favor you even
more? And isn't the first $5M untaxed anyway? Why should a
bunch of people who did nothing to deserve a windfall benefit
at the expense of everyone else?
\_ Here's a key concept: It's not your money to take away.
If I can't give my property to my children, I don't own it.
It's one thing to fund the government, it's another to be a
communist. -op
\_ I notice you have not answered the first question, nor
are you able to do so. You claim that anyone who is in
favor of any taxes whatsover is a communist? You are
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy people.
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy
people.
\_ I don't like to have conversations with stupid
people. I said "funding the gov't is one thing".
That means I understand the need for taxes. However,
once you say "why should he get money?" you're a
communist.
communist. -op
\_ So who are you going to raise taxes on instead?
I am always amused when far right wingers claim
that the position supported by an overwhelming
majority of Americans is extremism.
\_ It's not amusing when far left wingers do it?
\_ If you can give me an example of that
happening, I guess I would let you know
if I thought it was funny or not. If you
mean people like ANSWER, yeah I think they
are pretty funny.
\_ It's a bad question. The question isn't "who
should we take from", it's "if we remove this
tax, what do we do". Firstly we should
eliminate the programs that are simply wealth
transfers. That'd take care of about 60% of
the federal budget. -op
\_ So you want to eliminate Social Security
so that the wealthy don't have to pay
estate tax. I see.
\_ They're 2 separate issues. SS is going
away anyway, but yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating it. Yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating the death tax. The first is
not to provide for the 2nd. -op
\_ Which "wealth transfers" are you
talking about then? There is no way
that "wealth transfers" are 60% of
the federal budget, unless you
include SS in that 60%.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
You can quibble about the percentage
of debt payment that should be
considered devoted to "past military"
but those numbers are all up to date
and accurate. Military + VA + debt
is already half the budget. Do you
call things like the Dept of Homeland
Security a "wealth transfer"?
And the death of Social Security has
been predicted many, many times, but
so far, she is still beating strong
and overwhelming popular.
\_ Who says it's so popular? Are
payroll taxes popular?
\_ 70 years of persistance in the
face of Conservative attempts
to eliminate it speak to its
popularity. You could also google
for a poll, if you really wanted
an answer.
\_ Slavery persisted a long time
too. I could google for one,
but I thought you might already
have had a source in mind. But
no, it was just something you
pulled from your ass.
\_ You really believe that
answers the point? Social
Security enjoys upwards of
70% support in any poll you
could find. In addition,
GWB's plan's disapproval
never dropped below 60%.
You seem to be something
pulled from an ass.
--scotsman
\_ that's the 70% of people
who plan to get a lot more
out of other people's
pockets than they'll ever
pay in who have no plan
for their own retirement.
that sort of number not
only does not impress me
but worries me that this
country is turning into a
nanny state socialist pit.
\_ If you don't like
democracy, leave.
\_ Should I quote the
line about
democracy being
great until people
figure out they
can vote themselves
goodies? The motd
is full of uber
geniuses today.
\_ Quote all you
want, you undemo-
cratic, elitist
thug.
\_ I don't know but 60% is not
"overwhelming". GWB's plan
is not the only alternative
to SS. SS as implemented is
broken and regressive.
\_ It is when approval
never got above 35%.
never got above 33%.
GWB's plan wasn't about
"fixing" it. There are
broken portions, and
changes need to be made,
but the pp spoke of
eliminating it. That's
an idea that you can't
sell to this country.
\_ I love that "his fair share". Define fair share. -op
\_ Arbitrarily: 50%.
\- The only question worth asking about the Renew America columnist
is "is he stupid or does he think you are stupid" ... i.e. "is
he stupid or is he disingeuous?". If you arent interested in
speculating on that Q, not worth reading.
\_ So everyone should pay 50%? -op
\_ From each according to his means, to each according to
his needs.
\_ I am a democratic and I am opposed to the death and
inheritance tax. It should be my god given right to give my
hard earned money to my children without tax. Take 50% of
that away is just robbery, plain and simple.
\- Grover Nordquist just got his wings.
\_ You haven't done much research on this subject, have you?
\_ Odds are that if you're not the uber-rich, you will be able to
give your money to your kids with a minimum of tax.
\_ And if you are the uber-rich, you will certainly be able to
give your money to your kids with no tax at all!
\_ How? If so, what the fuck is the inheritence tax
for? The not so rich father that didn't know better?
\_ It has been argued that inheritance taxes on the rich
exist as incentives for those worthies to donate
heavily to charities.
\_ But the real reason is "because we can"
\_ That's right, the same people who fought tooth
and nail against godless communism are now
taking rich people's money because they can.
See you in the food lines, comrade.
\_ Oh boo hoo, everyone has to pay taxes and
it has been thus since Roman times. Forgive
me if I don't shed a tear for you.
\_ That's a fascinating argument. All sorts
of shitty things have been true since Roman
times. Death, for instance.
\_ I think we should bring slavery back.
It's the natural order, has been since
Roman times.
\_ I agree. MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
\_ Yes, we should outlaw death too. That
will work. Why not move someplace where
is no functioning government and therefore
no taxes? I think Somalia is a libertarian
paradise. You can have all the guns you
want, too.
is no functioning government and
therefore no taxes? I think Somalia is
a libertarian paradise. You can have all
the guns you want, too.
\_ Dailykos talking points!
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ Please give some examples of this happening.
\_ Cf. Gallo
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k15 (PBS)
Are you referring to this? It says here that
they paid their taxes, but over a number of years.
Do you mean something else?
\_ Check out the Straight Dope article. You're right,
they didn't avoid the tax entirely, but they've
reduced it significantly.
\_ By what percentage was their tax reduced? I
am not being contentious, I am just curious. |
| 2007/11/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48643 Activity:high |
11/15 So newly minted RON PAUL fans, this is a link from Daily Kos
about some of his extreme positions, he gets a few points from
me for not spouting the usual drivel and having an honest
straight forward persona and not being double gitmo pro
torture, but I really can't vote for the dude:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
\_ I could, knowing full well that no matter what my vote is,
California will go overwhelmingly for whomever the democratic
candidate is. So the electoral votes will swing that way, I can
vote for Ron with a clean conscience that my 'share' of the
electoral votes will still go to the D's.
-California voter
torture, but I really can't vote for the dude:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
\_ I could, knowing full well that no matter what my vote is,
California will go overwhelmingly for whomever the democratic
candidate is. So the electoral votes will swing that way, I can
vote for Ron with a clean conscience that my 'share' of the
electoral votes will still go to the D's.
-California voter
\_ Yes, California. The state that gave the world Nixon,
Reagan, and - to some extent - Ford which has a Republican
governor and who elected Pete Wilson to the position.
\_ while the state does have some record of occasionally
electing republicans, I think for the forseeable future
they are solidly democratic.
\_ Ed Meese, George Deukmejian. These are not just some
random Repubs, but they were very powerful Repubs.
I agree that D seems to predominate at the moment, but
to say that CA "occasionally" elects Repubs is
deceiving. Since 1900 CA has had 15 R govs and 4 D govs.
\- and 1stripper: Earl Warren.
The State is changing as the demographics change, but
even now 3 of the last 4 were R.
\_ seriously, come on now, do you think *any* of the R
candidates have the slightest prayer of taking CA's
electoral vote? It would take something bizarre like
one of the D candidates taking all of them out in a
freak murder-suicide in a primary debate.
\_ Who knows? Lately, the R's have been conceding
CA and it's worked. If they campaigned here
instead of just hitting OC up for $$$ then maybe
they'd have a better chance. CA elected *Pete
Wilson*.
\_ I didn't leave the Republican Party, the
Republican Party left me. The GOP is entirely
dominated by religious fanatics who care more
about punishing other people for their bad
behavior than the old Reagan ideal of small
government. If the GOP nominated another western
libertarian, then they could compete in CA again.
But they won't (do they even have one running?).
\_ Duncan Hunter is from CA. He gets no press
seemingly. Calling Reagan a libertarian? I scoff
mightily at that. Mightily indeed. Did Reagan
even reduce the size of gov't? He might have
cut some taxes, but it's spending that
determines the size. Reagan and Bush spent like
crazy. GOP isn't "entirely" dominated by
fundies. They are just a large group that GOP
needs to pay lip service to.
\_ If DailyKos is opposed, then Ron Paul is certainly worth considering
as a serious candidate.
\_ This article means nothing to me. "A vicious, comptemptible racist".
\_ This article means nothing to me. "A vicious, contemptible racist".
It's self-evidently horseshit. |
| 2007/11/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48564 Activity:low |
11/7 What can i do? The top 3 repub candidates are in an insaneD
alternative universe proclaiming to the people how they are
more pro torture than the other guy. It's really odd.
I can't vote for any of these guys. They're almost as bad
as the fascist president in the movie 'The Dead Zone'
\_ What's the problem then?
\_ Don't vote. R is doomed this election anyways. Thanks Georgy!
\_ It's not Georgy's fault he was elected.
\_ Fucking Al Gore and Kerry's fault. Speaking of Kerry,
what is he doing these days, sulking like Al Gore?
\_ Gore is hardly sulking. He is jet setting and giving
speeches, basking in the glow of his Nobel Prize.
\_ Gore is apparently promoting Peace.
\_ And poking fun at himself on shows like 30 Rock.
Go, Al. |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48551 Activity:nil |
11/5 The Ron Paul spam
http://www.metafilter.com/66234/Ron-Paul-Spam
I dunno about you, but any candidate that's got the endorsement of
Stormfront AND the John Birch Society has got my vote! |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48541 Activity:kinda low |
11/5 The more you drive, the less intelligent you are:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1671053,00.html
\_ Ah, Guardian, the libural outlet of the socialists.
\_ I just started a job much further away than my previous job. So
I'm dumb for taking a better job further away?
\_ only if you drive there.
\_ well not exactly, but I love this quote from the article:
When you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians,
bicycles, traffic calming, speed limits, the law: all become
a nuisance to be wished away. The more you drive, the more
bloody-minded and individualistic you become.
-ERic
\_ Fuck you eric. Read this:
http://images.libertyoutlet.com/prod/p-myvehicle.jpg
\_ Hey, don't attack me, it's not my opinion -- I was just
pointing out a choice quote. -ERic (and yes, I have a SUV)
\_ America is built because of individualism. If you hate
individualism, you hate America. -Randian
individualism, you hate America. -Randroid
\_ Pretty true actually. And a shame.
\_ There was a TV commercial a couple months ago that started
with the line "I only care about me, myself and I."
\_ America is the land of the individuals, the land of the
uncommon man, the land where man is free to develop his
genius-- and to get its just rewards. Individualism
fosters invention and ingenuity. NOW I SHALL GO PUT
KEROSENE IN MY HAIR. -Ayn
fosters invention and ingenuity. -Ayn
\_ None of the above jackasses got the Repo Man reference.
Sad face!
\_ Actually I did, but it was a bad reference, unless yoy are
trying to imply that individualistic implies less intelligent.
-ERic
\_ It made me want to drive more. And I live in LA, and fucking
hate to drive here. -- ilyas
\_ You Go Girl! |
| 2007/11/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48536 Activity:kinda low |
11/5 Barack Obama on net neutrality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE
I think Obama just got my vote. -dans
\_ I find it hilarious that I post something related to politics, and
it generates no response, but I post a job req and it triggers a
massive flamefest. -dans
\_ It isn't your job posting that triggered a flamefest. It was
your hostile response to very simple, common, and expected
questions about your company. I don't recall anyone here ever
responding in such a manner to simple job questions.
\_ Really? Because I'm pretty sure it all started with someone
referring to me as 'the motd idiot'. I'm not sure how I come
across as hostile in that regard. -dans
\_ That isn't how it started and you know it. Now you're
just trolling.
\_ Please stop making shit up. -dans
\_ Maybe you're reading a different motd.
\_ Apparently. Try signing your name once in a
while. -dans |
| 2007/10/30-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48492 Activity:nil |
10/30 Is this guy a Republican or a Democrat?
http://www.csua.org/u/jv5 (The Guardian)
Orange County Sheriff charged with accepting bribes
\_ He is gay and he wants you.
\_ I don't think sherrifs usually run on party platforms.
\- he's trying to show why government is bad. |
| 2007/10/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:48449 Activity:nil |
10/25 Fox News blames socal fires on Al Qaida
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_advances_theory_that_CA_fires_1024.html
\_ ... while the spread of the fire is blamed on bureaucracy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wildfires_grounded_aircraft
\_ Randi Rhodes blames Blackwater
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/10/26/randi-rhodes-suggests-blackwater-started-california-fires |
| 2007/10/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:48436 Activity:low |
10/24 Animated gif satellite view of the fires
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Current/CaliforniaFire.gif
\_ Wow. I never heard about the one in Mexico.
\_ bah, it's only a four hour window
\_ http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery
\_ http://www.signonsandiego.com/firemap
\_ http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq |
| 2007/10/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:48427 Activity:moderate |
10/24 the weather girl on KRON4 has a gigantic rack. I really should drive
to work.
\_ What does that have to do with driving to work?
\_ Pics please? The weather video on http://www.kron.com only features a guy.
\_ I like Jackie Johnson here in LA (on the left).
link:tinyurl.com/37359e
\_ Lisa Guerrero is hotter.
http://www.hottystop.com/lisa-guerrero/4.jpg
\_ Amazing, but I still like Jackie better. She's more fresh
and wholesome seeming. Lisa Guerrero has a better body,
but she looks like she's been around the block. |
| 2007/10/18-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48371 Activity:low |
10/18 Watson backpedals from statement like mad
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_sc/controversial_scientist
\_ Watson is wrong. ALL MEN are created equal. The bible says so!
\_ "In 2000, in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley,
he suggested that sex drive is related to skin color. "That's
why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who
attended. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an
English patient."
WAIT what??? So if I'm brown I'm horny?
\_ Shouldn't the headline be "Watson backpoodles from statement"?
\_ Shouldn't the headline be "Watson backausmans from statement"?
\_ Haha!
\_ Shouldn't the headline be "Watson backgerman shepherds from statement"? |
| 2007/10/16-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48338 Activity:moderate |
10/16 The Religious Right has boatloads of cash on hand.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13257.html
\_ Interesting. I wonder if there's a sense among the RR that 2008
is pretty much a wash and that it would make more sense to save
money for 2012.
\_ The RR is a single minded entity with a single bank account?
Sort of a giant Jesus Multi-Body Entity(tm) with a single
group mind?
\_ You have a question/answer/real point to make? Or you just
like using question marks?
\_ It's there. Try again. |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48296 Activity:nil |
10/12 I am very curious... do people in USA actually think they have the
moral high ground of accusing others for genocide?
http://csua.org/u/jpq
\_ Yes. Oh, and today is the 12th of Oct.
\_ Absolutely, and that doesn't negate our obligation to recognize
injustices to Native Americans by our predecessors at the same
time.
\_ i am still waiting.
\_ Dude, we let them gamble and they don't have to observe
state law. It's a pretty sweet deal! ;)
\_ They can even declare themselves sovereign nations.
Exactly what it means by having sovereign nations within
the US, I don't know.
\_ Exactly. As far as I can tell it means they have to
follow federal law, and that's about it.
\_ Your logic: because the US was responsible at one time in the
past for atrocities against the natives here we have no business
telling people committing genocide today to stop. Thank you for
joining us today. Maybe you'll have better bait tomorrow.
\_ my logic is that the only reason why we stopped is not because
we didn't feel it was the wrong thing to do. We stopped because
we've gotten what we wanted and these natives are no longer
have any means to fight back. ANd even today, USA never
officially label these acts "genocide," nor have American
produce any sort of remedy for such act (return some of their
land? monetary compensation?). and now we are passing a bill
labelling Turkey for doing the same thing?
\_ Same logic: you did bad stuff so you can't point out when
other people do bad stuff.
\_ The bill has no 'weight'. Symbolic only. At least in the US
most people would agree that we were pretty shitty to the
Indians. The Turkish government completely denies anything
happened at all.
\_ Sounds similar to Germans vs. Japanese regarding WWII.
\_ You're over generalizing. If anything, the Germans of
today accept MORE than their fair share of the blame
for WW2. They won't shut up about how awful they were.
Boo hoo. nationalist Japanese parties like to pretend
the barbaric excesses of the imperial army did not
happen, I'll give you that.
\_ The "weight" is that Turkey will become an enemy.
Currently, 70% of our supplies for Afghanistan and Iraq go
through Turkey's airspace. This bill has been attempted
for over a decade. Only now, when it will cut off the
supply lines to our troops are the Dems working on it.
\_ The Dems are building alliances around the world!
\_ While calling Bush terrible at diplomacy.
\_ Enjoying some crow with your Freedom Fries?
\_ Huh?
\_ Native American tribes can run casinos in CA. White trash,
n***er and Chinamen can't.
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071011 |
| 2007/10/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48286 Activity:high |
10/10 Two suggestions for elections: 1) Voter lottery: each person who
votes gets entered in a $10M lottery. 2) Electoral points: each voter
gets to allocate a pool of "electoral points" to whichever candidates
he or she prefers; say six "electoral points," so as to allow pyramid-
ical ranking of 1, 2, and 3. Thoughts?
\_ Obviously, voting is too difficult of a job that the average
American does not want to participate in. We should outsource
voting offshores. We should also offshore our politicians to
reduce conflict of interests.
\_ Yes. Your understanding of math and civics is poor. -dans
\_ dans: shitting in other people's cornflakes for the hell of it.
\_ Others' responses below elaborate on my points nicely. -dans
\_ 1) Don't like it. if they don't want to vote, let them not vote.
Work on making voting easier. Absentee ballots are probably
easier for most people but it's a bit of a hassle to get them.
2) I think this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting
I prefer IRV for a single-winner election because it doesn't
make you compromise your support. Dividing points to create
ranks is inferior to simply ranking them outright.
\_ Lack of voting is a signal that is often interpreted as 'none of
the above.' -- ilyas
\_ How about an IQ test or a test of knowledge? So many people who
*do* vote don't know most of the issues and do more harm than
good.
\_ Or how 'bout a poll tax! Do you know anything about our country,
constitution, or history?
The point that would be valid here is that since democracy is
predicated on an educated populace, access to education is an
inherent right.
\_ Hah! Do your research on rights. Oh and on the difference
between a republic and a democracy.
\_ Maybe we should abandon voting altogether and use the
jury selection method: random lottery selection per election
period. Apparently this is how ancient Athens appointed
officials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
We could use multi-member districts and use approval voting
or cumulative voting etc. to let voters elect representatives
from a pool of randomly selected residents (somewhat akin to
how juries are approved). Perhaps the pool should be limited
to those who "sign up" to be in the pool, to avoid personal
liberty issues.
The advantage over direct democracy would presumably be that
dedicated officials would have the time to fully educate
themselves about the issues. The advantage over elected
reps is to remove the money-driven election apparatus and
get ordinary people rather than giant political parties.
\_ That's what we thought about representative democracy.
\_ It's still representative democracy. The method for
choosing representatives can vary.
\_ Perhaps only Veterans should be allowed to vote. -Vet
\_ There are many vets who aren't even citizens and cannot vote.
\_ I was under the impression that serving in the US
military guaranteed one citizenship. Is this incorrect?
-dans
\_ You're thinking of Starship Troopers. There is fairly
recent legislation to expedite citizenship for members
of the military, but it's not automatic.
\_ We are increasingly going the route of Rome in its
later years, with an Army made up primarily of
non-citizens and mercenaries.
\_ Perhaps only people of my ethnic/socio-economic/education/
geographic/professional background should be allowed to vote.
\_ At least one person got my point. It is disingenuous for
a bunch of CS geeks to argue for an IQ requirement for
voting. -Vet
\_ A basic civics requirement wouldn't be too much to
ask, would it? "Here's a pamphlet in all 300 official
US languages. Call this phone # toll free to hear it
read to you."
\_ Actually, yes it would be too much. Education
requires funding and free time. Making it a
requirement for voting makes it equivalent to
a poll tax. Education is the silver bullet. A
more educated populace yields a "better" electorate
and, one would hope, a "better" democracy. This
is what I speak about above, that the idiotic
replier doesn't understand. --scotsman
\_ So making sure someone had read a flyer or
listened to a 2 minute explanation of our
government system on the phone or at the
polling place is too high a burden to ask a
voter? If someone can' be bothered to do so
little to vote I don't want them voting. I
think you're taking the poll tax concept way
too far. Do you think non-citizens should be
allowed to vote? If not, why not? Is that not
a burden which puts a person in a position to
be a victim of government with no say? Taxation
without representation, etc?
\_ Citizenship is a prerequisite for voting.
I would not change that. I think it's a
very sad thing that non-citizens likely
know more about US civics than natural born
citizens.
The solution is not to make people prove
they're "capable" of voting. It's to
improve education. As to non-citizens,
I assume you mean people who are seeking
citizenship, or people working (and taxed)
under a visa. In those cases, they are
` working under pre-agreed conditions. If
you're talking about undocumented people,
I don't speak on that subject for lack of
knowledge. --scotsman
\_ My idea is about improving education
"on the spot", if you will.
\_ It's not the place for it, and I'd
presume law and precedence on the
matter would back me up. IANAL.
http://epress.anu.edu.au/cw/mobile_devices/ch13s02.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-1004351/literacy-test
\_ It isn't a literacy test. You're
way too focused on that part. How
do you expect your populace to get
educated?
\_ An educated populace doesn't
solve the problem. You need
to demonstrate you care
enough to know the issues.
Knowing a lot about EE
doesn't mean you know diddly
about Prop XYZ, or even read
it. Therefore, I think some
sort of test of knowledge
would be useful. "Do you know
what Prop XYZ is about?"
\_ An EE degree != educated. I
think it was clear that in
the context of this discussion
we're talking about a basic
knowledge of civics, not about
requiring a 4 year degree. Ok,
let's try again: I want to see
voters who know what they're
voting for/about and I want
their votes to count without
going to direct nationwide
polling. What is your
suggestion?
\_ And I want a pony and a
blowjob, but wishing
doesn't make it so.
Actually, I'll probably get
the blowjob. What is your
point? -dans,!PP
\_ If you have nothing to
contribute, don't. I'll
stick to the validity of
my 'civics lesson
requirement' for voting
since no one here can
come up with a flaw in
it, just childish noise.
\_ Read a fucking
history book.
Reading requirements
for voters were
historically abused
to systematically
disenfranchise poor
and black voters.
Your civics lesson
nonsense would be
subject to similar
abuse. Others have
made this point. I
shouldn't have to do
it again. Enjoy your
pony. -dans
\_ You are totally
ignoring what I have been saying. It can be read, it
can be a phone call, it can be read to you, I don't
care what form it takes and you keep intentionally
ignoring that which makes you a troll. If there is a
Hellen Keller voter out there who can't read, hear, or
anything else then we'll give her a pass on the
requirement. You're just trolling. I'm not tom, stop
trolling me like I'm him.
\_ So because
someone may abuse
a law that means
we should not
have it? The status
quo, with only a
few people at the
polls and many of
*those* having no
clue what they are
doing is not being
abused by
politicians?
\_ Hyperbole; we're
not there yet.
Also, as to yr
first q, when
there's a track
record, yes. |
| 2007/10/7-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:48258 Activity:moderate |
10/7 Let's make every vote count. Unless it hurts us.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/07/MNSESIOTG.DTL
\_ Changing the electoral system of the most populous state in the
country, while leaving the rest of the states the same, is not
"making every vote count"; it's a transparent attempt to undermine
the electoral process. If you want to change all 50 states, we'd
have something to talk about. -tom
\_ I'd take a 50 state change. And no, CA wouldn't even be the
first leading the way, but the third. And if you read the
article, they have no concern about voters but their own power.
How many quotes in there are about killing babies and shooting
guns and other forms of violence?
\_ I'd consider a 50-state change, but that's not what's on the
table. I'm sure the Republicans would fight heartily against
a 50-state change. This is a political move (led by
Guliani's campaign) and was defeated politically
by the opposing party. No surprise at all. -tom
\_ Of course, that can never happen. States aren't allowed to
make those compacts. Frankly I think it'd be better if
every state went to the congressional district solution,
but I'd be okay if CA did it. That would probably go for
TX, NY and FL as well. The states are too big.
\_ 'States aren't allowed to make those compacts'?
E_LACKS_FACTUAL_BASIS. You're a moron. -!tom
\_ What part of "No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State" in Article I, Section 10,
paragraph 3 of the constitution don't you understand?
http://csua.org/u/joe
\_ The part in Article II that says "Each state
shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a number of electors...."
http://csua.org/u/joj If a number of states
pass state legislation conditional on other
states passing similar legislation concerning
a winner-take-all award of electors, that would
not constitute the Agreement or Compact you
cite above.
\_ I believe that making the allocation of
electors conditional on how other states
allocate their electors would be an illegal
compact. Do it or not. None of this crap
about "who else is going"? Otherwise, all
compacts could be "we'll do this if State B
implements it as well" would be a way to get
around this paragraph every single time.
\_ Welcome to Constitutional Law 101.
\_ I believe you are not a fucking lawyer,
and that you should shut the fuck up before
you highlight your lack of domain-specific
knowledge further.
\_ Jesus, even I wouldn't go that far. It's
the motd, not Debate Club. -!pp
\_ You'd be wrong about the (R) fighting a 50 state change.
Because they'd win the Presidency hands down if the last
several elections are anything to go by. Anyway, I don't
care who came up with an idea if the idea is good. The
source of a good idea seems to be a reason to dismiss an
idea to you. To me that is just ad hominem.
\_ No, you forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
\_ In the current climate of gerrymandering by both
parties, district-based electoral votes are
meaningless. A direct apportionment by popular vote
would be more representative, esp. if coupled with
Instant Runoff Voting. --erikred
\_ Ok, true, I forgot the gerrymandering part. I still
like the concept even if the implementation would
be flawed due to policians picking their voters
instead of voters picking their politicians. I'm
not entirely thrilled with true direct democracy
given how stupid the average citizen is. As a
separate issue I think IRV is too complex for most
people to figure out. You think the butterfly
ballot and hanging chads thing was a mess? Wait
til people start complaining they didn't understand
IRV or it wasn't clear or whatever so they ended up
with Pat Buchanan in office.
\_ Question: why would you expect less direct
methods to succeed in the face of postulated
stupidity of the voter? -- ilyas
\_ The point (to me) of having to win voting
blocks (of whatever size) instead of just
across the entire set of individuals helps
prevent a regional candidate from squeaking
in. When regional votes count you have to
please the entire nation to some degree not
just a large enough group who all think the
same.
\_ Alright, but given your own assumption
of voter stupidity how does pleasing a wider
section of voters help? You are slicing
the same stupid pie. -- ilyas
\_ It spreads the stupidity such that a
candidate must gain the confidence of
*different* sets of stupid people. Just
taking a single geographic region or
heavily taking cities/rural areas alone
won't be enough. Call it a 'stupidity
smoothing function' if you like. I don't
think you'll find that many stupid people
all thinking the same thing across
multiple slices of the country.
\_ If you just want to average, you leave
yourself open to well known biases,
anchoring, etc. Averaging over
stupid opinions doesn't give you good
outcomes if good opinions are 'far
away.' Further, if you want
to average, you can just bypass the
voting thing entirely. -- ilyas
voting thing entirely. Still, it
would be nice to harness the 'wisdom
of the crowds' effect, though I think
markets do that better than voting
schemes. But then using markets to
make political decisions is batshit
crazy, right? -- ilyas
\_ How would you use a market? Require
people to bid for the right to vote?
\_ I submit to you that ordering your choices 1,
2, 3 would be much easier than asking Amerians
to select one, and only one, candidate, and
tough shit if he doesn't win outright.
\_ Of course it isn't easier. "Pick one" is easier
than "pick an ordered list".
\_ I haven't thought about voting schemes a lot,
but your notion of 'easier' seems misapplied.
What's difficult about 'picking one' is
choosing which candidate matches your
beliefs better, out of a field of candidates
who are generally not very well matched to
your beliefs. This creates 'hard choices,'
since the winner takes all. In this case,
an ordered list makes the choice less hard,
since you are signalling your beliefs much
better. Voting isn't a computational
problem but a signaling one. -- ilyas
\_ I haven't thought about voting schemes a
lot, but your notion of 'easier' seems
misapplied. What's difficult about
'picking one' is choosing which candidate
matches your beliefs better, out of a field
of candidates who are generally not very
well matched to your beliefs. This creates
'hard choices,' since the winner takes all.
In this case, an ordered list makes the
choice less hard, since you are signalling
your beliefs much better. Voting isn't a
computational problem but a signaling one.
-- ilyas [formatd]
\_ Sorry, I meant easier to implement. True,
making that one pick is not easier
for a conscientious voter, especially
with >2 candidates and tactical concerns.
But the practical apparatus, instruction,
and reporting of results are obviously
harder than pick one. AFAIK this is
the primary complaint. Personally I
actually have long supported IRV, ever
since I heard about it in high school
or whatever.
\_ I submit to you that the typical American
voter barely knows anything about their first
choice much less has 3 choices in mind they
could actually rank.
\_ IRV is not monotonic, and thus not strategy-free.
I think this makes it a terrible idea. Approval
voting >> IRV. Simpler too. -dans
\_ Approval voting is not strategy free either.
I think its simplicity is a major point in
favor though. It's very close to the simple
FPTP system logistically. However I feel it
does not really address the "spoiler problem"
which is the main benefit to alternative voting
systems as I see it.
\_ Okay, just brushed up on this (I haven't done
serious research or study of voting systems
since 2004), and you are correct, approval
voting is not strategy free. There exists,
however, fairly strong evidence that it is
about as resistant to tactical voting as one
can hope for without introducing
non-determinism. We seem to be having some
problems with semantics because approval
voting *eliminates* the spoiler problem, how
do you feel it fails to address it? IRV,
however, partly because it is not monotonic,
and due to several other side effects risks
*severe* spoiler effects. -dans
\_ Due to the Primary system (which won't go
away with IRV), approval voting already has
tactical voting built in. I consistently
re-register as a member of whichever party
has the Primary I want to vote in. Je suis
un saboteur.
\_ That's reasonable, but it has nothing to
do with approval voting itself. And,
arguably, approval voting makes the
primary system unnecessary, though I
understand why it probably wont' go away
for political reasons. -dans
\_ Consider candidates ABC and I think A>>B>>C.
Do I vote for B or not? Voting for B hurts
A's chances. But I really don't want C to
win. IRV lets me just rank them A,B,C and
leads to a reasonable result in general.
The results may not always match some
theoretical rule but I don't think it has
practical problems in most cases. It's not
perfect but it lets me state my preferences
better than approval voting.
\_ "This voting for 3 people thing really
confuses me and I've now been disen-
franchised! I want to re-vote! Wah!"
\_ It would sure as hell be easier to
divine voter intent in IRV than
hanging chads.
\_ Um, the idea is terrible. It's a blatant power grab.
Furthermore, past events are not a predictor of future
behavior. There are some very interesting shifts in
the behavior of substantial voter demographics in red
states. Oh, and you don't seem to know what ad hominem
means. You're a moron. That's ad hominem. -!tom
\_ Ad hominem: attacking the man, not the idea. Thank
you for showing us how little you know. The idea is
great. It gets us closer to true democracy instead
\_ Little known fact: The founding fathers didn't
want "true democracy". They thought the people
as a whole, were dumb. So much stupid shit
happens these days that I am inclined to agree
with them. There's a reason we are a
'representational democracy'.
\_ I'm aware of that and the FF were right. But
the country was much smaller then and I don't
think they foresaw half a dozen states of 50
determining the POTUS with no realistic say
for the rest of the country. Going to county
sized voting blocks would still be
representational without going 100% democracy.
\_ I take it back, you're not a moron, you're a
disingenuous tool.
\_ Who cares what you think? You've yet to post
anything that could be mistaken for rational
thought or adding value to this discussion.
of the current system of Red/Blue states where if
you're in the "wrong color" state your vote has no
power. It is not a power grab. I don't care which
"color" President gets elected. I want votes to
count. What do *you* want? You want "your guy"
whoever that is to be in office no matter how they
got there. *That* is what power grabbing is about.
\_ Stating the fact that Giuliani's campaign was
leading the push is not an ad hominem. Stating
that it is a naked political push to crack CA's
electoral vote bloc is not either. Saying "I
don't like it because Giuliani's a doo doo head"
would be, but no one said such a thing. The
\_ In context, it was clearly meant as "G.
came up with this so it must be bad".
\_ Bullshit. You're laying your opinion
of the matter on others' comments.
\_ Welcome to the motd. Ready to play?
other two states that break up their votes along
district lines each have 3 electoral votes. For
them it makes sense to do this so they can grab
attention from the candidates. For CA it would
\_ 3 votes isn't attention grabbing.
\_ In a tight race, it can be.
\_ "In a tight race your vote might
count, maybe, otherwise screw you."
That isn't what our voting system
was supposed to be like.
\_ I don't see how you've put any
proposal forward which would change
this.
\_ I stated I think we should do
it by county or by voting
district or polling place or
whatever instead of as giant
state sized blocks. I've also
explained why I think this will
improve voter 'value' in more
than the current top 6 states.
\_ If the race isn't tight,
your vote still wouldn't
count.
be a sacrifice of the state's sway in electoral
politics. I would tend to agree with an amendment
\_ We have no sway. We're the bank for the
party who comes through here doing no
campaigning at all because they know our
votes don't matter. They just take our
money.
to institute such a change nationwide, though it
would be a big bite out of the 10th.. I would
also agree with abolishing the electoral college,
but that's just me. --scotsman
\_ I'm not saying CA should be the only state
doing it. I'd go for a nationwide change.
But not doing it out of pure partisan power
play politics puts party before nation. I
have no interest in that. Nation first.
\_ How would the nation be better off if
California (and only California) split
its electoral votes? -tom
\_ It would bring candidates here to
earn our votes because it would
suddenly matter. Other states would
see that and follow suit. Voila!
Now everyone's vote matters more and
the nation is better off.
\_ With us voting last and our
primaries near last, the elections
are often 'called' before they even
get to us. Granted recent years
much of this has changed.
\_ That's another story. As a CA
resident our insanely late
voting date always irked me.
This time we're Feb 5th only
a few weeks after the first
votes take place so we finally
get a say in things. We're
still the bankroll for both
parties and they don't
campaign here at all but at
least our votes might count
for something.
\_ The Democrats have been
campaigning like mad in
California, where have you
been? Each major candidate
has been to the Bay Area
alone in the last six weeks.
\_ Proud statements, but it's not a
persuasive argument for CA switching.
Politics is the process by which the
nation runs. Go find a benevolent
monarchy if'n you don't like it.
\_ See my response to tom just above.
But I do find your "love it or leave
it" line amusing. I wonder if you
see the irony in that statement in a
dicussion of how to better run our
representational democracy. :-)
\_ In your argument, you've decided
to reject the process that under-
pins democracy out of hand. I
wonder if you see the irony in
thinking you're astute enough
to declare something ironic.
Are you the same person who
claimed "earmarks" == "pork"?
\_ In what way have I rejected the
process that underpins
democracy? Au contraire mon
frere! I want more people in
more places (all places) to
know their vote is valued.
\_ You reject "politics". We
are a representative
democracy. Do you support
Mike Gravel's direct
democracy initiative?
\_ Eh, I'm gonna have to go with !tom on this one.
Maraland passed a similar law with the stipulation
"when enough other states change to swing the
electoral college." To do it in just one state
is whack. That said, yeah CA is WAY too large.
\_ Sure, but if you split it into NorCal/SoCal,
SFBA and LA would still be the 500lb.
gorillas.
\_ That's only because human beings should
have more of an effect on the electoral
process than dirt does. -tom
\_ What? Dirt? Huh?
\_ The Bay Area has people.
Modoc County has dirt. -tom
\_ So you think people in Modoc County
shouldn't count? LA has way more
people than SF. By your logic, we
should only count LA's votes. Oh,
and San Jose since they have more
people than SF, too.
\_ If Modoc, Salinas, King, Fresno,
San Diego, and Orange all swing
against LA, LA loses.
\_ Ok, and so? It takes 6
counties, 2 of them heavily
populated to top LA. What
is wrong with that?
\_ Nothing. It just proves
that people count more
than dirt.
\_ So you disapprove of the Senate?
\_ As arbitrary divisions of
representation go, this one
is still oddly more repre-
sentative than are Districts.
\_ You're inconsistent (or
you're inconsistent with
tom). Either dirt counts or
it doesn't.
\_ You're beating a straw
man. Note that I said
"more of an effect." -tom
\_ And in the Senate, the
dirt matters more than
the people.
\_ If so, Alaska would
get more Senators
than RI.
\_ Arguably, the Senate
is neither about dirt
or ppl, just arb. pol.
distinctions. -pp
\- Trying to get this implemented ni a large state with a
long history of voting for a particular party is patently
unfair unless coupled with a number states whose combined
electoral votes show a similarly strong record voting for
the other party. I could agree with legislation to divide
CA's electoral votes by popular vote if that condition was
met. The alternative of course, is implementation over
all states.
Were third (and nth) parties considered as well?
\_ You may wish to peruse:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/andrew-gelman-w.html |
| 2007/10/6-11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48250 Activity:low |
10/3 http://www.kidsdata.org/topictables.jsp?t=18&i=7&ra=8_2 Look, Democrats are more concerned about children than Republicans by ~20%! See, Republicans are selfish bastards. -troll \_ Charles Manson was a liberal. Any question? -anti-troll \_ So was Hitler - anti-anti-troll \_ i hope you are not talking about the recent veto of extending health insurance to low-income children. Because that bill is largely sponsered by Republicans. One thing I failed to understnd is that congress can EASILY use war funding to choke President Bush but they don't have the gutts to do so. They should know that even if we just cut the war funding, the public probably won't hold much against it. \_ Well it's well known that liberals are wishy washy flip-flops who are afraid to fight Osama Bin Laden, or something like that \_ No, official policy is that terrorism is a criminal matter, thus an FBI issue. \_ I found the real reason why he vetoed it - the hidden cigar tax! Bush may not smoke them, but his rich buddies all do. |
| 2007/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:48233 Activity:nil |
10/3 Secessionists meeting in Tennessee
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1 |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48205 Activity:high |
9/27 In response to the previous threads about rubber stamp Democrats.
My point is not rather we should fund the war or not. But rahter,
if we going to fund it, fund it as part of regular budget process
instead of going through all these supplement spending bills which
doesn't have the same oversight as regular spending bill. Further,
I failed to understand why Democrat would take Bush's veto threat
about domestic spending while this guy's military spending is going
completely out of control. Democrats should just say "fund the war
via the regular spending bill, or not fund the war at all."
\_ Ask Pelosi and Reid why they continue to fund it. The American
people put them in office for a reason. They promised to end the
war and clean up government. Under their watch, the war has
actually expanded by 30k troops and corruption is rampant across
the board. Oh yay, I so can't wait to vote for that bunch again.
They've been so effective.
\_ In what way is "corruption rampant"? Is there more or less
corruption than with the Republican Congress?
\_ Hello? Earmarking the hell out of the budget? Just like
Republicans, except the Democrats promised to cleanup. So
we get corruption+hypocritics instead of 'mere' corruption.
There's a reason Congress's popularity rating as a whole is
at all time lows. No one likes a liar (Iraq funding) or
a hypocrite (earmarking corruption).
\_ give some examples of corrupt earmarking. earmarking is
not inherently corrupt.
\_ you're kidding, right? DiFi's committee granting
nobids to her husband's company? Pelosi granting
handouts to her family's companies? Murtha, well damn,
just about anything Murtha has come near. Look, be
serious. You can't point a finger at the other party
and scream 'corruption!' when your own party is doing
the same crap. Glass houses and all that. If you
spent less time prowling for Republican corruption
and turned less of a blind eye towards Democratic
party corruptions, you'd see the hypocrisy and I for
one have had enough. I will not support corrupt people
of either party even if they sometimes agree with me or
even vote the way I like most of the time.
\_ Please back up your claims.
\_ I did. I'm not going to discuss this further
with someone so clearly wearing blinders. You
would google for it yourself if you actually
cared and weren't suffering from severe self
inflicted blindness.
\_ No, you didn't. You gave allegations.
\_ Whatever. You don't want to know and
wouldn't care if I put it under your
nose. Bored now. Bye.
\_ "And I'm taking my ball and going home!"
\_ No, just bored and not looking to get
trolled today. I gave you more than
enough info to google it if you
cared to know. You don't. Story
over.
\_ Wow, fools do mock! -!pp
\_ Your contribution: zero. oktnx
\_ You do know that the current Congress has 1/10th
as many earmarks in the budget than the GOP Congress
immediately preceeding it, right?
\_ When it is zero, lemme know. "Woot! The one
party is not quite as corrupt (yet) as the other
party! Yay for such heroism in government!"
\_ Good luck on holding out for your utopian
society. Are you going to hold your breath
until you get it? Not everyone even is able
to agree on what "corruption" in government
is, so you will never find one without any.
As a previoius poster noted, sometimes there
are legitimate uses for an earmark.
\_ Name a legitimate use for an earmark. I'm
not certain you even understand what an
earmark is. An earmark is a politician
sticking something into a bill to give
money to some local cronies in their
district which usually has nothing at all
to do with the bill. The bill in question
is typically one of many "must be passed"
pieces of legislation so no one will vote
against it even though it is loaded with
pork. If the allocation of money was
legitimate it would have it's own bill.
Earmarking = corruption. Unless you
already hold office or are the recipient
of said funds.
\_ Earmarks can be legitimately used to
fund specific projects. Don't be
obtuse. -tom
\_ Name a legitimate earmark. Just one.
A specific project can and should get
a specific bill, or be part of a
larger related budget. I expect the
military budget to include funding
for specific weapons and bases. I do
not expect it to include bridges to
no where, funding for DiFi and Pelosi
family and friends, or anything not
related to the military. Either you
don't know what an earmark is or
you're being a total idiot
intentionally. Either way, no one
has posted a single earmarked item
that is legit. Given how many
billions of dollars in earmarks go
out in each budget, you should be
able to name one legitimate earmark,
if there were any. There are not.
\_ Here is $1B worth of earmarks
to improve the CA freeway system.
Are you going to claim that all of
them are unneeded?
link:www.csua.org/u/jma
\_ privatized freeway systems
are cost effective and
better utilized.
\_ Better utilized? Wtf does
that even mean?
\_ So your claim that these
earmarks are corrupt is
based on the idea that
freeways should all be
tollways??! Hoo-kay, please
sign your posts with the
moniker "Libertarian Troll"
next time, so I will know
not to waste my time
researching a reply.
\_ You're kidding right? Of course
a transportation bill has money
for transportation projects.
Why do you even bother? I don't
get it. Do you think no one
will fact check your links? I
specifically said they're
filling the budget with money
for local projects unrelated
to the bill they're attached
to. Transport money in a
transport bill is not what I
was talking about and you knew
that.
\_ The transportation bill is
one of the appropriations
bills that make up the
"budget". It is you who do
not know of what you speak.
He pointed to a "budget" bill
with "earmarks" which you
admit are "valid". You are
clearly too short for this
ride. --scotsman
\_ I was quite specific about
this. If you choose not
to read it and instead
pick and choose single
words out of context to
'feel big', then do so
but don't think you've
actually proven anything.
\_ You have repeatedly
mistaken "earmarks" for
"pork". When called on
it, you got all
defensive and claimed
that everyone else is
an idiot. To earmark
is to set aside monies
for a specific project.
Tom's phraseology is
right. Yours is wrong.
Also, you mentioned
the "Bridge to Nowhere".
I assume you meant
Stevens' $200M joke.
What bill do you think
that was to be in?
Hint: it wasn't in
Defense.
--scotsman |
| 2007/9/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48166 Activity:nil |
9/24 Gosh, why do we even have Proxy Vote for stocks? It's not like any
of us commoners have any power. Look at this for example where
the Board of Directors vote against all commoners' wishes:
02. PROPOSAL FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR
2008 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN.
Directors Recommend: FOR <--- uh, DUH, they want my MONEY
03 . PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE SELECTION OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM OF THE COMPANY
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING MAY 31, 2008.
Directors Recommend: FOR <--- uh, DUH, they suck
04 . STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE CORPORATE
BYLAWS ESTABLISHING A BOARD COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
Directors Recommend: AGAINST <--- uh, DUH, human rights will
get in the way of PROFITS
05 . STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL ON AN OPEN SOURCE REPORT.
Directors Recommend: AGAINST
\_ Duh, of course the recommend stuff that lines their pockets.
Sheesh. This is direct plutodemocracy. You vote with your
dollars. Don't have as many dollars = less voting power. Why
should someone who invested $100m into a company have less say
than you who dropped $5 in? |
| 2007/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48133 Activity:low |
9/20 Someone deleted my CRV question. Where does the money collected
by the CRV end up? I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that some of it
is used to pay refunds, but what happens to the rest? I STFW already.
\_ The first two hits on google for "california CRV money" came up
with very informative articles on this subject:
http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=384
http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=279
about the 6th hit is
http://www.somelifeblog.com/2007/01/californias-redemption-value-increase.html
which goes into great detail on this.
The latter ones two seemed really relevant to your question. At
this point all I can say is LRN2STFW. -ERic
\_ I used Yahoo! and not Google. BTW, thanks.
\_ Its is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
\_ Not blaming the tool. Just saying #1 and #2 hits on
Yahoo! were not informative. In fact, most were not. |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48077 Activity:nil |
9/14 Paging AGONZALES :
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucilaw13sep13,0,5893599.story
[considering what LSUMMERS was booted for, as BDELONG says "Why does
MDRAKE still have a job?"
\_ Right Wing Political Correctness run amok.
\_ Political Correctness run amok.
\- speaking of LSUMMERS:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/09/unclear-on-the-.html
\- speaking of LSUMMERS and UC:
http://tinyurl.com/2kvadz |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48070 Activity:low |
9/14 Another radical leftist on Bush's economic policies:
http://www.csua.org/u/jj5
"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the
weighing of long-term consequences," Greenspan writes of the Bush
administration.
Greenspan said he unsuccessfully urged the White House to veto
"out-of-control" spending bills while the Republicans controlled
Congress. Republicans "deserved" to lose control of Congress in last
year's election because they "swapped principle for power," he said.
\_ Who are you baiting? I don't recall anyone here being an ardent
proponent of high spending.
\_ There sure are (were?) a lot of pro-war pro-spending folks
posting a few years ago. Nice if they all had a change of heart.
\_ You're confusing pro-war with pro-spending. I was appalled
when Bush's first action in 2001 was to do an across the
board increase to every federal budget. I'm still anti-tax,
anti-spending. That has no relation to my opinions on the
war which is a foreign policy decision, not an economic or
political one (for me).
\_ You think the war is free?
\_ Don't strawman, of course it isn't. It also isn't a
"spending" decision as I explained.
\_ It's not a spending decision, it's just a decision
which requires spending! As much spending as all
our other decisions combined! Right!
\_ Snarky was cute in HS. If you have something
worth saying I'll gladly discuss it further with
you but if all you've got is snarky one liners in
response to my serious explanations then don't
bother. Snarky is no longer a successful debate
tactic at this stage of life.
\_ You don't have a serious point. "war is a
policy decision, not a spending one" is
tautological and meaningless. Whether to
embargo Cuba is a policy decision; whether
to go or war or not is a spending decision.
\_ Well, going to war without cutting anything
else is certainly an interesting spending
decision...
\_ Oh they cut things. Taxes for one.
\_ Well, duh... CUTTING TAXES INCREASES
REVENUES DIDN'TCHAKNOW
\_ No, it is not a "strawman" to point out that starting
wars costs money. It is kind of willfully blind to
pretend that it does not.
pretend that it does not. Would you support starting
a war that had a moderate foreign policy gain if it
cost $10T? $100T? Of course cost considers into the
decision. |
| 2007/9/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic] UID:48035 Activity:moderate |
9/12 High School students not allowed to wear US Flag
\_ On 9/11
\_ The day that changed everything!
http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=736551408894700123226loxq4.jpg
http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2007-09-11-0027.html
\_ More imporantly, stupid school bans wearing flags, has
to deal with the consequences of such an assinine rule.
\_ The US flag isn't a foreign flag.
\_ It's a stupid fucking rule. Start banning things just because
they are foreign and you are asking for a much deserved
lawsuit.
\_ I'm pretty sure schools can ban pretty much whatever they
like Anyway, it is a stupid rule, I agree. But the leap
from that rule to baninng the US flag is
mind-boggling. -op (!pp)
\_ No they can't. There are free speach limits even at a
school. And let's take a hypothetical. Hispanic
students start wearing Mexican flags, people get upset
some kids get into fights. The school bans Mexican flags.
(And it doesn't get smacked down.) Now some of the
love it leave it assholes who were also part fighting
start wearing American flags as a fuck you this is America
display (not hard to imagine now is it?) Why is one
acceptable and the other not?
\_ Umm.. because this actually IS ths US?
\_ So why are they banning flags then? Because
"This is America damnit (tm)" or because flags
were causing a significant disruption?
\_ What is wrong with "This is America damnit (tm)"
anyway? Is this *not* America?
\_ Besides the xenophobic viewpoint it's not
appropriate for schools to degenerate into
violence. Why were flags banned in the first
place? Until you get answer that, this is just
squwaking.
\_ Flag Code aside (because that isn't why they
were banned): Banning flags is not the real
issue. The issue is violence. Banning flags
doesn't make the hatred that causes the
violence to go away. Now that I've answered
that, tell me what is so wrong about loving
your country and putting your own nation
above others.
\_ Why not look it up yourself, squwaker? You're
the one asking. Why is it my job to answer
your questions?
\_ Because I'm not the one in hysteronics
about the evil anti-american flag cabal?
\_ Wearing the US flag is a violation of the Flag Code: http://www.legion.org/?section=our_flag&subsection=flag_code&content=flag_respect -tom
\_ So is lowering the US flag to half-mast when some local hero
(e.g. firefighter in your community) dies while in line of duty.
But people do it arbitrarily anyway.
\_ You are incorrect. Half-staff may be ordered by the
president, but that does not preclude respectful displays
by other local authorities at other times.
(Oops. I'm wrong. The order to half-staff can only come
from the President or a Governor. Never mind.)
\_ Yes, it's just funny to see rah rah U-S-A types defending
violations of the Flag Code. -tom |
| 2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:47999 Activity:moderate |
9/10 Will Hsu have as much fallout as Abramoff?
\_ No
\_ Abramoff was a criminal working for other criminal republicans
in an ongoing effort to subvert the usc and all that is right and
\_ Abramoff wa s a criminal working f or other criminal republicans
in an ongoi ng effort to subvert t he usc and all that is right and
good in the world.
Hsu is a victim of racism and an overzealous hostile prosecutorial
system that seems to oppress and limit his natural free speech
right to assist his chosen and righteous candidate obtain high
office so she can fight the good fight for the entire village
against the barbarians.
Hsu is a vic tim of racism and an overzealous hostile prosecutori
system that se ems to oppress and limit his natural free speech
right to assist his c hosen and righteous candidate obtain high
o ffice so she can fig ht the good fight for the entire village
ag ainst the bar barians .
So, no.
\_ I know you think you're funny, but I can't figure out
how Hsu may have benefited from all of contributions.
\_ I kno w you think you're funny, but I can't figure out
ho w Hs u may have benefited from all of contributions.
This is an important distiction.
\_ You can't figure out how a businessman benefits from
contributing lots of money to politicians?
contrib uting lots of money to politicians?
\_ Yeah, I can't actually. What was he selling besides
suckering people into a Ponzi scheme in CA 15 years
ago? Exactly how does holding fundraisers jump start
my Ponzi scheme business that I can't tell anyone about
suck ering people into a Ponzi scheme in CA 15 years
a go? Exactly how does holding fundraisers jump start
my Ponz i scheme business that I can't tell anyone about
because if they figure out who I am I'll go to jail?
\_ If y o u can't see how bundled cash has destroyed our
s yst e m of government then please don't vote.
\_ If you can't see how bundled cash has destroyed our
system of government then please don't vote.
\_ Sorry, is there a quid-pro-quo actually being alleged?
I haven't seen anything other than "convicted felon
gave money, politicians give it away".
I haven 't s een anything other than "convicted felon
gave money, p oliticians give it away".
\_ If yo u ca n 't see how bundled cash has destroyed our
system of g overnment then please don't vote.
\_ If you can't see how bundled cash has destroyed our
system of government then please don't vote.
\_ But... But... Money is SPEECH! You don't want to
LIMIT SPEECH, do you?! Until we have public funding
of elections, bundled money will persist. And
unsavory characters will pop up. You seem to be
insinuating, though, that taking Hsu's money auto-
matically means that politician is corrupt. If you
can't see that's not necessarily true, you're the
one in need of the civics lesson.
\_ Money corrupts. Bundled money corrupts absolutely
and has for a long time. Was there quid pro quo
on this particular bundled cash? I don't know and
I don't care and I don't think it matters. It is
a systematic problem. I have never stated a
preference either way on public funding or the
'money is free speech' concept so I don't know
why you're going there. Money = corruption. Big
money = big corruption. This isn't that hard to
understand. If you're still looking at this as
a "I must defend Hillary from her evil attackers!"
issue then don't bother. She isn't that
important. She's just one symptom of a greater
illness in the government.
\_ So what are you doing about it and what do you
think a solution would be? Just complaining
doesn't do much to help, if anything at all.
\_ This wasn't about what I am personally
doing about it. This is about "does
bundled money corrupt government or not?"
And my answer is "yes it does".
\_ I agree with you 100%. I am just (mostly)
at a quandry as to what to do about it.
Got any suggestions?
\_ What he said, and also, this "pox on both
their houses crap" is for the weak.
\_ How very black and white Bush of you. "You
are either with us or against us!". I'm a
politically aware moderate and if your
party (whichever that may be) keeps pushing
your one sided idiocy your asses will be
out of office. The real power is at the
center in the hands of swing voters. Your
party will displease us at their peril.
\_ Hu is Hsu? |
| 2007/9/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47996 Activity:high |
9/10 A reminder of 6 years ago
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001195.html
\_ Lucky bastard.
\_ Yes, I remember how the Commander-In-Chief finished reading
_My_Pet_Goat_ and then ran away and hid, while America was under
attack.
\_ Nice partisan shot at a non-partisan post. I salute you troll!
\_ Cox and Forkum is non-partisan? In what Universe?
\_ The post itself was non-partisan, irrespective of the rest
of the site.
\_ You are so 9/12. With everything that has happened since then
if wasting 7 minutes for the cameras and then going to airforce
one like he's supposed is still on your mind as being important
at all then vote republican next time. They can use your help.
\_ Who decides what the President is supposed to do in this case?
Most past Presidents had enough personal bravery to fulfill
their responsibility to the nation first.
\_ Yeah yeah nice, join us here with our problems in 2007.
As far as your whining about being on AF1 6 years ago,
maybe standing in front of the whitehouse trying to catch
an incoming 747 would have been a nice gesture but they
still evacuate buildings for anthrax and bomb scares, too.
Next time congress has a scare should they stay there
anyway to show their bravery? You're too stupid to
continue breathing. Please fix that, trollboy. Back here
in 2007 no one gives a crap about pet goats.
\_ That's right, join us in 2007 where we STILL need to
impeach the treasonous SOB.
\_ Treasonous and cowardly.
\_ At least the topic of impeachment is 2007 and is
about things more important than pet goats.
\_ I get what you're saying, but I get a serious
twitch thinking that we're somehow better off now
that we have something more than silly behavior
on which to base a call for impeachment.
\_ No we're not better off, of course but it is
a total head-shaker for me that anyone would
even bother to troll on pet goats at this
point. It's just a stupid waste of bits. As
far as impeachment is concerned, that is and
always has been a political issue, not a legal
one. The *only* requirement is having enough
votes for it. If you got the votes and the
balls, then go for it. If you don't, then
there's no point in mentioning it. I think an
impeachment could be exciting in a spectator
sport sort of way but it isn't going to happen
so what's the point of talking about it? By
"you" I mean "whoever is in power at the time
and doesn't like the current administration
now or at any other time", not "you
personally". I don't expect a random csuaer
to single handedly impeach the US President. :)
\_ You asked for "recollections of 9/11." I
posted mine. Too bad that anything other
than your rose colored vision of the
past is "Trolling" to you.
\_ Yes, Congress should stay to show their bravery. It is
the overreaction to 9/11 that caused more damage than
the event iteslf. If our leaders had shown some courage
and self-sacrifice, the population at large would have
done so as well and we wouldn't be in the mess we are
in now.
\_ Hence the call for impeachment.
\_ You didn't peg the Troll Meter. You just broke it.
You think Congress should stay in a bomb/anthrax
scare building to show their bravery? Complete
waste of precious bits. Get off the net. Find a
bridge to hide under.
\_ There was a time when bravery was considered
a virtue by most and it still is by some of us.
Obviously, you are not one of them. Who are you
to decide who is deserving of having on opinion
or not? Grow up.
or not? Grow up. How many bomb threats a day do
you think Congress gets? Why did they evacuate
Capital Hill because a single-engined Cesssna
flew off course? It was all part of an attempt
to terrorize the sheeple, which apparently took
quite well in your case. Land of the Free,
Home of the Brave, indeed. |
| 2007/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47947 Activity:nil |
9/7 Is Norman Hsu in witness protection program after "falling"
on the train?
http://www.csua.org/u/jgy |
| 2007/9/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:47946 Activity:nil |
9/7 Norman Hsu, big Hillary fundraiser, now under indictmen,
"falls" on trainride to Arkansas:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1892624/posts |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47931 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=09-07-07&storyID=27961 Editors, Daily Planet I flew from Tennessee to California to attend the UT-CAL game this past Saturday. The Cal campus is beautiful. Although I wore the most obnoxious orange clothes and shoes I had, everyone I met was exceedingly friendly and gracious. Except for the fact that my team lost the game (the better team won) everything else about my time and experience in Berkeley and on campus was exceptionally positive. I was, however, slightly unnerved by the people in the trees. Everywhere I went I heard people saying they had high-powered rifles and could be snipers. Although I didn.t take such talk seriously it did create a slight sense of uneasiness. I asked a police official stationed at the base of an occupied tree overlooking the football field if there were any truth to the .rumors.. His half-smile while saying "no" was not very reassuring. The attitude of the authorities and people in California is cavalier and dismissive as if a Virginia Tech or University of Texas Bell Tower incident couldn.t happen there. I know this is very unpleasant, uncomfortable, difficult and even painful to contemplate for some of you but it could happen. Perhaps they have conducted background checks and psychological tests to ensure the people they allow in the trees are emotionally and psychologically healthy and stable. I hope so. Robert W. Overman Memphis, TN |
| 2007/9/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:47929 Activity:nil |
9/7 "World's largest photograph displayed in California"
link:www.yahoo.com/s/670318
Is there anything in that large photo??? All I see is some gray color. |
| 2007/9/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:47908 Activity:kinda low |
9/6 Who would vote for Fred "old, grumpy, get off my lawn white
guy who doesn't seem that different from the other 9 old
grumpy white guys hoping for the repub nomination" Thompson?
I don't get it.
\_ Ching ching!
\_ HILLARY CLINTON WILL NOT BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES!@!!1! |
| 12/23 |