| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2011/5/19-7/21 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:54109 Activity:nil |
5/19 Mildred Patricia Baena looked ugly even for her age. Why would Arnold
have fallen for her??
\_ yawn arnpolitik
\_ is he running for pres yet
\_ Nobody would vote for a pres candidate with such a bad taste.
She looks worse than Monica Lewinsky.
\_ Dr. Phil says that 80% of men who have affairs often have
them with people less attractive than their wife. This is
because they get more ego massaging. It also has to do
with availability/opportunity. However, I do admit that a
rich and famous guy with a good body like Arnold could
have probably done a lot better in LA. |
| 2010/11/7-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53999 Activity:nil |
11/7 "Manly man: Russia's Putin roars off in F1 race car"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_putin_formula_one
I bet this is yet another gesture in his master plan of doing something
opposite to Arnie: transitioning from politician to Hollywood Action
figure.
\_ As long as you don't talk to a unionized teacher, I think many
people could agree Arnold was about as good a governor as he
could have been.
\_ Yeah, those special elections he forced on us which wasted
millions of dollars for no effect were a great move.
\_ He was meh. Much better than Davis. Real leaders get things
done in spite of circumstances.
\_ (12/12) Putin in entertainment spotlight again:
http://www.csua.org/u/s55 |
| 2009/9/24-10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53398 Activity:nil |
9/24 WALKOUT!
http://tinyurl.com/yerq8f5
\_ Education should be free, somebody else should pay for me!
\_ the only "free" education is self-education. someone has to
pay for it.
\_ The person who receives it, of course.
\_ Education is an investment in the future. The State of California
spent a lot of money educating me, which I have already repaid
many times.
\_ Man, this article is full of all kinds of funnies.
"I'm [trying to tell] that it's your right to walk out." It's
also your right not to go to school, what's your point?
"Faculty urged the walkout" ahhh, right.
\_ Faculty did urge the walkout; it started as a letter from
a UC-wide group of faculty, mostly complaining that the
regents didn't listen to the academic senates, who wanted
furloughs to include instructional days. But I'm not sure
who they group today is really protesting against. (It should
be Arnie and the rest of the Jarvisites). -tom
\_ Sorry, by "ahhh, right." I meant "that explains a lot." |
| 2009/9/2-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53319 Activity:low |
9/2 California will survive its crackup:
http://tinyurl.com/qfzdpn
\_ not if we can help it.
\_ I like the comparison with Italy. Maybe someday we can have
dozens of political parties fighting! yay chaos!!
\_ Do you think Italian people have a lower quality of life than
Californians? -tom
\_ Italian italians or immigrants?
\_ Italians in Italy. -tom
\_ Italian Italians or non-Italian immigrants in Italy?
\_ Which Italians and which Californians? Overall, I'd say
I prefer California to Italy for my particular situation.
\_ have you traveleed?
\_ Yes. I am always glad to be back in CA when I return
even though I love to travel. Have you?
\_ I have never left CA and I don't see a damn reason why I
should leave it or travel! CA 4 LYFE!!!!!! |
| 2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate |
8/12 Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University!
http://tinyurl.com/kr92ob (The Economist)
\_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate
revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has
been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time
to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the
institution. Good privates are charging $50K/year. UC would be
a bargain at 1/3 that amount. Stop trying to go back to the
taxpayer well.
\_ 35% of the undergrads at Berkeley are Pell Grant
recipients (which means they're amongst the poorest in
the country). Berkeley leads all universities in that
regard; UCLA has a similar number. The purpose of a
public university is to provide educational
opportunities to the public, including those who do not
have the money to attend a private institution. There
is a clear public benefit to giving access to higher
education to this population, measurable in terms of
reduced need for social services by the individual and
his or her family, increased worker productivity,
reduced incarceration rates, reduced population growth,
etc. All these things benefit the state. California is
the center for industry that it is in large part because
of the historical success of the California public
education system. Turn it into Stanford-lite and you'll
find the next boom happening in North Carolina, or Texas,
or Michigan. -tom
\_ Interesting you mention these, because UC tuition and
fees are less than those for Texas and Michigan. UNC's fees
are cheaper. The education-for-all universities are CSUs.
With the existence of CSU there is no need to keep fees
at UC low. Further, Pell Grants are *federal* funds
and federal aid (likely loans) is likely to rise in response.
Chancellor Birgeneau:
"Ironically, it appears that the group that will be most
disadvantaged by our funding challenges are not those who
are truly low income people but rather the State's
middle-income families. Specifically, current federal,
state and university financial aid plans protect the
poor; however, the middle class - that is, those
whose family incomes fall in the $60,000 to $120,000
range - receive limited aid and the current
disinvestment in higher education by the State of
California will only exacerbate their plight."
In this instance, I am not overly concerned about the
plight of the middle class if fees rise. A family that
makes $90K per year, while not rich, will figure it out.
\_ UC is education for the top students in the state,
whether they come from rich, poor, or middle-class
backgrounds. That's its mission, and it's been a
runaway success as an institution and as a benefit
to the state. -tom
\_ You ignored two of my points:
1. Even the chancellor isn't too worried about your
Pell Grant recipients being able to attend UC.
2. There is good reason to believe the at-risk middle
class students will be able to afford an increase in
fees given increased federal aid.
So even with fee increases the best students will
still be able to attend UC. However, without the
fee increases then why would they want to? I want
to protect this institution, but if you want it to
fall to the level of CSU then keep hoping for
government handouts which aren't going to happen.
I prefer to be proactive and if a was a UC Regent
I'd raise the funds we needed outside of government
by partnering with industry, creating a larger
endowment in flush times (UC's is pathetically low),
and raising fees on students. Hoping taxes go up or
down leaves the issue to the whims of others.
\_ Guess what happens when UC raises more money
from industry, grants, and endowments: the
anti-govermnent ideologues use that as an excuse
to further cut state funding. Endowment for UC, in
particular, is at best neutral and at worse negative
in terms of ongoing funding. (Universities with
large endowments are also getting pummelled right
now. Harvard had 9% of the combined endowment for
all US universities, and they just did 300
mandatory retirements and 270 layoffs).
The question is, how can you fund a great state
university? The question isn't how to turn a
great state university into a private university.
We know how to do that, and it's a bad idea. -tom
\_ Why is it a bad idea? I think UC should look
to the privates for an idea of how to run a
great university. Paying more attention to
your students, but charging them for the
privilege, is a great business model. I
reiterate that UC views its students like an
expense and they should view them like a
source of revenue. UC has a lot of students
who wish to attend - more than it has spots.
If it cannot survive in that environment it
has a problem. Believe me, the students won't
miss that extra $5K/year a decade after graduation
but they will appreciate what it gets them.
Don't you find it odd that the schools that
charge higher fees have more satisfied students
that donate more back to the school rather
than being angry at paying a higher tuition?
I know I had mediocre experiences at both UCB
and UCLA. I would've bitched a lot about fee
increases while in school, but now I realize it's
necessary and I'd pay a few $K more per year
for my kid to have a better education (or
even to preserve what we have). Otherwise,
send my kid to JC or CSU and save a lot of $$$
and just send my kid to UC for grad school.
\_ As I said, it's not like the privates are
any paragon of virtue; they're mostly in
financial straits just as dire as UC. You
can assert that you don't believe in public
education; that's your opinion and you're
entitled to it. But to suggest that,
essentially, California "should" give up
on public education, because of Harold Jarvis,
begs a whole lot of questions, the primary
one being, would California and its citizens
be better off if UC were privatized? It
seems highly unlikely to me. -tom
\_ Let's say for sake of argument that UC
was privatized and tuition was the same
as it is now. Would that be a problem?
Is it the cost you have a problem with
or with privatization? I never argued that
UC should be privatized - only that fees
need to be raised to help defray costs. I
think this is true whether UC is public or
private, because there isn't anywhere else
to get money from. Howard Jarvis has nothing
to do with it and has been a favorite
target of the liberal community for
some time now, but is mostly a red
herring because California's tax
revenues are about the same as they
were pre-Prop 13. You'd better find
another target to pick on, because Prop
13 will *NEVER* be repealed. Ever.
Property owners vote and there will be
a revolution before Prop 13 is repealed,
so better start working on Plan B,
which is to increase income tax rates.
\_ If UC were privatized, its fees would
be like Stanford's. -tom
\_ Please answer the question:
Are you opposed to privatization
or to high fees? If it was public
but expensive, would that be
acceptable? What about private,
but cheap?
\_ You'll have to find someone else
to beat that straw man for you.
-tom
\_ I'm sorry, but privatization
was *your* straw man. I
never mentioned it.
\_ The part of Prop 13 that applies to
commercial owners will be modified or
overturned in the next five years. You\
can take that to the bank.
\_ Possibly, but it's all the same pool
of money. If commercial owners
pay higher taxes they will sell
properties and property values
may fall, which results in less
tax. Tenants will pay more for
leases and will have to raise
prices or close some businesses.
This is what people don't
realize. You can't abolish Prop 13
and have 25% income tax and 10%
sales tax and full employment and
expect to keep as much business
here as exists now. Something has
got to give and it will find a
new equilibrium at around the old
one. There are no secrets here.
Tax revenues are going to be
about what they always have been.
We need to live within that stream
of revenue or grow it by growing
the economy faster than inflation.
\_ You like to use a lot of words
without actually attempting to
prove your point. You're just
reciting. -tom
\_ It is simple economics. You
don't just raise taxes and
expect the status quo to
continue.
\_ And you don't just cut
services and expect the
status quo to continue.
California's success has
been much more a result
of investment in public
education than it has
been a result of ridiculous
ideas about low taxes. -tom
\_ Depends on what the
services you cut are.
That's up for debate.
So don't cut education and
cut something else.
\_ The CA budget is
basically education,
health, and prison.
Only prison can be
reasonably cut. -tom
\_ They can *all*
be reasonably cut.
You just have
to decide where
and how.
\_ Per capita real revenues are down since
Prop 13 and have been trending down for
a long time.
\_ Down 16% but higher now than in 1981
according to at least one study.
However you want to frame it, they
haven't changed drastically. Per
capita revenue is down because we
have a huge influx of people who
don't contribute much to the
economy but take more than their
share from it.
\_ Down 16% is huge. The entire higher
education system is less than 16%
of the overall state budget. First
you claim that per capita is not
down, then you admit that it is.
Which one is it?
\_ Down 16% AT THE MOMENT, but
overall up since 1981. In
flush years (like <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD>
height) it was up. Right
now, in one of the worst
years in a long time, it is
down. Overall, it's about
the same, which is amazing
when you consider the huge
influx of low income and
paid-under-the-table
workers flooding into
California over the last 3
decade which drags down any
per-capita figures.
\_ I agree with you in general, but it isn't like fees haven't
increased. They have increased dramatically since I was
a student in the early 90s. Has spending really outpaced
it by so much? I'd be interested to see a breakdown of
where UC money has come from and gone to over the last 15 years
or so. (anyone know if/where this might be available?)
\_ The UC used to be free, before Reagan decided to punish the UC
for not supporting his policies. The question goes to the heart
\_ If you can't blame Bush, blame Reagan...
\_ Facts are such bitter things.
\_ They sure are. The only reason CA is in its current
budget mess is because of Gray Davis and the Dem
majority state legislature has done jack squat for the
past two decades. Oh yeah, and the unions getting
Arnold's budget props defeated.
\_ In the last 25 years, the governor has been
Republican for all except 4 years. Gray Davis
(from Stanford, by the way) wasn't a great
governor, but it is the ideological position of
Wilson, Schwarzenegger, and the Republicans in the
legislature which has whittled away at UC's funding.
The budget requires a 2/3rds majority to pass, which
is why the Republican minority can hold up the
process as long as they do. -tom
\_ Maybe the Democrats should be more bi-partisan
in their thinking.
\_ That is pretty funny coming from a Republican.
\_ I'm not a Republican. However, consider
this:
The minority party doesn't have the
votes to institute any major changes.
All they can do, politically, is dig in.
It is up to the party in power to reach
out to the minority party to pick up
the few votes it needs for a compromise.
If the Democrats cannot appeal to *any*
Republicans then they are taking the
wrong stance and are just being stubborn.
You can't blame the Republicans for
anything, because they don't have
enough votes to do anything even with
fairly broad Democratic support.
\_ "If you are not with us, then you are
with the terrorists." Does that ring a
bell with you at all? In CA, the GOP
has been able to screw up state finances
with a small minority, because passing
a budget requires a 2/3 majority. What
the Democrats should be trying to do is
over turn this law.
\_ Democrats need 6 votes in the Assembly
and 2 votes in the Senate to have
this supermajority. If they cannot
convince even that few opponents to
see their point of view then they
aren't trying very hard to find a
compromise. I know you'd like to
see a tyrrany of the majority,
but I rather like this current
system because it represents the
interests of more Californians.
\_ Did Reagan institute the first tuition at the UC
or didn't he?
of what public education is for. Is it intended to be a chance
for everyone to have an opportunity to better themselves, or
is it just for the wealthy to entrench their children's position
in society? Californias wealth was founded on the former, btw,
since a lot of talent goes to waste if you just don't educate
well the bottom 80%.
\_ This is when you have to decide what your goal is. If it's
to educate everyone cheaply, then UC can do that with the
cuts. If the goal is to be a world-class institution, then
tuition will have to rise. I think that since Cal State
exists to educate the masses at *very* affordable tuition,
then it's okay to raise fees at UC to something like 1/2
of a comparable private school. I realize fees have gone
up a lot, but it's apparently not enough if cuts have
to be made. The cost of education has gotten very expensive.
I agree that it's too expensive in many instances. However,
that's the econimic reality. If you graduate from a school
like Boston College you will have over $150K in debt. UC
will cost $50K. The State cannot afford to make up the
difference any longer.
\_ Sure we can. The difference today is that we have decided
to spend a whole bunch on putting people in jail, so we
have no money left over for college. As Clark Kerr put it:
The universities are "bait to be dangled in front
of industry, with drawing power greater than low
taxes or cheap labour." It is this vision that has given
California an educated workforce and high standard of
living and we are at risk of losing it. Your point about
the CSU system is well noted, but we are also making it
harder and harder to afford as well.
\_ I agree that the prison system is too expensive, but
not all of that is a choice. If people wouldn't
commit so many crimes we wouldn't need so many
prisons. California is not the white middle-class
paradise it was in the 1950s and as the demographic
has shifted and gangs have grown in prominence more
prisons are necessary. My point was that education
costs have increased faster than inflation for
whatever reason. Privates have responded by jacking
up their tuitions to beyond-reasonable levels and
therefore if UC wishes to compete it must do the same.
A lot of people blame Prop 98 for taking money from
UC, but Prop 98 allocates money to education for all!
If UC is to be an elite university for only the
best (as it was envisioned) then it has to raise tuition
or cut enrollment. Spending on entitlements is only
going to grow to a larger share of the budget
short-term. Raising taxes is not an option. Increasing
tuition is most fair, because it places the burden
on those getting the advantage instead of on everyone.
By "taxing" students via tuition increases, that is
effectively a middle-to-upper class tax increase
since those students will be middle-to-upper class
taxpayers as they pay their loans back (or their
parents already are if daddy is footing the bill).
An added benefit is that the UC has to be more
accountable to students and parents paying the
bills than it does to the anonymous taxpayer and I
believe the quality of education will increase.
This goes back to the idea of considering students
to be sources of revenue (as privates do) versus
annoying expenses (as UC does).
\_ Why is raising taxes not an option? Is there any
sane reason California does not have an oil excise
tax, for example? -tom
\_ Raising income taxes is not an option because the
voters are opposed and would rather see
expenditures cut. We can debate an oil excise
tax, but it's moot because it won't solve the
budget problem anyway.
\_ No single thing will solve the budget crisis.
The ridiculous stand against all conceivable
taxes is the primary cause of the budget
crisis. -tom
\_ It's not a stand against taxes so much
as it is a stand against current levels
of spending. We've already increased
some taxes (like the sales tax) and now
it's time to make some cuts. That
the legislature screwed around on the
budget for so long and didn't do anything
in a time of crisis highlights the need to
cut government. No one is eager to give
more money to those people to spend given
what they've done with what they have
and raising taxes at a time when so
many are already living with layoffs and
pay cuts will create resentment. Most
of us are already squeezed and giving
our last few pennies to the legislature
isn't high on our list of priorities.
However, anyone so inclined can feel free
to mail in a check to help out.
\_ It absolutely is a stand against taxes.
When people are asked which services
they want to cut, the only service
which people want to cut is prisons.
The only reason the legislature screwed
around for so long on the budget is
that Arnold and the Republicans refused
to even consider proposals which
raised taxes, and we have a budget
situation which cannot be solved
without raising taxes. (Despite
there now being a "balanced" budget,
it's only through accounting tricks
such as paying this year's final
paycheck on July 1 next fiscal year;
we're going to be in the same
position figuring out the 10-11
budget). -tom
\_ Not true. People want to cut lots
of things, including more
furloughs for State employees,
less healthcare for illegal
immigrants, and cutting
enrollment at UC. Arnold gave the
voters a chance to avoid cuts and
the public said they want cuts!
So make the cuts! I think cuts
are overdue and if they are
really hurt then we know we cut
deep enough. There hasn't been a
good housecleaning in a while.
\_ Horseshit. Arnold's initiatives
were complete garbage, and
they wouldn't have stopped a
single furlough. They generated
almost zero money! The initiatives
were just a way to further
handicap the legislature's
ability to do anything about
the budget (by shackling them
with more and more rules). -tom
\_ "Cutting enrollment at UC"?
Are you serious here or just
trolling? Show me the polls where
CA voters want to cut UC enrollment.
\_ I'm a CA voter and I'm in
favor.
\_ The Legislature "screwed around" because
of the obstructionist minority GOP.
\_ You mean the party who actually
listened to the voters instead of
their own agenda?
\_ Really, there was an oil excise
tax and a tobacco tax on the
ballot? I must have missed
that proposition. -tom
\_ Hmmm. The legislature put
the initiatives on the
ballot. The legislature is
comprised mainly of...?
Prop 1A was a tax hike and
was voted down. Maybe you
missed that.
\_ Prop 1A was not a tax hike.
It included continuing an
existing tax in a future
year (would have had no
impact on 09-10 finances),
and a whole bunch of stupid
shit about the rainy day fund.
-tom
\_ If it doesn't pass, then
taxes will go down. Of
course it's a tax hike.
It was voted down.
\_ You're an idiot. -tom
\_ Nice retort. I
expected better
from you, but I
guess this is
all you have in
the face of the
facts.
\_ The next time
I'm at the top
of a hill, I'll
remember that
not going down
can be considered
a hike. -tom
\_ Oh come on.
The proposition
was to raise
taxes in future
years. Without
it, taxes will
decline. So it
is a tax hike.
What's even
more damning is
that voters
didn't even
want to vote
for the status
quo, let alone
new higher
taxes. In
effect, they
voted for a tax
*decrease*.
\_ If the prop
were only
about the
tax, you
might have
a point.
It wasn't
and you
don't. I
would have
voted for
continuing
the tax; I
voted
against
the rainy
day shit.
-tom
\_ People are actually not committing any more crime,
we are just locking them up longer for the crime
that they committ. Crime rates are way down from
the 70s and 80s. This is true even in states that
did not get tough on crime, so maybe it is time to
rethink our sentencing policies. I can sort of see
your argument as long as we are willing to lend
even poor students enough money to fund their
education.
\_ The crime rate is back down to the level of
the early 1970s, which is still above that of
the 1950s and 1960s. Do you really want to
return to the crime rate of the late 1980s
and early 1990s? That is what will happen if
we rethink our sentencing. It seems to me that
our sentencing is working very well as the tough
on crime stance coincides with a reduction
in crime. The problem isn't the number of
people locked up. It's how much we are paying
to incarcerate them. California pays almost
60% more per prisoner than other large states.
That cost has to come down.
\_ We should ship them to prisons in India.
Outsourcing something like this isn't
rocket science like R&D, and Indians
are super cheap.
\_ I actually agree with outsourcing. Maybe
not India (too far for visitation) but
to states that do this more cheaply
(and better) than we can.
\_ Maybe you missed the part where I said that
even states that have lower incarceration rates
than CA saw a similar drop in crime. Correlation
does not imply causation. It is almost certain
that there are other factors which lead to all
or most of the drop in the crime rate.
\_ Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that
releasing a lot of inmates isn't going to be
*good* for the crime rate. Most of them
end up back in jail when released anyway.
\_ We wil find out pretty soon, won't we?
The murder rate is down, even though
we are in a recession. I don't think that
violent crime is going to go up, though
perhaps the amount of drug use will.
\_ Murder rate is down b/c so much of the
riff-raff is in jail! (possibly)
\_ The incarceration rate has not
increased from 2008-2009, but the
murder rate went down.
\_ Welcome to the reality that not everyone should go to college.
if they did, our standard of living would go down, nobody to
run the services well.
\_ Yes I agree! We should also legalize illegal immigrants who
are the backbone of Los Angeles. The Angelinos have it good,
everything is so cheap there and gourmet tacos like Lolo,
Mercedes Hair of the Dog Cantina are everywhere and they're
just called... tacos!
\_ Wtf? Dude the czech woman who cuts my hair is an Ex Model
from EU, Think I want her to go to college so I can get
some ugly fat woman cutting my hair?
\_ What are they called elsewhere?
\_ In Northern Cal, Mexican food is gourmet food. In LA,
it's just called food.
\_ We have gourmet Mexican and Mission Burritos, we go
the whole gamut. I think LA does too.
\_ I get 'mexican food' from the little holes in the wall.
what is this 'gourmet' you speak of? |
| 5/16 |
| 2009/7/22-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53179 Activity:low |
7/22 "California Apologizes to Chinese Americans"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090721/us_time/08599191198100
\_ That 1850 picture of that Chinese man is pretty damn good for
a 1850 picture. In fact, too good for a 1850 picture. I'm
willing to bet that it's a forgery.
\_ where's the picture?
\_ Oh weird, they took it out. It was there this morning
\_ We have always been at war with east^Weurasia. |
| 2009/3/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52721 Activity:nil |
3/16 RECALL RECALL RECALL!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/16/MN9T16DDOA.DTL
\_ 47 states facing deficits:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711 |
| 2009/3/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52714 Activity:low |
3/15 "California due to release 1970s radical Olson"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090315/ap_on_re_us/sla_olson
How did someone with such a rap sheet only get to serve seven years in
prison?
\_ How did someone with such a rap sheet only get to serve seven years
in prison?
\_ You may want to look up the difference between attempted and actually
committed crimes.
\_ You may want to look up the difference between attempted and
actually committed crimes.
\_ The difference is "she screwed up", not "she changed her mind". |
| 2009/2/17-25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52594 Activity:moderate |
2/17 Calculate how much you're about to get taxed per year for the next 5
years:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html
\_ $2000 for me. Pocket change, considering that I'm well over 6 dig salary
Even if I pay 10X, if it improves traffic conditions, air quality,
better city planning, less crime, etc, I'm all for it. Then again,
I'm a socialist, so I want to see social programs done right
\_ Just repeal the stupid Prop 13 (appeals to poor liberals most of whom
are renters), put a tough border + deport illegal immigrants who are
leeching on our infrastructure costs (appeals to conservatives).
That solves 1/2 of the problems.
\_ Just repeal the stupid Prop 13 (appeals to poor liberals most of
whom are renters), put a tough border + deport illegal immigrants
who are leeching on our infrastructure costs (appeals to
conservatives). That solves 1/2 of the problems.
\_ When your landlord's property taxes go up who do you think
is going to cover the difference? Hint: you.
\_ I rent in a rent-controlled place but yeah, I could imagine
rent going up for a bunch of people.
\_ $2000 for me. Pocket change, considering that I'm well over 6 dig
salary. Even if I pay 10X, if it improves traffic conditions, air
quality, better city planning, less crime, etc, I'm all for it.
Then again, I'm a socialist, so I want to see social programs done
right.
\_ Since you are a socialist and $10K is pocket change then pay
my share, too. Thanks!
\_ paying individual is capitalism. Sorry.
\_ Not me. My share to the glorious state, comrade. Clearly
you can afford to pay much more than you are.
\_ Uh, it's not going to improve conditions, why would you expect
that it would?
\_ Do you honestly think that we can chop $15B from the state
budget without any reduction in services?
\_ 1) !reduction != improvement
2) Gov't has DOUBLED IN 10 years! Have you seen a doubling
of services?
\_ Apparently you still don't understand math.
\_ What do you intend to cut then?
\_ The current compromise only has real cuts of $3B. Most of
the "cuts" are reductions in planned increase. So the
actual proposed cuts are 3%.
\_ And $15B in new taxes right? Which you claim are
unneeded. Where would you chop the state budget by
$15B?
\_ Just about anywhere. Across-the-board cuts.
\_ Close the prisons and let the prisoners all out?
That would just about do it. Or shut down the
CSU and Community Colleges?
\_ I've worked as a contractor at "Department of Health Services"
when I was in school. There are PLENTY of people who can be cut
and not cause ANY drop whatsoever in service level. Now, if you
ask me if I think they'll cut the right set of people, of course
not. Incompetent at one thing almost always implies incompetent
at other things, like the ability to determine incompetence in
people.
\_ So your solution to the budget crises is "fire all the
imcompetent people" which you believe to be impossible?
\_ $570/year for me. I'm with pp, this is well worth it.
\_ *WHAT* is well worth it?
\_ $570/year to keep the unwashed masses from losing all hope
and burning down my neighborhood.
\_ That $570/year will fund Irvine and Orange County's
shuttle-homeless-to-Venice program. Works wonderfully.
Crime has gone down in Irvine+OC by at least 25% since
the program started, and may I add that Laguna Beach
is a lot cleaner now than 5 years ago? OC OC OC!!!
\_ I'd rather spend $570/year to give kerosene and
matches to the homeless and set them loose in OC.
Your enclave has no soul, and neither do you.
\_ Uh, I was just trolling as a typical lame OC person
that I totally despise. I hate OC but people in
it love OC and their BMWs and their homes -pp
\_ Then you and I are brothers. Here's your
kerosene tank. Party time TBD.
\_ You're also black? Cool man.
\_ Silly troll. |
| 2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52590 Activity:high |
2/16 California is truly f'd for sure this time. Can we find another pair
of stupid radio DJs to start a drive to recall Arnold?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=3&hp
\_ It will only help if we get a governor with a spine, and get rid of
the incompetent legislature.
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the 2/3rd
requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the
2/3rd requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
creating permanent seats for wackos and wingnuts on both sides
of the debate, we essentially have tyranny of the nutty
minorities. I don't see how you fix California without having
a constitutional convention, and I can't see how that would
ever happen.
\_ We can amend the constitution with an initiative. In the past
the super-majority to pass a budget issue was put in front
of the voters and they voted it down, they might be more
receptive after this year.
\_ I actually like the super-majority rule. Why don't they
cut more spending? They talk about the budget as if
it's set in stone and there's no way to solve it except
raising taxes.
\_ What is the rationale for tyranny of the minority for
simple rule changes?
\_ Example of simple rule change?
\_ Redistricting is the only thing that will fix the legislature
problem IMO.
\_ I thought a proposition to redistrict passed in the
last election?
\_ Redistricting plus removal of the 2/3rds rule plus removal
of the set-asides. California's troubles are a layer cake.
\_ Oh hell no. The 2/3 requirement for RAISING taxes needs
to remain. In fact, it should be 2/3 for raising total
expenditures.
\_ Ah, I see. You're actually a wingnut.
\_ No, we got into this mess because as fast as
revenue went up, we spent even more, vastly
outpacing inflation + population growth.
\_ Where are you getting your figures?
\_ http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx
Spending in 97-98 = 52.8B, 07-08 = 102B
Spending based on pop + infl:
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20090126.shtml
\_ What is the figure of population +
inflation? The reason article is playing
games with averages that make it very
difficult to tell how honest he is
being. This article is more balanced imo:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3020153
\_ GDP is going to grow a bit faster
than population + inflation.
\_ Why do you think its the governator's fault when the budget has been
hung up in the legislature all this time?
\_ The governor has vetoed a compromise, and the Republicans
refused to override his veto.
\_ Really, the problem is not so much legislative incompetence
as legislative inexperience. The problem is term limits,
which ensures that no one in the legislature has the experience
or the relationships to work through a budget impasse like
this one. -tom
\_ The budget has doubled in 10 years, and rose faster under
Arnie than under Davis. The Governor has line-item veto. He
could fix this problem if he wanted to, but instead worked on
budgets that papered over problems for years.
\_ line-item veto only works when there is something to veto.
The budget is still stuck in legislature....
\_ Shouldn't budget numbers be looked at as a constant % of
GDP rather than absolute dollar value? Some folks like to
bitch that spending has gone up 82% since 1998, but so
has GDP. Looking at things in terms of relative share
is important.
\_ Do we have to spend every freaking dollar? If GDP
went up 82% then what if we increased spending 60%?
Would that be wrong?
\_ It would be wrong if the state does not have enough
money to provide the services it should. For
example, per-student funding to UC has dropped
40% since 1990. So yes, if the state gets more
money, it needs to spend it to begin to restore
services which have been cut in previous hard
budget times. -tom
\_ Our tax burden is still among the highest in the
nation (#6 I think). We should be able to confine
ourselves to such a budget without putting
the state in danger of insolvency like the
Democrats + Arnie are doing by refusing to make
any meaningful cuts.
\_ We are no where near #6.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005
http://tinyurl.com/9mv2z (Money Magazine)
\_ this isn't 2005 (although even taking that
data I think my post still stands to reason)
\_ What, taking the data that California
is actually in the middle of the pack
in terms of state and local tax rates?
And of course, California's average
income is higher, which pushes the
tax burden higher. And doing things
in California costs more (land and
salary), so we need more state money
per capita to provide the same
services. Do you have anything other
than ideological ranting? -tom
\_ It's not middle of the pack.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Average income being higher does
not push the tax burden higher,
are you on crack? Tax burden is
a function of tax rates.
A rich state should actually get
away with less, because govt's
costs do not scale linearly
with income. A car in CA still
costs the same as a car in OK,
basically. Land is not a recurring
cost, in general.
Also, for tax burden, it is much
worse for CA when you look at the
burden on those who actually pay
the tax. CA's income tax is very
progressive and we have a large
population of low-income freeloaders.
\_ Are you really this stupid? Among
other things, a car in CA pays
20% more for gas. Property is
absolutely a recurring cost, and
I noticed you completely ignored
the question of salary. -tom
\_ You are a complete idiot. The
car itself costs the same.
Land itself is not a recurring
cost either.
I said "costs do not scale
linearly" not that there are
no higher costs. Higher
income trumps those costs.
\_ Let me put it this way;
how much more do you think
it costs to do business in
California, compared to,
say, Kansas City? Are you
really trying to make the
assertion that California
business operators spend
about the same as Kansas
City business operators?
-tom
\_ We need to deport IMMIGRANTS
\_ Nope, like I said, he's another
wingnut. Part of the problem.
\_ We have the highest income, sales, and
gas tax in the nation.
\_ Where do you get your BS from?
Tennessee has 9.25% sales tax.
NY has the highest gasoline tax.
CA has very low property taxes,
as I am sure you know.
\_ Low in terms of % of value,
but not in absolute terms.
We pay about the same property
tax as everywhere else and
a high income tax to boot.
\_ Paying the same dollar
amount on a mansion in
Malibu and on a shack in
Wyoming is not "paying
about the same property
tax." You're a moron. -tom
\_ A mansion in Malibu
pays a lot more tax
than a shack in Wyoming.
Stupid argument. Reality
is that California is
#26 in local property tax
collections per capita
and #20 per household.
http://tinyurl.com/aopmde
\_ And top-3 in property
value. -tom
\_ So? That doesn't
mean we should be
top-3 in taxes paid.
I know your dream
is to be #1 in this
particular category,
but some of us think
paying average taxes
is just fine and
that the State
should be able to
survive with that
given that income
taxes are also high.
I don't use any
more services here
in CA at my $650K
house than I do at
my $150K house in
another state. In
fact, that house is
bigger but the tax
bill is much less.
Cost of living is
less there, too, but
not *that* much less.
You just love to pay
taxes. I'm happy at
#20 for property
tax. Feel free to
mail in more on my
behalf when your
next bill is due.
\_ Services cost
more to provide
in California,
due to higher
land, labor,
fuel and food
costs; therefore,
the state needs
more money to
provide the
same services
as cheaper
states. That's
why our state
services are
massively
underfunded. -tom
\_ Do you think
services cost
8x more,
because that's
the difference
in property
tax I pay even
though the
cost of living
is only 40%
less and the
other house is
2x the size. I
assure you
that the fire
and police
work just as
well and that
the schools
are better
than in most
of CA. Our
services are
not
underfunded.
We allocate
money
incorrectly
and, sad
to say, the
illegal
immigrants
are sucking
the State's
coffers dry
by using
services they
do not pay for.
do not pay
for.
\_ You have
no content.
Goodbye.
-tom
\_ Loser.
I give
you a
real
example
of
property
tax
disparity
dispar-
ity
and you
can't
handle
the
truth.
\_ I agree with you that Arnie has been very
fiscally irresponsible but at this point the
GOP is being reckless. Aren't they just as much
to blame for pushing the state towards fiscal
insolvency?
\_ No, because they aren't the ones who added
the spending. The Dems and Arnie busted
the budget repeatedly even during the times
of bubble-inflated tax revenues.
\_ They had their share in busting budgets,
if nothing else, they could have shut the
state down during the boom years. Now
they are just appearing as immature
obstructionists.
\_ I agree. If conservatives hadn't decided to push for
three-strikes and put all those extra people in
prison, we wouldn't be in this mess. We warned you
at the time that it going to get too expensive.
\_ Don't forget the "car tax" cut!
\_ Or Prop 87, when California tried to put
royalties on oil production (like almost every
other state does, when oil or mineral
resources are extracted) and was opposed by
the GOP, combined with Big Oil. |
| 2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52587 Activity:nil |
2/16 By the way, you had better hope you're not owed a CA state tax refund
this year. You'll be getting an IOU instead:
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/refund_delay_2008.shtml
\_ It was less than $300 for me, so I just redirected it to 2009
estimated tax.
\_ Mine was around 2 grand. Ouch! -op
\_ File amended return. Apply to current year, then decrease
your current withholdings by the same amount. You get your
refund whether CA likes it or not.
\_ What's the best web site to calculate the optimal W2
number for withhold?
\_ who cares about 1 month delay? You living paycheck by paycheck?
\_ I have no faith in Arnold and the idiots^H^H^H^H^HGOP in the
ledge. |
| 2009/2/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52533 Activity:moderate |
2/8 Why California budget is such a mess:
link:www.mercurynews.com/ci_11649004
Most of it is frome the Republican favorites of prisons and tax cuts
for car drivers.
\_ Gray Davis is the one who caved to the prison guards union.
\_ The GOP has been the "get tough on crime" party since the days
of Nixon.
\_ Maybe, but:
1. I don't see them Democrat-controlled Congress doing
any different
2. The voters seem to agree when they vote for things
like 3 strikes
3. Gray Davis is the one who thought prison guards need
to make $150K per year. He's not a Republican.
\_ Prison guards don't make $150k/yr. Why do you spread
this kind of BS? They make the exact same as CHP officers,
in fact (which might be too high, but it is nothing like
your claim, it is more lik $80k/yr). I agree with you on
the voter part.
this kind of BS? The base pay for a senior guard is
$73k/yr, which might be too high, but is no where near
your claim. Starting salary is $43k/yr.
I agree with you that "the voters" have
agreed with the GOP on this issue, at least in the past.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost from the
irresponsible big government spending the GOP has
pushed for.
\_ I know a girl whose bf is a prison guard in the
Central Valley. With overtime he routinely makes
$120K-150K and even up to $200K some years. CHP can
make almost as much, too. Certainly 6 figures.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060227-2124-guards-staff.html
\_ People routinely lie about their salaries.
There is a public database that has all California
State salaries. Show me a prison guard making $200k
per year. Do you think that people who do overtime
should not get paid for it? Your article claims
that one in ten make 6 figures (with lots of
overtime) and this is of course an entirely
different claim than your original assertion
that prison guards make $150k. "... the average
year-end gross pay for a stateprison guard last
year was $72,000."
\_ My article shows one made $187K in 2006 so it
is entirely possible. Maybe the average is
not $150K but if 10-15% are making $100K+ (up
to $187K) and the rest are making $70K I'd
say you are splitting hairs. Yes, prison
guards (at least some) do make $150K per year.
That is not a lie.
\_ The average is $72k so half (or so) are making
less than this. Surely you know what an
average is. From your article "An analysis of
state payroll data shows the average base pay
last year for a guard was $57,000." The guy
making $150k must be working 90 hrs/wk or
something. Hard to begrudge him getting paid
twice as much if he does the work of two men,
though perhaps the state should try and
distribute the overtime more evenly. The claim
that one (in 20000) prison guards makes $150k
a year is pretty amazingly different from the
claim that "prison guards make $150k/yr" and
you are disingenuous to claim otherwise.
distribute the overtime more evenly.
you are disingenuouss to claim otherwise.
you are disingenuous to state otherwise. |
| 2009/1/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52437 Activity:nil |
1/21 http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/1560581.html "In the midst of a $40 billion budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed former Democratic Assemblywoman Nicole Parra to a newly created $128,124-a-year job and named former Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian to a board slot with a similar salary, his office announced Tuesday." \_ We're going to focus on a $128K salary that may or may not be justified when the hole is $40B? \_ Read the article. It's a symtom of the problem. During Arnie's term the number of 100K and 200K salaries have exploded. Arnie also promised to rein in these boards. So while our disfunctional legislature refuses to cut spending, he's adding to the budget. Bye bye CA, was nice knowing you. \_ Can we impeach him now? |
| 2009/1/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52362 Activity:moderate |
1/12 Californians fleeing to other states in record numbers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/ap_on_re_us/fleeing_california
\_ Thank god, I hope this will ease up with congestion. On the
other hand, this may result in Latino explosion... hmmm....
\_ OH NOES! THE LATINOS ARE COMING!
\_ I don't mind more Salma Hayek and Yurizan Beltran.
\_ "...in fact, the state's population continues to increase
overall"
\_ Yay!
\_ So you think California sucking ass is a good thing? Did
you read the article?
\_ I think that California could do with a little more fleeage.
\_ I would flee CA if my job wasn't so awesome.
\_ It's in the 60s in January here in SFBA. It's 16 in Kansas. Not
moving.
\_ It's in the 80s here in SoCal in January, which is why
I did move. Arizona and Florida are also nice this time
of year, so it's not all about weather.
\_ But Arizona and Florida suck in the summer.
\_ Suck in general. Sorry, can't stand most of non-
California's attitude toward race and politics.
\_ link:www.csua.org/u/nai
\_ do you have a thick accent and wear People's
republic of Berkeley tshirts?
\_ what year are you living in, new england is fine.
\_ Boston is the new Sunnyvale.
\_ Somerville is the new Sunnyvale. |
| 2009/1/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52318 Activity:kinda low |
1/5 congrats, al franken.
\_ Why are you congratulating him for theft?
\_ welcome to the new government, when lawyers, not voters decide
who rules. I welcome our now obvious lawyer overlords.
\_ New? You forget Bush vs. Gore.
\_ They counted the votes according to state law. Franken had
more of them. The process was pretty transparent, especially
compared to FL in 2000.
\_ You're 8 years too late to think that joke's gonna fly.
\_ http://www.theonion.com/content/news/supreme_court_overturns_bush_v |
| 2008/11/7-13 [Politics/Domestic/SIG, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51880 Activity:nil |
11/7 Why I'm not buying GOOG (special interest & conflict of interest):
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Google-Makes-First-Political-Contributions/story.aspx?guid={D98D82C9-98B9-4A0C-96F6-414DA5AEC365}
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44125
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/technology/google_democrats/index.htm
\_ You know at this point I think GOOG in all honesty does not care
even a tiny tiny tiny bit whether an individual investor wants
to buy their stock. |
| 2008/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51781 Activity:moderate |
11/2 EXTREMELY long rant against Proposition 8 and judicial
activism relocated to /tmp/MarriageRant. Read it there.
Leave it there.
\_ The rant there is *for* prop 8
\_ Pro prop 8 guy needs to be squished. I'm voting against Prop 8
for the sake of giving conservatives my message: Get your
entire fucking conservative family out of my state. Go back
to Utah and Texas.
\_ Yeah! No Free Speech for Facists!
\_ Prop 8 guy needs to be squished for scripting the motd, not
for his politics.
\_ Since 61% voted for 22, I think you're the one in the wrong
state.
\_ eight years is a long time
\_ Indeed, the judicial decision overturning Prop 22 was 4-3.
\_ prime example of legislating from the Bench.
the US is for the people by the people. .not by judges
\_ Of course Arnold vetoed a bill allowing gay marriage
saying it was something for the courts to rule on.
But don't stop that from influencing your talking points.
\_ The POWER of sed
\_ TL:DR |
| 2008/11/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51777 Activity:kinda low |
11/1 SCHWARZENEGGER: [W]hen Americans go into that voting booth on Tuesday,
I hope that you will think about this. If you were in a POW cell, with
the threat and danger and torture as part of the daily life, who would
you want in that cell with you?
AUDIENCE: John McCain!
\_ Where were the lovely folks with their "Vote McCain! Not Hussein!"
chant?
\_ It depends on whether you prefer DILF or interracial. |
| 2008/10/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51684 Activity:nil |
10/25 Voted today down at the Alameda Registrar (courthouse between 13th
and 12th, on Oak in Oakland). Easy to do, highly recommended.
Exactly the same as filling out an Absentee Ballot. --erikred
\_ Can I do this on a sunday?
\_ Absolutely: http://www.acgov.org/rov/earlyvoting.htm
Saturday and Sunday: 10:00 am to 3:00 pm
\_ How do i do this in San Francisco?
\_ Civic center.
\_ More details on Early Voting on http://SFGate.com:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/55b4kx |
| 2008/10/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51580 Activity:low |
10/19 Colin Powell endorses Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8
\_ Apparently the freeptards are already calling him a 'racist'
\_ One fewer reason why I should vote for McCain.
\_ One fewer reason why I should vote for McCain. Now if only the
Governator can also endorse Obama (he endorsed McCain), my choice
Governator could also endorse Obama (he endorsed McCain), my choice
would be finalized. |
| 2008/9/25-29 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign] UID:51290 Activity:nil |
9/25 Father abandons 9 children to be cared for by the State of Nebraska:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlZbpXbUt5CbF3Ra6tEc-6uzzToAD93DPJO84 |
| 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++ |
| 2008/8/25-31 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50956 Activity:nil |
8/25 Greens against clean tech
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901822110148233.html
\_ A sizeable (or at least very vocal) part of the green movement is
against any increase in power generation. |
| 2008/8/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50809 Activity:nil |
8/6 Why should offshore drilling be a federal issue? Why not just let the
states whose shores are involved decide whether they should allow
drilling?
\_ For the most part, they already do.
\_ Because they have these weasel words in the Constitution that
allow for broad federal control, like "general Welfare",
"common Defence", and "regulate Commerce".
\_ What happens when drilling off the Oregon coast causes a massive
spill that floats over to NoCal?
\_ the governator sends the CA nat'l guard to invade |
| 2008/8/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50779 Activity:nil |
8/4 The Governator wants to increase the sales tax, thanks Republicans,
can we impeach this guy now? Why doesn't he just raise the VLA,
which he should have never lowered in the first place?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gespy
\_ Uh, the Gov. is barely an R. It's the legislature that can't stop
spending, even though revenues are up 40% over the last 4 years.
[added later] And no, I'm not excusing the Governor. He's been
trying to paper over the deficit instead of solving it for the past
several years. |
| 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 |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50603 Activity:nil |
7/16 Another stupid argument for an armed citizenry
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/021014.php
\_ Hey lefites, if you disagree, feel free to comment, but don't change
my text. -op
\_ Hey lefty censors, stop editing my post. -op
\_ Ok so if the father arms, great. What if 8 men are armed as
well? Then you end up with a dead father and a raped
daughter. Fucking trigger happy Conservatives.
\_i guess liberals like bending over..
\_ I guess yermom is a liberal then
\_ Who needs weapons when you have KUNG FU!
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9913246 |
| 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. |
| 2008/6/10-13 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50214 Activity:kinda low |
6/10 so who is going to be the vp pick?:
Jim Webb: .
Carly Simon: .
Dick Cheney: .
!psb: .
Alexis May: .
Mary Cook:
That hot pol vaulting chick: .
ALGOR: .
\- must not destroy robot
\_ I am pretty sure there will be two of them, though it would be
pretty amusing if both the Democratic and Republican candidates
had the same VP candidate.
\_ McCain is going to pick Hillary. You heard it here first.
\- would you like to bet? --psb
Colin Powell:
Governator: |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:50012 Activity:nil |
5/20 "California proposes porn tax" link:www.yahoo.com/s/884494 Gee, we should have elected Mary Carey instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. \_ that's for sure. \_ She probably has bigger stones than he does. |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:49972 Activity:nil |
5/16 fans of gay people, here is coverage and numerous photos
of reaction to gay marriage decision in San Fran-sissy:
http://jameth.livejournal.com/tag/gay+marriage
\_ Why the hell are the justices mostly Republicans?
\_ Why do you ask? What does it matter?
\_ The Republican Party should excommunicate these RINOs.
Schwartzenegger too, he is not of sufficient ideological
Schwarzenegger too, he is not of sufficient ideological
purity. |
| 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! |
| 2008/2/1-7 [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. |
| 2008/1/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48968 Activity:low |
1/18 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22725498 Bush calls for $145b tax relief (cuts) to rescue us from recession! Go trickle-down-economy! Reaganomics works! \_ Well, the other side is saying we should transfer wealth from rich to poor. And? \_ It is good that Bush and Republican Congress have been fiscally responsible, so that now we are in a downturn, we can spend some of the money we have been saving the last seven years. \_ You do realize that's one of the reasons R's are pissed at Bush and congress, right? And why some of use went to I? -emarkp \_ Yeah, I have heard some grumbling from my evangelical (R) brother. Did you switch to I? Is there any chance you will actually vote for a D? \_ Yes I did, and (for instance) I never voted for the Governator. If a D had a decent plan, I'd be happy to vote for him/her. But it's gotta be more than Hope or Change -emarkp \_ Unfortunately the R version of "saving" is moving money into the pockets of the rich. \_ If the rich buy more fences to keep out the poor, they'll have to hire the poor to build them! Yay, stimulated economy! |
| 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 |
| 2007/10/24-25 [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. |
| 2007/10/7-11 [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 |
| 2007/9/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:48022 Activity:nil |
9/11 http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062706C Beliefs as trust cues. (This guy apparently is affiliated with Cato, although this doesn't appear to be a Cato-related essay.) -- ilyas \_ Good article. \_ Agreed, a good article. However, I found two of his references suspect: Lawrence Summers' remarks vis-a-vis diversity, while based loosely on good empiricism, drifted into speculation not necessarily supported by empirical observation; and Wade's comments on the objective assignment of race by way of genetic markers tied to continent of origin ignores the fact that races are overly broad categories that ignore immense genetic variation within the target population while reinforcing popular misconceptions of varying aptitudes and social tendencies among members of given races. Mind you, the trust cues I get from this piece ID Kling as a Conservative, but I gather that he thinks of himself as more of a rationalist. |
| 2007/6/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:47012 Activity:kinda low |
6/19 Bloomberg leaves GOP, probably as prelude to third party presidential
run. This will split R vote, leading inevitably to PRESIDENT HILLARY
HAHAHAHAHA DOOOMMMMM!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics
\_ Bloomberg is a RINO, won't he take more D votes than R?
\_ being a RINO sounds great now. Who'd want to be a real
Republican?
\_ Fo real, anyone else want to announce they're leaving that
load of bull behind?
\_ Yah, this was only the formal announcement of something we already
knew. Arnold will hopefully be next.
\_ I'm sure it has nothing to do with the R party's current
connotation with corruption and spectacular incompetence.
\_ How will Arnold run for president? That whole Constitution
thing and all...
\_ The Governator is trying to change the Constitutuion on that.
\_ Demolition Man!
\_ When I said "Arnold will hopefully be next" I meant the next
to drop the pretense of being an R. -pp
\_ Bloomwho? No one is voting for Bloomberg and he already said
flat out he isn't running now or ever.
\_ Where did he say that?
\- Bloomberg -> Henri IV
\_ Talking to reporters about 2-3 days ago.
\_ Bloomberg is whatever he thinks he is. He's going to run
a-la Independent. You know how far that got Perot, and Anderson.
He's was not even remotely Republican to begin with.
\_ Then again, maybe not
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/pl_nm/bloomberg_dc |
| 2007/5/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46585 Activity:nil |
5/10 Hey campus employees viewing your new 5 hour
required online ethic course, there's a message
from Regent Parsky at the end:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-05-09/news/parsky-s-party |
| 2007/5/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46583 Activity:nil |
5/10 What happens when you "run government like a business"
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-05-09/news/parsky-s-party
\_ The Post Office is a good example. It's quite successful,
providing better QoS and lowering costs.
\_ No, that's what happens when you run government like an
idiot. I can't really see how what the UC did is
anything like a business, except that a badly run
business would probably have similar problems. |
| 2007/5/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46557 Activity:nil |
5/8 Free Paris!
http://www.csua.org/u/ini |
| 2007/5/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46491 Activity:nil |
4/30 http://429truth.com \_ The truth it out there Fox. \_ Gee, did you notice that was ALREADY ON THE MOTD. \_ Wow, that's a really well written page. |
| 2007/3/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46115 Activity:nil |
3/27 Are you a member of the libertarian party and you're not white?
Are you active in the party? What race are you and how do the mostly
white members treat you? I'm asian-american and I'm thinking of
joining the LP. After reading a lot of the materials on http://lp.org and
http://cato.org, I find that their beliefs are very compatible with mine.
But that's libertarianism at the national level. What about at the
grass roots local level? Is there a lot of minority participation?
Thanks.
\_ If your beliefs can be simplified to the organizations you
belong to or associate with, then that says a lot about your
intellectual inflexibility and overall lack of.
\_ Go to http://freerepublic.com
Now please go away.
\_ Why don't you vote your conscience and use http://match.com for socialization.
\_ Why don't you vote your conscience and use http://match.com for
socialization. |
| 2007/3/27-31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46114 Activity:nil |
3/27 Governor of Mass has 9/11 truther webpage:
http://devalpatrick.com/issue.php?issue_id=7579012
\_ And did you hear? MoveOn had a short film calling Bush Hitler!
\_ I just read most of this, I think this is a community
website that lets anyone who has registered to post
an article, so it's not the Governor or his staff posting
this.
\_ If your beliefs can be simplified to the organizations you
belong to or associate with, then that says a lot about your
intellectual inflexibility and overall lack of.
\_ Go to http://freerepublic.com
Now please go away.
\_ Don't let facts get in the way of a good slander. |
| 2007/3/23-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:46067 Activity:nil |
3/23 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/02/8403410 An interview with the Governator. "Does the GOP get this [global warming]? No. There are people in both parties who don't get it, but I would say I have a tougher time selling those things to the Republicans." \_ Arnold- expert climate scientist \_ Of course, if you're a Republican most likely the belief "maximum growth forever" is encoded somewhere in the lowest layers of your brain. Anything that challenges that belief is automatically rejected like tissue from a donated organ ... Just like trying to convince an evangelical Christian about the validity of evolution. Facts are useless. This is true regardless of whether human caused global warming is true or not -- it just can't be true even if it is true. \_ A corrallary is that Republicans tend to be against federal spending and subsidies, unless said federal spending creates a direct benefit to them - c.f. "Cadillac Desert" and the history of water development in the American West. \_ Wow, neat! You have a URL that backs that up? \- i am not an above poster, but "the records" clearly show at the federal level divided vs single party rule is a better predictor of spending than "ideology. i dunno if DD > RR or RR > DD [probably varies by admin], but RD and DR < RR, DD [where DR = dem president, rep congress]. it might be interesting to see if "structure over ideology" holds true over all the states or if in some states ideology wins out, say goldwater legacy in AZ etc. ok tnx. --psb |
| 2007/2/5-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45664 Activity:moderate |
2/5 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/edwards.2008.ap/index.html "Edwards: Raise taxes to provide universal health care" Edwards will lose. Most Americans hate immigrants and social programs and thus don't want universal anything. It's the era of corporations and privitazition baby! \_ 60-70% polled say universal helth care is the fed's responsibility: \_ Christ this discussion is fucking stupid. -dans \_ 60-70% polled say health coverage is the fed's responsibility: http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm 62% want universal health insurance: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html \_ Move to Canada. \_ No I intend to stay and fight. Where are you going to run to after you lose? \_ Sure, I want someone else to pay my bills, too, but I'm not willing to pay the taxes for it. I'll pay more to get less. Any cash that goes through government hands before turning into a service that you could otherwise buy yourself is always going to cost more and yield less. Government, by its very nature, is inefficient and has costs. No one really believes Edwards "tax the rich" thing. That sort of thing always turns into a universal tax. AMT is the perfect example of sticking it to the rich but nailing the middle class (as always). \_ And who has been in the position to "fix" the AMT for the past 12 years, and did nothing? You spew a lot of talking points, but you're not saying anything. \_ AMT was created decades ago. During the absolute iron fisted rule of both parties during that time and during the creation process itself, no one thought to consider that the numbers didn't scale with inflation. Or didn't care. The "GOP is evuuuul!" meme is tired. Let it rest. If you had something to say on the topic, please join in, but don't waste precious bits with partisan nonsense. Neither party will do jack shit for the middle classes that are already starting to get nailed by this, starting in more expensive states like CA. --gpp \_ This is funny. The pp criticized "government", not a party. "Government" has been in charge for the last 12 yrs. \_ This is a bullshit point. As is "Government == inefficient". And it's a point formed and fed by one party in particular. Ergo my reply. "Government is incompetent, and by God, we're going to prove it." \_ Yes, gov't == inefficient and incompetent is true in general, simply because there's no driving force to fix those problems. See, I can counter your assertion with mine! \_ Yes, Enron did a much better job of supplying California with power than the regulated utilities and the City of Los Angeles. \_ Ah, but it was because of the government's \_ But it was because of the government's handling of energy contracts that Enron was able to screw us. \_ On average, we pay 2x as much for poorer health care than in the socialized medicine countries. The elite can get very good care, but most of the rest of us are screwed. Further, efficiencies will accrue. Preventative care is a lot cheaper. Prescribing diet change, quitting smoking, and exercise costs less than triple bypass surgery. \_ You're insane. Efficiencies do not _ever_ accrue in government services. You can prescribe all you want, no one is going to do it and then you'll need triple by pass surgery. That surgery will be denied by some government flunky because you didn't excercise like the nice government doctor told you so you are not allowed the surgery and die horribly. Good call. \_ Look it's the "you are insane" guy! Welcome back to the guy who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is literally crazy! \_ Ad hominem. Try again if you like. \_ The "you are insane" guy is complaining about ad hominem attacks? Or is that intended to be a compliment??? \_ If you skip the first two words you're obsessing over and try to respond to the points made you'd be on firmer ground. \_ If you'd skip the ad hominem attacks, you'd have a better chance of convincing people that you had a reasonable point worth thinking about. \_ Are you saying that a road system built by corporations would be more efficient? How about a national defense? Those are two areas where Gov't is more efficient at serving the people. There's a lot of inequity and waste \_ Health care is not a public service and does not need to be. It worked just fine before HMO's were allowed to monopolise and destroy the system so the answer is to create an even bigger monopoly but at the federal government level. Oh great, yeah that will be wonderful. A service that requires skill and personal service being provided by government robots. That you can even consider compare the road system to personal health care says volumes. There are zero similiarities. The closest gov't provided personal service I can think of to health care is housing. Oh yeah, The Projects. Section 8 housing has been so uplifting for so many. in the current health system due to insurance overhead. Having Gov't as single-payer (with revenue taxed out of us) would eliminate the insurance nightmare. It would *also* allow for much more safely regulated hospitals. The NTSB \_ So you think your hospitals are unregulated? What? has made commercial aviation the safest mode of travel. You're quite likely to die in hospitals due to medical fuckups which are endemic to the healthcare system, and with gov't regulation could be fixed across the whole system, as the NTSB has done for commercial aviation. \_ Because healing a sick person\ is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Because healing a sick person is just like flying an airplane or running an airport. Uhm, yeah. \_ Does no one here understand the distinction between "health care" and "paying for health care"? The answer becomes increasingly clear.. \_ Who ever has the bucks has the power. You are not going to get quality health care from Doctor A when Government or HMO Flunky B says you don't need that procedure. Once you figure that out you'll see why so many scream about government healthcare. Whoever has the bucks has the power and makes the decisions. In a government/hmo system that isn't you or your doctor. \_ Actually, you're right about the bucks. Nobody can pay their own medical bills, So we buy health insurance, and the insurance company pays the bills. So the insurance company has the power. Their interest is profit, so they make it hard for doctors to collect. This makes it expensive for doctors to collect. Which gets passed onto us--to the point where many of us can't afford health insurance anymore. However, hospitals cannot just refuse someone care because they're poor. (By law.) So doctors have to increase the prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for prices on those of us who do have insurance. This situation is spiralling out of control, and is wasteful. We *could* simply not offer any medical care at all to the poor (poor meaning "not rich", so fuck the middle class as well as the true poor.) *Better* is for the government to get involved, kick out the insurance companies, reduce the overall cost of health care, and make the poor pay for health care again via taxation. And health care *better* be a public service, because Joe Contageous with intractable TB who isn't being treated because he's poor is going to give it to *you*. Right now hospital A kills people with the same damn fuckups that hospitals C, D, E, F, G, H....-->Z have \_ Yes, the federal government is the driving force for innovation in this country. Not even God can save us if that ever becomes true. killed people with because they refuse (and can refuse) to learn best-practices learned elsewhere the hard way, by people dying. \_ I used to believe that about roads and military, but I don't any longer. Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq? Nearly 50,000. I'm fairly confident that if the government employed a few companies to perform military functions, it would be cheaper and more efficient. And the gov't might actually attempt to obey the constitution as well (since it wouldn't have the biggest guns). \_ This is, quite possibly, the most uninformed post evah. \_ If you have something to say, say it. All you've done is stick your tongue out and go, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHEAD!" \_ Because that's all you deserve. Never argue with fools. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. \_ You still said nothing. Here's the best response you can get from what you've said, "NYAH! YOU ARE A DUM POOPYHED TOO!" Now we're at the same level of discourse at least. Or the adult version, "I'm soooo smart and you are soooo dumb I can't even begin to explain it!" which is known as, "I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm going to tell you you're an idiot for not thinking like me, anyway". \_ Iraq has been by far the most expensive war the US has ever fought (yes accounting for inflation). Those 50,000 private security contractors have a lot to do it costing so damn much. \_ Where's your data for this? How much are they costing compared to US uniformed troops in comparable positions? \_ I'm curious as to where your "Nearly 50k" number came from. As the pentagon has claimed they don't have any numbers on contractors in Iraq, they may be interested in your powers of divination. As for the cost overruns, Henry Waxman just started his hearings. After almost 4 years of R delay, he may just be able to get you an answer on that. \_ Well, you are wrong and he is wrong, but just read this and see: http://www.csua.org/u/i08 (Washington Post) \_ An external organization giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ The GAO giving an estimate does not negate my claim that the pentagon has said they don't know how many contractors are in iraq. \_ That wasn't the question. \_ The question was "Do you know how many private security contractors are in Iraq?" The answer is "By necessity, no." \_ What is wrong with the GAO estimate? Why does it matter if the Pentagon knows or not when we're discussing if random motd poster whos or not from another source? Ah, I see. P has blessed the results of the external survey. the external survey. So you're taking them as the Pentagon claim. So.. the auditiors have to tell the P just how many contracts they've given out... You don't see a problem here? \_ I see no problem with working with the best numbers available, instead of throwing up my hands and claiming that since I can't get perfect information, there is no point in even trying to understand the situation. \_ It doesn't concern you that the P is spending $Bs on contracts, and doesn't know where it's going? \_ You're comfortable with the idea of corporations having bigger guns than the government? Seriously? Our government may be incompetent and wasteful, but corporations are psychopaths. \_ Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Corporations are no more than aggregates of people, with a corporate aim. Sounds like the gov't to me. Since the gov't doesn't care what the voters think, how precisely is that different? \_ The main difference between corporations and the government is that corporations compete against each other. The government, through legislation, does not have to compete with industry and can control markets. The government is a form of dictatorship and monopoly rolled into one. Sometimes it's a benevolent dictatorship, but it's still a dictatorship. Smaller government is better. \_ Mega corps that have legal rights as people is just as bad as having an over bearing uncarin gigantic federal system. \_ Actually, technically, corporations are sociopaths, but otherwise I agree with you. What the person above me doesn't understand is that corps are different from government due to profit motive. If that can make a buck by killing you horribly, the corp won't hesitate a second. To get the government to kill someone means making a bunch of slack government employees fill out paperwork, attend meeting, record metrics, and general interfere with other things they'd rather be doing. \_ Ha ha! Talking with people who have lived in countries with socialized medicine has made it clear you're full of crap. Do you really want hospitals to turn into the DMV? \_ Actually this was from news stories in the US. \_ Which news stories? \_ Six years of living with socialized medicine in Japan made it clear to me that hospitals can be efficient, competent, and cheap. Where's your personal experience to the contrary? \_ Canada. \_ How long were you there, and what did they screw up? \_ A friend, and he needed an MRI and found out the waiting list was 18 months long--people dying before they could get an MRI, etc. \_ Anecdotal hearsay evidence isn't very strong. \_ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba369 http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=855 etc. etc. etc. |
| 2006/12/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:45468 Activity:nil |
12/19 Huh? The Governor says the "hidden tax" of paying for health treatment
of illegals should be replaced by....an open tax. How will this
improve things?
http://www.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_4863698
\_ Full cost accounting. You can see where the money is going and
decide to increase/decrease it and how. When it's hidden, you
have no control over it. I think that if people knew the true
costs of illegal immigrants then they can make informed
decisions. As it is now, all we have are vague estimates and
debate over whether illegals help or hurt the economy.
\_ What's stupid about this though is that it's not like there's
going to be an "illegal immigrants who consume health treatment
tax dollars revenue fund".
\_ Given the number of emergency rooms which have closed, I don't
thing there's a debate.
\_ Sure there is. Are they contributing elsewhere (e.g.
lower prices on goods and services)? Do the pluses
outweigh the minuses? One way is to start openly tracking
this stuff.
\_ Of course, the Gov. said this was a drag on the economy, so
you're making a different argument than he is.
\_ Someone said there's no debate. I disagree with
this. I didn't 'make an argument' other than that
the benefits of illegal immigrants are debatable. |
| 2006/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45266 Activity:nil |
11/8 So I guess we can dismiss all the nutty claims that Diebold was fixing
their machines to make Republicans win?
\_ Great. Maybe the first time someone hacks a US election, it'll
be the dems, maybe it'll be a foreign power, and maybe it'll be a
super 37337 15 year old jolt addict from St. Petersburg. But as
long as it didnt' happen yesterday, and didn't involve the GOP,
you're happy? Does it seriously not bother you that we have less
oversight for voting machines than the state of Nevada does for
video slot machines? When every vote is counted electronically,
and our next president ends up being a death metal star from
eastern Europe, don't come crying to me.
\_ how about just Ah-nold? ob after constitutional amendment
\_ No. You can say that any vote machine fixing that took place
was insufficient to skew the overall result. -John |
| 2006/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45254 Activity:kinda low |
11/7 The Gropenator wins over Angelides. I told you. People prefer
jocks over nerds.
\_ well, I can't think of a single major newspaper that didn't
endorse the gropinator. then again, control of the editorial page
at the l.a. times was conveniently moved from news to management
in time for the election, and the top two existing guys have
been fired.
\_ The margin was closer than expected. Arnold 49%. Phil 46.2%.
\_ The margin was closer than expected. Arnold 55.8%. Phil 39.2%.
Phil only lost by 16.6%. LOL! Harvard loses out to steroids.
\_ "What a fantastic evening; I love doing sequels," Schwarzenegger
told supporters in Beverly Hills. "But this without any doubt is my
favorite sequel." http://www.csua.org/u/heo |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:45100 Activity:low |
e1/02 What does everyone think of CA props 1A-1E? I'm voting no on
everything else, but I'm still undecided on those.
\_ all the bond measures are part of the same 'borrow&spend'
shennanigans we kicked Davis out of office for. The rest of it
look like bypassing what the legislature is supposed to be doing.
\_ i kicked out davis because he hid the magnitude of the deficit.
i think every admin, GOP or Dem, borrows and spends to roughly
the same level.
\_ I supported the recall because I was unhappy with the
way Davis handled the 'energy crisis'.
\_ Did you vote for Schwarzenegger?
\_ 1A is a bad idea. The California Legislature has a tough enough
\_ 1A is a bad idea. The California Legisslature has a tough enough
time making a budget because of all the current set asides. I
voted for all the rest, because I think the State needs to
fix all sorts of things that these bond issues address. 1B
was a tough choice, since most of the money goes to freeways,
but I voted for it anyway. -ausman
\_ Wow, I'm exactly the opposite. 1A is an attempt to make taxes
get spent on what they were supposed to be spent on. For B-E I'm
not interested in getting $35B+ more in debt for things that
should be paid for out of the general fund. -emarkp
\_ where do you think the money to pay those bonds off is
supposed to come from? yep, general fund.
\_ Yes, with interest. My objection to bond measures is
typically that they use the general fund for pork, and then
borrow to pay for essentials. -emarkp
\_ What percentage of the CA general fund budget would you
say is pork? -tom
\_ I voted no on every single prop. We have a legislature
for a reason. - danh
\_ You voted against Prop 83? You are in favor of less harsh
sentencing against sex offenders? Interesting.
\_ the legislature can't issue bonds.
\_ and this is a good thing!
\_ I always vote no on all bond measures even if it is something that
would directly benefit me. Buying bonds via propositions is a
horrible way to run the government.
\_ Did you pay all-cash for your house?
\_ My house is not the state government. My problem is not
bonds. My problem is doing things like passing taxes on
people we don't like to give ourselves stuff. My other
problem is taking out loans/bonds to give ourselves more
stuff and leaving the debt for the future to deal with.
\_ Highways and schools aren't "stuff" they are infrastructure
investments that should pay themselves back many times over.\
This is exactly when it makes financial sense to borrow.
investments that should pay themselves back many times over.
This is exactly when it makes financial sense to borrow.
\_ This should come from the general fund, gas taxes and
other things we're already paying, not proposition
sponsored bonds. CA is one of the few states with a
proposition system yet all the other states somehow
manage to fund highways and schools without props.
\_ Without props, yes. Without bonds, no. The problem
is with the system that requires the public to
vote on the bonds, not (necessarily) with the bonds
themselves.
\_ I've got no problem with the legislature issuing
bonds. They can be removed from office if they
screw up. Props are paid for by third parties
who are not directly responsible to the voters.
They also have the problem of "tax $unpopular_grp
for my gain". Because hey if $you are getting
taxed and $I get the benefits, why not tax $you?
\_ Yes, those states can fund highways and schools
because they don't have the bloody voters mucking
around in the legislative system. Kal-eee-forn-ee-a
is ungovernable _because_ of the proposition system.
\_ I agree it's gone too far, thus I vote against
all the bond type issues. Every so often there
is a proposition that changes a law or fixes
some hole in the system the legislature is too
gutless to deal with. Those are the ones I'm
much more likely to vote for. I've also seen
plenty that look good until I read the entire
text, not the he-said-she-said political garbage
and a lot of them have all sorts of stupid
nonsense in them. So I vote against those as well
even though they look good at first. |
| 2006/10/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44912 Activity:nil |
10/22 Merc endorses the Governator
"Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/15821813.htm
\_ Right wing rag.
\_ Yeah just like the ultra right wing fascists at the Chronicle. |
| 2006/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44866 Activity:kinda low |
10/19 The Chron endorses Schwarzenegger. So have they been drifting to the
right like someone on motd claimed about the LA Times?
http://tinyurl.com/yyv3xs (sfgate.com)
\_ The Chron is a Hearst newspaper; Hearst was a Nazi sympathizer.
They've been solidly right ever since Hearst bought the paper
and spun off Brand Ex. They publish Debra Saunders for chrissakes.
-tom
\_ If you think the Chronicle is right-wing, do you think The
People's Weekly World is centrist??
\_ I'm convinced that the entity that signs "-tom" is a bot, and not
a person. No one could be that far out of it.
\_ I usually agree with tom, but the Chron appears to be less right
wing than any other major paper that I read, and I read plenty
of them. They are right wing if right wing means they have
slashed the number of reporters so their coverage consists
of who is responsible for large potholes, lame ass political
gossip columnists, giant FOOD and WINE sections, and plenty of
international and national coverage bought from wire services.
Just because they print Pat Buchanan, Victor Hansen, Saunders,
and plenty of cranky letters from old farts in the suburbs
does not by any stretch of the imagination make the
Chron right wing. If you want a real right wing paper, read
the new Examiner, their stories and editorial page have a
a clear right wing less government evil liberals slant. I don't
expect you to though since it is a small, free paper in SF now
that I doubt gets much readership.
\_ Personally, I think that the issue of left/right bias with
respect to the SF Chronicle is beside the point. That paper
would be a little dissapointing for a middle-American city of
100,000 people. For one of the major cultural, scientific,
technological, business, shipping and artistic centers of
the U.S., it's a fucking disgrace in just about every way.
\_ Its all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Its the same
conspiracy that is preventing the media from covering the
"hundreds" of non-random acts of violence perpetrated by the
"Bush Brownshirts" against dissidents nationwide. Basically,
the rich conservative people who control the media don't want
the namby-pamby, high tax, big government democrats to get
elected b/c democrats would put an end to media consolidation
by putting anti-consolidation, pro-local media diversification
people in charge of the FCC, which would lead to lots of
competition that would hurt big media's monopoly on the info-
rmation. Information wants to be free! The Tru7h is Out There!
RUN LINUX! RIDE BIKE!
\_ did dubya or mr. rove teach you teh strawman?
\_ it's called humor. try it. you might like it. -someone else
\_ it's called humor. try it. you might like it.
-someone else
\_ once again, it's too bad the editorial staff didn't make a
reference to the gropinator keeping his hands to himself
as a plus |
| 2006/10/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44840 Activity:low |
10/16 So the LATimes endorses Ah-nold for governor
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-governor15oct15,1,6396468.story?coll=la-news-comment
What are Democrats to do now?
\_ the L.A. Times has been turning ideologically right-wing over the
last year. it's too bad this endorsement didn't include any groping
references. ("... AND da Guv-ah-nate-ah, in a nod to Bill Clinton,
has managed to keep his hands to himself!")
\_ I think you've got it backwards. Gov S. has been running to the
left for the last year.
\_ both can be true. L.A. Times going right, Ah-nold away from
incompetency.
\_ going away from the left is not the same as turning
right-wing. there is still such a thing as centrism and
moderates are still allowed to vote although the clowns
from both parties call them independents which has all
sorts of ugly connotations if you step back and look at
the big picture.
\_ yeah, I'm saying there has been a continuous internal
push over the last year or so on the L.A. Times to go
right-wing, not center. naturally this claim may be
hard to prove, but i still think so.
\_ they haven't even hit center yet. they're almost
starting to make sense. well except for things like
today's article where they claimed the
US Constitution was the biggest impediment to
democracy. Other than that sort of lunacy, they're
almost starting to make sense.
\_ I don't even understand the concept of an endorsement from a
newspaper. "A company that prints what happens sez VOTE ARNIE"
\_ newspapers have a traidtion of having seperate news and
editorial operations.
\_ although in the last 2 decades that line has pretty much
washed away.
\_ Start worrying when the Chronicle and the Merc endorse the
Governator.
\_ Who else can they endorse? I really want to like Angelides,
but he's not making a good case for himself. |
| 2006/10/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44819 Activity:moderate |
10/13 Angelides to FCC: Mommy! Mommy! I want to be on Jay Leno too!
http://tinyurl.com/y6vb69 (news.yahoo.com)
\_ "To link me with George Bush is like linking me to an Oscar."
Ouch. Is the Academy gonna take that one sitting down?
\_ Even Republicans have to obey the law.
\_ No we don't. That's why we stole the election in 2000 and then
in 2004 we didn't even have one. Our agents in the media just
reported various random numbers and gave you something to vent
about (some close but fake numbers in Ohio after a staged delay
at the "polls"). These mid term elections will be the same as
2004 and in 2008 we won't even bother having an election. What
would be the point anyway? All who oppose us will be tried and
executed: the debate is over.
\_ The republicans just passed a bill abolishing the writ of
habeaus corpus. All who appose you will be arrested and
imprisioned without trial.
\_ And the republicans are not obeying the law how?
Sounds more like the Democrats want to stifle Jay
Leno's free speech right to talk to who ever he
wants on his own show.
\_ Did you even read the original post. NBC, which is owned
by General Electric, is violating the Federal Communications
Act.
\_ And republicans are not obeying the law how?
NBC may not be obeying the law, BUT how does
that equate to republicans not obeying the
law? WRT to my comment that the Democrats
are trying to stifle Jay Leno's 1st amend.
free spech rights, it stands. The Democrats
are trying to twist a advertising law to
cover an entertainment show. If Angelides
wasn't boring, maybe he would have been
invited on.
\_ General Electric, which owns NBC, leans heavily GOP:
http://www.csua.org/u/h7f
They are also a big defence contractor. So their media
arm scratches the GOP's back, which in turn kicks back
contracts. This is how American politics works.
\_ So GE gives money to the GOP and is keeping Angelides
off the Leno show in order to keep RINO Ah-nuld in
power? Just curious, have you ever worked for a
really large company or for the government? Mostly
there is such chaos and stupidity and amazing levels
of paperwork and incompetency they're lucky they can
manage to redraw the lines in the parking lot. Your
Grand Conspiracy Vision Thing is silly but amusing.
\_ Don't discount the Grand Conspiracy Vision Thing.
The same GCVT that is keeping Angelides off of
Leno may also be behind the media blackout of the
"hundreds" of incidents of violence by "Bush
Brownshirts" against dissidents, like that lady
in SF.
\_ If he wasn't so boring he could be on Leno too.
\_ Why do you hate boring people?
\_ Why do you hate people who hate boring people? |
| 2006/10/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44798 Activity:very high |
10/12 Give me a reason to not vote NO on every
single Proposition on the ballot.
\_ Because "no" really means "yes." -Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant, William
Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr
Kennedy Smith, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and John Mark Karr (don't
forget Bill Clinton)
\_ Two of them are related. Coincedence?
\_ Mike Tyson is related to John Mark Karr?!?!? |
| 2006/10/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:44783 Activity:kinda low |
10/12 So given that Schwarzenegger is going to win reelection, how do you
plan to vote? As a conservative who thinks R's are now useless and am
interested in securing the border, I'm going to be voting for the
Libertarian candidate, Art Olivier (electart.com). -emarkp
\_ God, emarkp, don't you get it? the issue is illegal immigration,
not border security! right now border is not secure because
there is a huge incentive for them to get acrossed without much
downside. To REALLY address the problem, we need to either
remove the incentive, and/or increase the disincentive.
If you REALLY want to solve the problem, PUNISH THE EMPLOYERS
SEVERELY for hiring illegal immigrants. *BUT* that is against
the core GOP's platform of corporate welfare. The entire
issue of "illegal immigrant" is actually an issue of "corporate
welfare," as corporations can exploit cheap labors without mandated
benifits, and push the cost of illegal immigrants to the government
(schools, emergency care, etc). If you want a sensible immigration
policy, then, write your GOP congressman and push for punishment
for the employer. If you just want to use this issue to win
elections, just keep secure the border, then.
kngharv, bitter legal immigrant
\_ Now is the time for the Invisible Hand to point out that if the
U.S. didn't spend so much effort imposing unfair trade agreements
on Mexico which destroy the livlihoods of Mexican farmers there
would not be so much motivation for people to migrate north
and this problem would be much smaller.
\_ FYI, I'm currently working on a research project re
employer punishment statutes for my con. law prof.
He is concerned that one possible challenge to these
statutes is that the states lack the power to enact
them b/c any enactment related to immigration is
exclusively w/in the power of the fed. gov, therefore
the states, even in the absence of fed. action, lack
the power to act in this field.
I'm not sure, but I think that the states can argue that
in the absence of fed action (or expressed inaction), they
can enact these laws, even though they are related to
immigration policy.
\_ If you're a law student then surely you know about the
10th Amendment. I don't think the Constitution mentions
immigration at all. Correct me if I am wrong. Therefore,
this is a matter for the States.
\_ Under Art I, Sec 8 cl 4 Congress has the
power to "establish an uniform rule of
naturalization." This power has been viewed
very broadly by courts to touch on all aspects
of immigration law and policy. In addition,
Art I, Sec 8 cl 3 and Art I, Sec 10 further
limit what states can do in the field of
foreign affairs.
Since the Const. has expressly delegated
the immigration and naturalization power to
Congress, the 10th does not apply.
Even if the immigration clause didn't exist
there is a STRONG argument under US v. Curtis-
Wright Corp. that the regulation of immigration
is a power so closely tied w/ national
sovereignty that the states are barred from
acting in that area.
Also re the 10th - it is basically useless.
Also re the 10th - it is basically meaningless.
All it says is that powers not delegated are
reserved. Well, if the power was not delegated
it would necessarily be reserved. In addition,
the 10th does not require EXPRESS delegation.
Implicit delegation is also sufficient. As in
Curtis-Wright, it only applies to powers that
the states actually had before the Const. If
the states didn't have the power, then it can't
be reserved.
the states (or the people) didn't have the power,
then it can't be reserved.
\_ I plan to vote in my home state, where we don't even have a
governator.
\_ You could do what my friend did and bake a lot of muffins
and go to the borderand hang out with the Minutemen
\_ If I lived further south, I would. But I was asking about the
election. -emarkp
\_ Who cares. Schawarzanegger is going to win. The Propositions
are more interesting. What do you feel about Prop 90?
\_ There's an election or something soon right?
\_ I'm voting for Schwarzenegger, even though I think that the
GOP on a national level is really messed up. I think that
by supporting sane GOP candiates like McCain and Ah-nuld,
we can rid the party of the wackos.
\_ What principles of the GOP platform do you think the gov.
believes in? -emarkp
\_ Who gives a shit anyway. a) 3rd parties can't win. b) with
two parties, political values only loosely map onto the two
candidates we get stuck with. Sometimes I wish we were
parliamentary like the Euros. But then the fundies would
probably have even more power.
\_ a) is incorrect at the state level. The examples that
come immediately to mind are Jesse Ventura and Loell
Weicker. Not common, but not insignificant either. |
| 2006/10/2-4 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44626 Activity:nil |
10/2 I'm not a big fan of Ah-nold. However, Angelides hasn't wowed me at
all. Is this because the Governator's campaign is strong or because
there's really just nothing there to Angelides? Please, give me some
reason to want to vote for this guy other than "He's not Ah-nold."
\_ Ah-nold is a Socialist, Angelides is a Communist.
\_ Angelides has no chance, it is sad.
\_ What's wrong with Arnold? My impression is he actually got
a lot done, other than his occasional sexist/insensitive
comments.
\_ R == EVIL. Didn't you learn that on your first day of school
at Cal?
\_ consensus is that Ah-nold was screwing himself while under
GOP guidance (this is when he took on the teachers/nurses/police/
fire), but Maria showed him what makes libural Kaleefornians
happy
\_ If we had governor elections every year, I think Ah-nold
would be fine. I'm just not sure I want him as governor in a
non-election year.
\_ There is nothing wrong w/ Ah-nold. He is a moderate who
can work w/ a diverse range of people to reach balanced
results.
\_ I voted for most of his special-election initiatives. I guess
I would be an (R). I don't vote (R) nationally because of
their bastarditude and idiotica but I respect the California
(R)s. The (D)s here exhibit the worst stereotype liberal
pandering behavior: "voting themselves largess out of the
public treasury" and bowing to unions. As for Arnold, he may
be goofy but he seems to have good interests at heart. He
appears less likely to be corrupt.
\_ You resepect california republicans? Are you saying you
think Arnold would have won a republican primary in
california? It seems to me that the only way you ended up
with a republican governer who is a moderate as opposed
to a "kill di messikans and gays" neandrathal is that
Arnold got to avoid the california GOP primary.
\_ Which Cali Rs are neanderthals? I haven't seen that kind
of thing. But then I haven't paid that much attention.
I am Ind. but I voted in the R primary after looking
at both parties. There might be some "taking our jerbs"
types but they seem marginal.
types but they seem marginal. Actually that would as
likely be a Dem/Union line. Not too many religious
nut Rs here in Cali.
\_ I thought that in the recall election debates, the two
who made the most sense were Camejo and McClintock. Damn
it.
\_ I'm not a fan of his policies, which seem to be centrist around
election time, but then wander further off in (imo) the wrong
direction |
| 2006/9/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44585 Activity:moderate |
9/28 Blair struck a deal with Schwarzenegger. How does a head of a national
government strike a deal with a head of a state government which is one
level lower? Can a US president strike a deal with the head of the
provincial government in Socialist Canada or Gay Communist China?
\_ There was no treaty--just a friendly gentleman's agreement. Only
congress can make treaties with foreign governments.
\_ Did you ever read the Constitution? Article I, Section X.
hard lefties in congress can make treaties with foreign governments.
\_ Did you ever read the Communist Manifesto? Article I, Section X.
\_ No.
\_ Under Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 3 a state can enter into an agreement
w/ a foreign nation IF congress consents. In some cases consent
can come after the state enters into the agreement.
This may also be of some interest to you:
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1154542471.shtml
(click 'Continue Reading' to get the whole post) |
| 2006/9/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44548 Activity:nil |
9/26 kawabonga!
\_ reaganomics!
\_ Governor Schwarzenegger! |
| 2006/9/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44393 Activity:nil |
9/15 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091506cell,0,2855679.story http://csua.org/u/gwg (leginfo.ca.gov) Starting July '08, you will be fined $20 + city/county surcharges ($50 repeat offenses) if you are caught driving with a cell phone in your hand in CA. Not illegal when the phone is "configured to allow hands-free listening and talking ... and is used in that manner". \_ So, what if you are not talking on the phone, but are holding it in your hand? \_ Why can't they start it sooner? |
| 2006/9/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44327 Activity:nil |
9/9 So is this offensive, to say that an ethnic group is "hot"?
I don't personally find it offensive, but maybe that is just
because I have been away from Cal for too long...
http://www.csua.org/u/gv2
\_ have you learn anything? uglieness is universal. no ethnic group
is "hotter" than another.
\_ maybe it's perfectly socially acceptable to say it somewhere in a
circle of friends, but this is not the sort of thing I expect to
hear from a Governor in a public speech.
\_ I don't think the original statements were made in public,
I think it was a private conversation that was picked up by
a mic. Not sure though.
\_ If you read the article, it specifically says he made the
the remarks "to his advisers behind closed doors".
\_ Arnie was affectionately referring to the chesty Puerto Rican Bonnie
Garcia when he said "very hot".
\_ Actually I realize he didn't mean hot, he meant hot-blooded,
which is kind of offensive. The quotes in the story don't
actually say that, but the story says that is what he meant.
I wonder if that is true or not.
\_ Fascinating--Garcia was interviewed by an LA radio host and she
thinks the story is silly (she calls herself a "hot-blooded Latina")
and mentioned that the Dems didn't allow her into the Latino caucus
since she's a Republican.
\_ State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who is challenging the governor for
re-election this year, issued a statement this morning saying
Schwarzenegger "has used language that is deeply offensive to all
Californians and embarrassed our state. His comments reflect a
disturbing pattern of behavior. The governor has a responsibility to
conduct himself with dignity."
Offensive to ALL CALIFORNIANS? Not to Garcia. Not to me.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-090806gov,1,7913754.story?coll=chi-news-hed
\_ All REAL Californians.
\_ That's Ka-lee-for-nyans to both of you sissy-boys.
\_ It's deeply offensive to all Californians who are deeply
offended.
\_ I'm offended that you're offended! --offended |
| 2006/8/30-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:44206 Activity:kinda low |
8/30 Governor signs bill requiring any institution in CA to condone sexual
deviancy. http://csua.org/u/gsw
\_ What a loaded way of putting it. What do you mean by sexual
deviancy? Child rapists? Or hetero blowjobs and cunnalingus?
\_ Congratulations, you have been trolled.
\_ I was trolled? I thought I was calling out a troll.
\_ No, I wasn't trolling. It's not PC, but homosexuality,
transgenderism, etc. are sexual deviancies. -op
\_ A deviancy is a variance from the norm. Blacks in
Danville are racially deviant. OK to discrimate against
them?
Danville are racially deviant. OK to discriminate
against them?
\_ It's ok to descriminate against all
residents of Danville. It's fucking Danville for
Christ's sake.
\_ It's ok to descriminate against all residents of
Danville. It's fucking Danville for Christ's sake.
\_ So what about Danville?
\_ "Focus on the Family (FOTF) Action chairman Dr. James Dobson and FOTF
Action senior vice president of government and public policy Tom
Minnery pointed out during Wednesday.s radio broadcast that the bill
could result in a church no longer being able to receive police or
fire protection if the pastor preaches from biblical passages
against homosexuality"
That can't be true.
\_ How could you ever imply the Honorable Dr. James Dobson could
be so bold as to fib? You sir, offended me.
\_ I wonder what BUD DAY thinks.
\_ Some of the text: (from http://csua.org/u/gsy
"No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race,
national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex,
sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied
full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully
subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that
is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any
state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any
financial assistance from the state."
I can see Dobson's interpretation being an interpretation of this
text (though it seems unlikely).
\_ http://www.outinamerica.com/home/news.asp?articleid=29852
They have the same interpretation as Dobson.
\_ Not quite: "Senate Bill 1441 protects all Californians who
utilize public services such as police and fire protection,
financial aid, social services and food stamps." It's saying
it protects the consumers of those services, which makes it
sound like that was an end run around the issue of "it only
protects citizens"
\_ Read the article in context. It protects them from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
\_ Right, but it implies that the people it's protecting
are the service consumers, not that it's targetting
service consumers for coercion.
\_ How does it feel to be on the losing end of history, you hate
filled little bigot? I guess you know how the crackers in The
South felt now after the Civil Rights Act was passed, don't you?
\_ Wow, just wow, this is awesome. In only three lines you managed
to spew generic hatred, racist hatred, and look like an idiot
all at the same time without adding any value to the thread.
That is a rare feat even for the motd. I salute you, sir!
\_ Why do gays hate America? |
| 2006/7/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43682 Activity:nil |
7/16 Photo of Plame and Wilson I found on http://freerepublic.com link:csua.org/u/gfz (work safe) \_ The point is? \_ you can find flattering pics on http://freerepublic.com \_ Plame >> Coulter \_ Plame is a fat faced blonde. Coulter is a skinny faced blonde. Neither is particularly attractive or unattractive. |
| 2006/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43387 Activity:nil |
6/14 Heh, I just saw a Governator commercial on the History Channel
totally bashing Angelino. It reminds me of 2004 when I saw GWB's
commercial on the History Channel every 10 minutes: "Hello, I'm
George W Bush and I approve this message." |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:43306 Activity:low |
6/7 LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/hozap Angelides the Nerd to face the Terminator Governator. From LA weekly: Angelides will be playing for Best Supporting from the start, because Arnold will always be bigger, tanner and shinier than his opponent. So a guy like Angelides, whose limbs flail out at irregular angles but whose ears look like satellite dishes receiving and transmitting all forms of knowledge and expertise, is the best bet. Californians, after all, just dated a jock, and you know how that turned out. This time around, they.ll want to settle down with the valedictorian. \_ Were there really as many anti-Angelides adverts as anti-Westly? I don't watch TV but I do listen to Air America, and only remember lots of anti-Angelides spots (I assume because Westly was coming from behind). \_ Fact: Westly started aggressive negative ads 3 whole days before Angelides started fighting back, after they promised each other to not do negative campaigns! Westly threw the punch first when Angelides didn't expect it, and still loss. What a loser. \_ Yes Angelides #1. I want new creative taxes on everything! I want to drive businesses out of California, too! remember lots of anti-Angelides spots. \_ You can't have service without paying tax, unless you actually believe in Reaganomics. \_ I want small, efficient government with a safety net without paying welfare to people who can work, skyrocketing tuition, rolling blackouts, and huge deficits. Davis and Ah-nold didn't seem to help. Who can I vote for to get all that? \_ Nobody. California is ungovernable. If you really want to change things, get rid of the initiative system and all the stupid set asides and budget constraints. Of couse, this will never happen. \_ I'm all for breaking CA into 3 states, \_ I'm the opposite. I'd like to see it unite with Baja California and form its own nation. \_ I'm interested in this subject. But where do you draw the lines? I guess the middle should be the bay area counties incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, Placer bordering the north, and Merced, Madera, and Mono along the south. This captures the direct relationships pretty well, with the Sacramento corridor out to the Sierra tied to the bay area and including Hetch Hetchy (and Yosemite). What do you call the middle state? I can't see any downside to this and we'd pick up 4 more senators. http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8188/ca3state0kk.jpg Actually Placer probably belongs to the middle too. A couple of these are debatable. Actually this is better: Or actually this is better: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8968/ca3state20dx.jpg \_ I think that cutting the state apart like this would really hurt the far northern part. There's no tax base there, except Sacramento. \_ Well right now, the state pretty much ignores the north. They have their own industries and don't need a lot of social services because they don't have big messed up cities. They'd be fine. Maybe A bit of southern Oregon also belongs with them but that would be even harder to do. Sure you could keep them together, but I thought they'd want to be separate. They have different concerns than the bay area or LA. Maybe with their own state they could develop better. It's really beautiful country. \_ Gross Regional Product: SoCal: $710 billion Bay Area: $410 billion (includes Napa/Stockton) Rest: $180 billion (1/3 from Sacramento) If you siphon off the Central Valley into Central California then "Bay Area" increases and "Rest" decreases. \_ Sounds fine to me. That Northern CA would still have a bigger economy than some other states like Wyoming or the Dakotas. It will be growing in the coming decades too. \_ Wow, bigger than North Dakota. Sign me up! I think it is in the interests of NoCal to remain attached to the rest of CA. For example, you can have UC Davis or University of North Dakota as your state university. Which would you choose? \_ They could develop Chico and a couple others. There's nothing stopping you from going to another state uni. All I know is, as long as those northern counties are attached to the rest, they are drowned out. I think NoCal would be bigger than a number of states. I guess at least #35-40 in size maybe. Again, the population isn't large so the needs are less. Whether or not the north benefits from leeching off the south like that is true, that is not a good reason to keep it that way. Do you really think in those terms? I think it would do better by looking out for itself instead of being drowned out. Anyway, at least SoCal should be split off. Ok then, maybe this should be done since it already exists: http://www.jeffersonstate.com Then Northern Cal, and Southern Cal. All I really want is SoCal separate. \_ We don't really like you hippy freaks either, but I don't see any advantages gained by breaking apart the State. There's a lot of synergy between NoCal and SoCal. \_ There's a lot of synergy between lots of states. So what? Should Wash and OR be combined? Washington: 5.9M pop, $262B Oregon: 3.4M, $145.35B Washegon: 9.3M, $407B Calif: 33.8M, $1.55 trillion Why or why not? Obvious advantages are better Senate representation, and more responsive state government. No and So already have their own utility companies. \_ What do utilities have to do with anything? San Diego's is different from LA's. OC's is different from Pasadena's. As for representation, why not split CA into 50 states? Imagine how many senators we'd get then! There are a lot of restrictions and regulations on interstate commerce. Things would work okay as long as NoCal and SoCal stayed in synch, but what happens when they start to heavily diverge? For example, the NoCal people repeal Prop 13 and the SoCal people don't. Does the population shift? Such unforeseen changes can have unintended consequences. Why mess with a good thing? \_ because it's not a good thing? \_ Sure it is! CA is the best State in the USA! \_ Local self-determination is better for its own sake. Plus the above post. If they heavily diverge, then it's good because they WANT to diverge. It's called democracy. And there are NOT a lot of restrictions on interstate commerce. Read the Constitution. \_ Why not have city-states if you're into local self-determination? We can divide the nation into 100 square mile grids of self-determining fiefdoms. As for commerce, a big thing I was thinking of is farming. There are restrictions because of threat of transmission of pests/disease. Also, liquor is often restricted. There are other examples. |
| 2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43288 Activity:low |
6/6 So are people voting for Angelides or Westly? Westly even has the
former eBayer and Asian ch1c thing going on.
http://csua.org/u/g3c (westly2006.com)
\_ http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3851538
"Angelides promises to raise taxes on the rich and on
corporations. Westly, while promising to close the deficit without
cuts to schools, will not say how he plans to find the money.
Westly is a dot-com millionaire from eBay who is largely self-
funding his campaign... Angelides, a former chairman of the
state Democratic Party, has the edge, with a potential army of
party volunteers and the unions that have endorsed him. To counter
it, Westly is expected to mount an expensive direct mail campaign
to convince absentee voters to cast their ballots for him."
Sounds to me that Westly is a Republican in disguise of
a Democrat.
\_ I am probably not voting for Angelides, but I'm totally
NOT voting for Westly and I hope everyone understands why.
Westly started his aggressive negative ads against Angelides
early on and they're very mean spirited ads. This is an
indication that he's a complete ass. Furthermore I have had
enough experience with upper-class white male who are completely
out of touch with reality. Enough is enough and I just want to
see new faces, preferably non-white representatives. I was so
happy that Jim Hahn the I-prefer-status-quo-because-everything-
looks-alright didn't get re-elected. Just say no to white male
who are out of touch with reality. Just say no to Westly.
\_ Your sentiment is strongly felt in Hawaii, the reason why
pale looking blond candidates historically don't compete well
with the native candidates. Many Hawaiians resent whites for
historical reasons, but they do of course welcome the tourism
money they bring in. I'm guessing your sentiment is starting
to be felt by many natives in California, many of them are
non-whites and feel that California should be controlled by
people who are more in-touch with their world.
\_ Because us whiteys are all just too busy keeping the ethnic
underclasses down. -John
\_ but Westly is trying to undo his evil while upper class
\_ white
heritage by marrying a h07 azn woman! That makes Westly
a better candidate. I'm voting for him. White Power!
\_ Well, today is the primary, who are you voting for? Nice
racist screed BTW.
\_ You could've just said, "I hate white people" instead of your
long rant.
\_ Yes, I hate white people. However, I assure you that I'm not
the only person feeling this way. Many Californians are
non-white, and feel that whoever represents them should
reflect them instead of rich white men who live in huge
mansions and own big SUVs. -op
\_ You and they are idiots for making assumptions like
that. I guess you'd be fine with a rich Chinese man
who lives in a huge mansion and owns a big Mercedes.
Who cares what they say, they reflect me!
\_ Why is it that corrupt and incompetent black New
Oreleans candidates do better than white candidates
in Louisiana? Because the majority of the voters is
an idiot. And yes if I were a chink I'd still vote for
a rich Mercedes driving chink, he'd have more
sympathy as to why I want to lobby to reverse bills
that discriminate against our culture, like
local laws that prohibit the culture of processing
live food in front of the restaurants. Maybe you
should ask why many non-whites resent dominant whites
before you start calling them idiots. Fuck you for
not respecting our culture. -Minority Power
\_ LOL. Thanks -- that's the funniest thing I've
read on motd all week. With an attitude like that,
you deserve whatever oppression you get.
\_ I think (hope) you've been trolled. -John
\_ Angel(ides) of Death 666
\_ I don't like either one of them, but mostly because of these
asinine attack ads. It's to the point where I'd almost throw my
political ideals aside and vote for any candidate who refrains
from attacking.
\_ Ah, the blissfulness of not having TV.
\_ What is asinine about attack ads? How are they any more
asinine than ads claiming the candidate loves children and
dogs? -tom
\_ In the context of Primaries, they're asinine because they
make it harder for the losing candidate to support the
winning candidate without appearing like an utter
hypocrite.
\_ Why do you hate children and dogs?
\_ Umm, no on 82?
\_ What, you make more that 400k per year?
\_ "...and then they came for me..."
There's tyranny to democracy too, you know.
\_ That may be true, but I don't think making the tax curve
a little more progressive is tyrannical.
\_ It's not more progressive. The people who benefit from
this are the middle/upper-middle class parents who
are already sending their kids to pre-school. poor
kids can already go to first start. i would have voted
for increasing funds to first start, but we don't need
yet another program with yet another tax that actually
helps somewhat wealthy (100k-400k) parents.
\_ So let's see... the people who benefit are the
people who are paying for it and perhaps some
others with lower incomes. Wild idea!
\_ It's not making the tax curve on the whole more
progressive. When you do that and you want to spend gvt
money on something (almost) everyone pays at least a
little. This is saying "hey, let's make the minority
pay for this because there are more of us and we can
_make_ them pay it" If the money were going to pay for
something like "roads that expensive SUVs ripped up" or
"a larger airport for business travelers" or something
even remotely related to the "burden of the rich on
society" it would be one thing, but this is as arbitrary
as that Mental Hospital thing that passed earlier.
Someone's just found an easy way of getting things
funded: bill those who are too few in number to fight it.
\_ I am opposed to these sorts of taxes, but while
these people are few in number they are not
small in influence on our politicians.
\_ I am voting against and I make significantly less than 400k.
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits.
\_ The government is not a fee-for-service business. -tom
\_ Nor is the government a way for the majority to abuse
the minority for the majority benefit.
\_ There are a number of problems with those sorts
of measures. For one thing, high incomes like that tend
to be very flighty. They are often tied to the
stockmarket and other highly volitile sources of income.
Which rasies the question, of what will happen when
there's a downturn and tax reciepts on the rich drop?
Oops. Not to mention, I don't really think the way to
fix our mess of a school system is to expand it.
\_ I agree. We should privatize the school system, and
revive it like the way GWB tried to privatize
social security, like the way the Republicans tried
to privatize electricity and utilities, so on and
so forth.
\_ Way to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool.
\_ I'm voting against 82 because the LA Times board said the system
is poorly implemented and I'm trusting them on that. I'm also
for small, efficient government with a safety net and against
welfare for people who can work but don't.
I'm also for a progressive tax system, with an inheritance tax
rate of 0% for amounts up to $1.5 million (kids get the family
house + extra for free, or $500K/kid assuming 3 kids,
inflation-adjusted) and >= 50% for extra inheritance. The
inheritance tax money can be used to subsidize a lower tax rate
for people who are still working. -dem
I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. "Oh this will be
FREE because we'll make the RICH pay for it!" "Oh lovely! You
have my vote! What else can we make them pay for?"
I think, out of principle, no tax should be levied ONLY on
a certain tax bracket. It's just wrong. Everyone should pay
at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits. The people
making a lot of money are often important players in the
economy and stuff like this just provides incentives to
drive them out. I also hate the idiot democrats that say
things like "make businesses pay for everything!" Way to
screw over the very things the entire state economy depends
on. I'm gonna go Republican this year because the dems are
too stupid. At least the CA Republicans seem a lot smarter than
the federal ones. The CA Dems are like a caricature of
themselves, always promising "free stuff from the government".
I'll vote for the Green secretary of state though. Only
because I'm a firm believer in IRV.
\_ Ok friends and relatives, Tuesday is California's
primary, so it's time for me to get cranky and tell y'all
how to vote! :-)
Actually this election is rather short and there isn't
much to it, and it actually has not been much to do, as
far as ballot Propositions go, so let us start with them:
STATE PROPOSITIONS:
Proposition 81 - $600 million in library bonds -- NO. As
much as I might like to, NO. Not at this time.
Prop 81 would increase state spending by $1.17 billion
because, in order to finance $600 million in bonds, the
state would pay $570 million in interest over 30 years.
I was a bookish kid and enjoyed the library, and I still
do. And I know how wonderful for young and old minds they
can be. However....
In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 14, which
was $350 million in bonds for library building projects,
25 year bonds which we are still paying off, for a
projected legislative analyst cost of $600 million in
year 2000 dollars.
Meanwhile, Governor Ahnold recently issued a lot of bond
debt for infrastructure improvements. (Those improvements
should have been paid from raided gasoline tax funds, but
I'm getting off topic.)
The point is that more bonds, at this time, is just plain
irresponsible. Was it just the other day we were reading
in the papers about a state financing crisis? Now the
economy has improved and state revenues are up, but that
could sour as fuel prices rise, another calamity breaks
out somewhere in the world, or any host of other
reasons. It is irresponsible to do this at this time.
Proposition 82 - Socialized pre-school -- NO. Oh hell NO.
Prop 82 would amend the state constitution to offer
taxpayer-funded universal preschool to all four-year old
children in California. The state would determine the
educational standards for the preschool programs.
Now doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy, given that
Governor Ahnold just had to veto SB1437, a demand hatched
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--Mom
and Dad, you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--
you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
show-- to "require social science textbooks sold in
California to include the significant contributions of
gay, bisexual and transgendered people."
In an age when kids often don't even know the basics,
this attempt to politicize education further is
positively horrid. What's next? Saying whether a notable
preferred blonds to brunettes? What people do to
contribute to history, not who they sleep with, is what
matters in an education. Students have a hard enough
time learning history - and every other subject in
California's schools. Adding notable cross-dressers or
people who have gender reassignment surgery - two
inappropriate subjects for high school - to the curricula
will not correct the woeful state of education.
The fact that SB1437 made it all the way through both
houses of the Legislature and we were only spared it by
Governor Ahnold's veto, as well as the Legislature's
majority endorsement of the illegal alien rallies on
Communist May Day no less, tell you everything you need
to know about the current rulers of the California
Democrat Party. Help!
But I digress. Back to Prop 82:
Teachers in the preschool programs would also have more
educational requirements and would be paid more than
existing public preschool teachers. In order to fund this
universal preschool, an additional 1.7% income tax would
be levied on individuals earning over $400,000 per year
(and couples earning over $800,000 per year). It sounds
fun to make someone who earns more than you pay for your
kids state-run preschool, but watch all those business
owners get Nevada incorporation or some other state's
incorporation and leave the state overnight if this
passes. High income almost always means high or even
higher overhead, something the socialists who cooked up
this proposal never seem to grasp.
Approximately 62% of California children already attend
some kind of preschool or daycare program before going to
kindergarten. Prop 82 would simply require the state to
pay for preschool, and presumably shut some perfectly
fine church or private business pre-school programs out.
As if the state government doesn't have already have its
hands full enough with focus on improving education in
K-12 levels (California test scores in science currently
rank second to last) rather than building a whole new
bureaucracy to control the education of four-year-olds.
Prop 82 paves the way for mandatory preschool and lowered
compulsory attendance ages. This will infringe upon the
rights of parents to direct the education of their own
children and determine when their own children are
physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to start
school.
Additionally, studies touting that children receive an
educational advantage by attending preschool are not
reliable because they a) do not show any long-term
advantage or b) they are based on insufficient data.
Prop 82 is an all-around bad idea.
NON-PARTISAN OFFICES:
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Diane A. Lenning
Jack O'Connell is the current incumbent, and given the
advantages of incumbency will probably be re-elected
handily.
However, if you want to know why I really like this lady,
check out her website at http://www.dianelenning.com
compare it with those of the other candidates on page 44
of the Official Voter Information Guide, and decide for
yourself. In particular, check out
http://www.dianelenning.com/issues.html
PARTISAN OFFICES:
Well, all of you know I am a Republican and am only
focused on that primary as a result. This is not to say
that registered Democrats are bad. I have a co-worker who
is a registered Democrat even though he has not voted for
one in a general election in nearly 30 years, because he
likes "to practice primary damage control, voting for
lesser evils," he says. I understand that. In fact, so
much of politics is damage control, for either party.
Allow me two observations about the Democrat Primaries:
1. For all the alleged unpopularity of convervative
Republican ideas, two Democrat primary candidates seem to
be running on them.
Governor wannabe Steve Westly is just bashing rival
Democrat Phil Angelides for being a tax raising socialist
weenie, and Attorney General wannabe Rocky Delgadillo is
bashing Jerry Brown (rising out of his political coffin
as current Mayor of Oakland) for being a criminal
coddling commiecrat and is raising the spectre of Brown
court appointees Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso. (Man, I
could VOTE for a Democrat like that; go Rocky go!)
2. A serious game of political "musical chairs" is going
on in the Democrat Party, which means that term limits
may be doing some good after all: --Current Controller
Steve Westly and Current Treasurer Phil Angelides are
fighting for Governor. --Current Insurance Commissioner
John Garamendi and Current State Senator Jackie Speier
are fighting for Lieutenant Governor. --Current
Lieutenant Govenor Cruz Bustamante is running for
Insurance Commissioner, flip-flopping with Garamendi!
--Aspirant state legislators State Senator Joe Dunn and
Franchise Tax Board head John Chiang are fighting for
Steve Westly's old controller slot. --Meanwhile, former
Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown is trying
to rise out of his political coffin and become Attorney
General.
From a "damage control" and admittedly Republican biased
perspective, here goes my take on the Democrat Primary:
Dem GOVERNOR: Steve Westly, because he is less sleazy
than Angelides. I only say this because my sleazy state
employee's union, for which I pay compulsory dues, is
backing Angelides.
Dem LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Jackie Speier. She may be a
wacky lefty, but she's transparent, unlike the political
snake Garamendi.
Dem CONTROLLER: John Chiang is less obnoxiously partisan
than Joe Dunn, and the Controller probably shouldn't be
an obnoxiously partisan office. I admired Karen
O'Connell, yes a Democrat, when she was Controller (I
think no relation to Jack?), because she stated the
budget like it was, to Republican and Democrat
legislators alike.
Dem ATTORNEY GENERAL: Go Rocky Delgadillo, go....even if
I will still vote for the all around awesome Chuck
Poochigian in the fall.
OK, now onto the Republicans. Here, the primary contests
are few:
Rep GOVERNOR: Ahnold has no serious opposition.
Rep LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Tom McClintock has no serious
opposition either.
He is the Last Honest Politician or, to quote Ayn Rand's
optimistic protagonist, "The first of their return."
This guy ran in the Governor's recall race on a
shoestring budget and in spite of the official Ahnold the
Republican bandwagon, still did respectably well. I wish
Ahnold had campaigned for McClintock in the recall and
chose to become a "Senatator" vs. Dianne Feinstein in
2004 instead of a "Governator", but oh well, Ahnold went
for the sure thing.
If McClintock can win Lieutenant Governor this fall,
there is hope for Cali. Otherwise, stick a fork in the
state and turn it over.
Rep CONTROLLER: Abel Maldonado. The other prominent
Republican, Tony Strickland, would be great too! But what
I liked about Mr. Maldonado was his bold opening
candidate statement on page 34 of the Official Voter
Information Guide. Somebody in the Republican Party gets
it about the ilegal alien problem!
Sadly, the President, his advisor Karl Rove, and a good
many Republican senators DON'T get it, which explains
their utterly low approval ratings, and they deserve to
suffer the consequences this fall. Sadly, some major
"conservative" media, like the Wall Street Journal, in
their quest for ever cheapr gardeners and maids, don't
get it either.
(Mr. Strickland, to his credit, also has a comment about
the problem at the end of his candidate statement).
Perhaps Mr. Maldonado makes such a bold opening statement
and isn't afraid of being called "anti-Latino" by the
Smearing Left because he IS Latino.
Rep TREASURER: Keith Richman. The other prominent
Republican, Claude Parrish, also appears to be a stand up
guy, and he'd be fine too, just like Tony Strickland for
Controller above. I especially liked Mr. Parrish's stern
admonition "to oppose all but the most vital bond
issues!"
But like Mr. Maldonado in his candidate statement above,
Richman discusses the real fiscal impact of importing a
larger underclass, and when too many Republicans at the
national level just don't get it about excessive
immigration (obviously illegal, but also certain
categories of legal immigration have been abused),
Mr. Richman's candor is refreshing.
Rep ATTORNEY GENERAL: Chuck Poochigian has no serious
opposition.
Rep INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Steve Poizner has no serious
opposition. Like Tom McClintock, if he can win this
fall, there is hope for Cali.
Rep SENATOR: Richard Mountjoy has no serious
opposition. He is as hard Right as his opponent this
Fall, the wretched Soviet Slut, Wobblie Wench, (OK,
enough invective) Barbara Boxer, is hard left. He will
also campaign on a shoestring budget. And you know what?
I say GOOD to all that.
For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made
three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in
fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):
1. Serious principled conservative (so-called
"extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a
shoestring budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce
Herschensohn 1992).
2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has
backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard
questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom
Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything
here?
3. Vacuous and vapid rich Republican candidate who also
has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune
into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly
(Mike Huffington 1994)
I know which path Mr. Mountjoy will take, and I know what
path I am on. I want a real choice, not a pathetic
echo. The only way to fight a nasty bitch like Boxer is
with a crusty ol' bastard (and I say that with affection)
like Mountjoy. If he loses, he at least loses narrowly
and doesn't spend much.
FOR EITHER PARTY:
CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE, STATE ASSEMBLY, and STATE SENATE
critters: Given gerrymandered districts, incumbents rule
the roost. Deal with what you have where ever you live.
\_ You couldn't post a link?
\_ You can already gift up to $1 million over a lifetime and
leave $2 million in your estate tax-free.
\_ http://csua.org/u/g3v (irs.gov)
"The total amount used against your gift tax reduces the
credit available to use against your estate tax."
My reading is if you gift $1 million today and keel over,
you can leave $1 million more tax-free for $2 million total.
$3.5 mill total in 2009, and unlimited in 2010, but the gift
part (while you're alive) is always $1 million. |
| 2006/5/12-17 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43039 Activity:nil |
5/12 Are there ANY major historical figure who have been left out of
the history books because they're gay?
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1531648/20060512/index.jhtml?headlines=true
\_ maybe not left you, but ignored and vilified while
they were actually alive
\_ or the fact that they were gay just glossed over
\_ Did their historical contribution come from being gay?
If not, then it seems pretty unrelated.
\_ "maybe not left you?" What?
\- whether or not people or events are left out of
history books has more to do with the climate
under which the books are produced than the
attributes of the events/people. in america
if you want to write about something omitted
by somebody else, no external force stops
you from doing so. --psb
\- BTW, this idea I'm getting at is nicely captured
in the title of a recent book on/by STANFRAUD
professor RICHARD RORTY: Take Care of Freedom And
Truth Will Take Care of Itself. |
| 2006/4/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:42657 Activity:moderate |
4/4 AZ Voter Reward Act. "This law will establish a voter reward random
drawing every two years with a first prize of one million dollars or
more. The purpose is to increase voter participation. Voters who cast
ballots in primary or general elections will be eligible to win."
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/Initiatives.htm
\_ way to grab the poor vote.
\_ Which puts the Republicans at a disadvantage. Oh no!
\_ How about if you vote, you get tax deduction?
\_ How about if you don't vote 5 years in a row, you lose your
citizenship?
\_ This sounds like a really bad idea, it's bound to invoke the
law of unintended consequences. This will bring to the polls
people that are not informed, but simply want the money. These
folks are less likely to make informed decisions. But maybe
that's the point. --jwm
people that are not informed, but simply want the money. But
maybe that's the point. --jwm
\_ I don't see any reason to artificially boost voter participation.
Voting isn't a lottery and we shouldn't have to bribe people to
exercise a right others have died for.
\_ Is this Constitutional? I don't think so. Can you pay people
to vote?
\_ What particular section of the US (or state) constitution
would forbid this? I don't mean to be argumentative, but
if you're going to cite the Constitution or "the law", put
up the particulars. Anyway, Paying people to vote a certain
way (and not in the "vote for me and I'll cut your taxes"
way) is pretty verboten, but just to show up at the polls?
People here get free stickers for voting -- Is that verboten?
\_ The sticker is a red herring. Can, say, the Governator
pay every registered Republican $100 to turn out and
vote 'however they choose to vote'? I don't think so.
\_ http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.htm
Sec. 1973i(c)
There is a law which makes it illegal to buy votes in an
election for federal offices. There are probably state laws
prohibiting vote buying for individual states.
The correct question is to ask: Are these laws
unconstitutional? Probably not.
How about a state law which institutes a lottery? I don't know.
\_ The problem with voting from my point of view is it's
inconvenient. The vote day should be a mandatory holiday.
Also the registration and absentee ballot process should be
simpler. It should be a state-coordinated marketing effort
to just go to a promoted web site and fill in minimum
info, to get the ball rolling and the forms sent to you
with postage-paid return envelopes, and send absentee
ballots to everyone by default.
\_ Voting shouldn't be so easy it has no value or meaning. Voting
is something people should think about and understand wtf theyre
doing before they vote. I used to think low turnout was a bad
thing but then I realised I don't want the stupid, the uninformed
and the too lazy to bother diluting my vote. Let them stay home
and play video games. Voting is just not that hard. |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:41492 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4641954.stm Canadian Conservatives win. Lower taxes and Bushism to reign in N America forever! \_ You know, I don't even feel too bad about this. The Conservatives are probably just as corrupt as the Liberals, but at least if they lower taxes they'll have less money to embezzle. The idea of closer ties with the US scares me, but it's not like Martin was doing a great job of keeping his distance either. \_ Or they can slash taxes, run up a huge debt and leave it to later generations to pay and/or default. Note that Canada is actually paying down their national debt right now. \_ Well, not all "conservatives" are as stupid as ours. \_ Except being a parlimentary system they only have something like 32-38 percent of the seats and 52 percent of the seats are in the hands of what, in the us, would be leftist pinkos. \_ We kicked out Davis for Ah-nold. Yes, we are all closet gropers, aren't we? |
| 2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:41330 Activity:kinda low |
1/10 Ah-nold riding motorcycle without a license
http://csua.org/u/el3 (Yahoo! News)
\_ "Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson, acting on initial
information Sunday, said the governor's Class C driver's license
allowed him to ride the motorcycle with its sidecar attached. His
12-year-old son, Patrick, who was riding in a sidecar, was unhurt."
\_ Who's that other politician in another state who ran a stop sign at
above freeway speed and killed someone, and then was found not
guilty of manslaughter?
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/janklow.sentencing
He was found guilty, but only served 100 days.
\_ Only 100 days for manslughter for a chronic speeder who ran
the stop sign at 70mph. What justice. |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40970 Activity:nil |
12/12 Arnold doesn't grant Tookie clemency.
Sayonara shotgun stan!
\_ they shouldn't kill him. just give him 40 strokes of good ol'
fashioned singapore style caning, lovingly and tenderly
administered over 5 years at 8 strokes per year. That will do
the man lots of good, and ensure that he will become a brand
new reformed contributing member of society once more.
\_ 40 strokes over 5 years for multiple brutal killing? I might
settle with 40 strokes per day for the rest of his natural life.
\_ no no no. that will kill him the very first day, and let
him off too easily. I sentence you to watch Passion of the
Christ five times straight.
\_ We should let the pro death penalty people get together
and beat him to death with lead pipes!
\_ How about a sawed-off shotgun?
\_ "Any last words Mr. Williams?"
"Ok, ok, I did it! Sheesh!"
\_ Actually he already admitted in court that he did it.
\_ Link? Or are you refering to the "brain damaged" defense?
\_ No Tookie! That's a bad Mr. Tookie!
\_ FREE TOOKIE! LET MY CAT GO FREE!
\_ Governor dumpy. Want tookie. |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40805 Activity:kinda low |
12/1 The gropenator chooses a Dem for his new chief of staff:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13923851p-14760887c.html
The quotes in the article, however, make her sound like a DINO, tho
her bio reads very liberal.
\_ She was the executive director of CA NARAL. That's about as liberal
as you get.
\_ on one issue. She also voted for all 4 of Arnold's amendments.
\_ Which were endorsed by every liberal paper in
the state.
\_ which is, perhaps, a hint that they're not
all that liberal...
\_ especially considering all 4 failed.
\_ That's a nice definition that might keep
you happy (if they support those 4 props,
then they're not liberal). But the Chron
and LA Times are far left.
\_ No, they aren't. Try the Manchester
\_ Your claims of "far left" are fatuous.
You don't seem to know what it actually
means.
\_ No, they aren't. Try the SF Bay
Guardian if you really want the loony
left.
left. [thanks for the edit, asshole]
\_ Should have said left, not far
left. And I didn't edit your post.
-pp
\_ Yeah, but it's the PETA of that issue.
\_ It hardly matters who the governor is, who they appoint or anything
else in CA. This state is gridlocked. The course is set and the
boat is too big to turn. |
| 2005/11/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40537 Activity:moderate |
11/10 http://www.politicalcompass.org Another measure of your position on the political spectrum. I'm -2.25 Left, -5.64 Libertarian. -nivra \_ Link doesn't work. \_ Some of these questions are loaded. Also, does "Our race" mean the human race, or white/asian/black/etc? \_ I presume it means the race of the person taking the study. \_ -4.65 left, -3.85 libertarian -- I could be the next Dalai Lama! -eric \_ -2.75 left, -0.87 libertarian --dim \_ -2.63 left, -4.31 libertarian -mice \_ Isn't this old? This has been posted several times. Too bad our friendly archiving is gone. \_ archiving wouldn't have prevented it from being posted, nor would it have prevented people from posting responses. \_ "The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789 ......" Is this real? I've been wondering about the origins of the left/right notation. \_ Yes. The people who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the chamber, right being the position of respect (as in "right hand man"). The "common people", who opposed the absolute power of the monarchy and the aristocracy, sat on the left. -gm \_ -5.50 left, -5.90 libertarian. -tom \_ Is the Chinese authority moving from Stalin-like to Hitler-like? \_ Everyone on the left huh? 4.13 left, -1.08 libertarian \_ 3.25 left/right, 0.15 libertarian \- -3.13Left,-2.67Lib. i think that overstates my leftiness. the moral phil test is better. --psb \_ urlP \_ #t \_ 4.75 Right, -2.31 Libertarian. \- -3.13Left,-2.67Lib. i think that overstates my leftiness. --psb the moral phil test is better. \_ some of the squestions are poorly written like the one about "plant genetic resources". \_ Its fairly obvious they mean the "terminator" gene, but it could also include vegetables w/ animal dna. \_ "Astrology accurately explains many things"? Well, yes. The question is what things. \_ -3.25 left/right, -6.62 Lib/Authoritarian. Does this mean I'm a fucking hippy? \_ Only if you are having sex, if not it just makes you a hippy. -ax \_ I find it amusing that classic liberalism is labeled neo-liberalism on their chart. \_ Economic Left/Right: -0.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72 This makes me a moderate, while most of you think of me as conservative. It seems like the test is a little skewed towards the left, but it could be the Berkeley curve throwing things off. -ax \_ 0.50 left, 5.18 libertarian. Hrm. -John \_ -5.38 left, -6.72 libertarian. -niloc \_ -0.25 left, -2.36 lib. This thing is definitely skewed to the left in the economic scale at least. I am pretty certain that their "International Chart" showing a whole bunch of famous leaders in in the authoritarian+right is wrong; that they are inaccurately describing "rightist" economic attitudes with their questions on that subject. In reality I think the modern notion of the center is somewhere to the left of their absolute scale. (On the other hand I do consider myself a moderate and it puts me there...) \_ -5.88 left, -4.92 lib |
| 2005/11/10-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40536 Activity:nil |
11/10 Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
\_ This is funny, because "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives"
were opposed by Partisans of both sides.
\_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon. Pat has always been an
isolationist. He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
\_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
\_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
to GWB's pre-politics days. Too many people around here find
some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
\_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
\_ exactly. I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
name of dangerous animal<" links. He also posts some
oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
recently with breitbart(sp?) news. I don't read drudge
for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
there was a real conservative group (other than the
Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
the invasion pre-invasion -op
\_ That's why they're called "neo" cons. There are still
plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
less spending, smaller government, and all the other
traditional conservative agenda items. Thus it makes
me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
sole representatives of the conservative movement.
Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
a belief.
\_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that.
\_ Isolationists are far right, not "non-neo".
\_ Those "agenda items" are far too vague and
meaningless. Anybody agrees with that. A politician
can go up and talk about that kind of general shit
just like they talk about helping the poor and
with prescription drugs and etc. and everybody
goes "yay!" to anything and everything except
actual tax raising or program cuts, at which
point both parties are looking exactly the same.
And the political discourse in this country is
more concerned about stuff like religion and
whether somebody "flip-flops".
\_ They're not vague at all. What is vague about
smaller government, less spending, lower taxes,
local control, and an isolationist leaning
international policy? These are policy platforms
for the ages, not specific laws, but you knew
the difference between policy and philosophy and
were just being silly. |
| 2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40520 Activity:moderate |
11/9 Why did people vote against the teacher "5 year probation" prop?
Seems like only incompetent teachers should worry about that.
Maybe they miscalculated and "4 years" would have passed?
\_ Maybe it was a combination of people thinking the current two-year
probation period was enough and hating Ah-nold.
\_ Why did people love him before but hate him now? I haven't really
been paying attention.
\_ it really started to turn when he decided to mess with the
nurses / teachers / firefighters / police.
and then people realized he was doing the same ol' "i'm
ah-nold" routine, without providing any substance behind the
muscle. and then people realized that it was the CA
Republican party that was controlling his agenda.
light at the top, actually operated by people smarter than
him, just like dubya.
\_ Yet here were are with the same old status quo and
\_ Yet here we are with the same old status quo and
looming deficits and blah blah. Poltics sucks.
\_ huh?
looming deficits and blah blah. Politics sucks.
\_ I liked this story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teacher10nov10,0,7202054.story
\_ Why should the employment rules of schools be a political issue
decided by the uninformed masses based on what sounds good to
them? -tom
\_ We should let the King decide these issues. Death to the
plebes!
\_ Because the uniformed masses are paying for it and it's
bankrupting the state?
\_ Let's vote to change police officer's uniforms to
pink, while we're at it, since we're paying for them.
The idea that schools are bankrupting the state is ludicrous,
and in any case, probation length has no effect on the
total amount spent. -tom
\_ Errr... talk to any business major about this. -jrleek
\_ CA spends ~50% of tax revenue on education. MN (one of the
highest ranked if not the highest) spends <30%. I
don't know what's wrong, but spending more money on it
isn't the answer.
\_ Just out of curiosity, what is MN's total tax revenue
per capita, including income and property tax.
Saying MN spends less than 30% on their schools
impresses me not at all since they are still spending
far more per student than CA.
\_ They have fewer students to educate. CA's
problem is all the low income immigrant children
who are filling the schools at the same time
that their parents don't contribute much to the
tax base. Those kids deserve an education, but
I think it necessarily won't be one as good as
what the kids in, say, MN receive. The failure
is thinking that it should/can be.
\_ What's the percentage of MN children whose native
languge is not English or whose parents' language
is not English and how does that compare to CA?
\_ So you're saying you want to kick out all the
illegals to bring CA costs in line with MN?
\_ Sounds good to me. Might save some ER's down in
SoCal as well.
\_ No, what I am saying is that demographic
factors probably can offer an explanation to why
factors probably can offer and explanation to why
CA students underpeform despite the state spending
lots of money on them. 88% of MN population are
white with a tiny hispanic minority.
\_ I have yet to hear a good explanation for why pre-college teachers
need tenure.
\_ Because the incredibly power teacher's union says so.
\_ Because the incredibly powerful teacher's union says so.
\_ Because most can get more money working at a different job.
They are trading salary for some job security and with the
add on of pensions, school districts keeps fairly steady
workforce.
\_ College professors, yes. School teachers? Mostly not.
I had one teacher that could hold a real job in the
real world K-12. The rest were "mom" types working for
extra take home cash. "Those who can, do. Those who
can't, teach."
\_ So the state should be willing to pay private school
prices for teachers? Or should the state should expect
to accept a high turnover rate for teachers. Note that
most teachers don't get past the five year mark.
\_ I think your points are unproven bullshit.
\_ What do you mean 'private school prices'? Most
private school teachers make less.
\_ Where's your evidence?
\_ http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
"Private school teachers generally earn less
than public school teachers."
\_ And it also says at least some of those
private school teachers don't have the
credentials to work at a public school.
It's only fair to compare ones that do.
\_ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
"On average, public school teachers earn
between about 25 to 119 percent more than
private school teachers earn, depending
upon the private subsector... Between
about 2 and 50 percent of this public-
private difference can be accounted for
by differences in teacher characteristics
depending upon the private subsector.
Controlling for differences in teacher
and school characteristics between the
public and private sectors, one observes
a residual difference in the salaries of
teachers that is simply associated with
the sector in which the teacher is
employed." Anything else I can point you
to to convince you (everyone else is
already convinced) that you are wrong?
\_ I went to a private school (many of
them, in fact) and the teachers always
said they could make more in public
schools but that they didn't want to
deal with public school students,
parents, and administrators. Also, many
teachers are at private schools because
they care about more than a paycheck
(many private schools are religious).
\_ Why should anything be decided by the uninformed masses based
on what sounds good to them? The whole proposition system is
dumb.
\_ All Hail Caesar! Long Live The King! Democracy is dumb!
Why should the same 'uninformed masses' be allowed to vote
on anything? Isn't having the same dumb people choosing
their own leaders dumb too? You're totally right, all the
modern dictatorships one could name were much better off
with A Strong Noble Leader(tm) than we are with all those
dumb uninformed masses running around *gasp* voting! and
participating in other things normally reserved for Noble
Leader and His Family. Is there a place I can donate a
few bucks to start a CSUA Motd History Book Fund and then
can we require that people like this be a certain height
before posting here?
\- strictly speaking this is more E_RATCHET than E_TOOSHORT
\_ Strictly speaking, this comment is considerably more
stupid than the one to which it was responding.
\_ This falls under the "I know you are but what am I?!"
school of debate. Would you like to add some actual
content or are you happy at the "sticks and stones"
level?
\_ I love the motd. Calling a post that starts out
"All Hail Caesar!" and proceeds off on some straw
man dictatorship tangent "stupid" really requires
clarification? If you actually need it spelled out
for you, the response below does a decent job.
\_ Here's the difference: the below posted something
that makes a point and is worth responding to.
You posted noise and then waiting for someone
smart to respond and then said, "yeah! what
*he* said! nyah!"
\_ False dilemma. It's not about democracy vs. dictatorship;
it's about pure democracy vs. representational. Hey,
let's have everyone in the nation vote directly on
congressional bills too. Doesn't that sound like a grand
idea? Who needs leaders? Let's let all the people vote
on everything.
\_ When your respresentatives no longer represent and the
system has gone too far to self correct, there needs to
be some form of check/balance to counter the prevailing
non-representative system. In CA we have the prop.
system. It provides the people, you know, the tax
payer plebes/victims, a chance to retake control of an
out of control system. It can also be abused and can
create bad situations as well, but overall I have a lot
more faith in the voters than I do in life long
political hacks and beaurocrats. Pure democracy would
likely lead to the people voting themselves goodies from
the public trough as they say, but no direct democracy
has given us the same problem with corporations and
special interest groups and the proposition system is
a reasonable attempt to restore power to where it
belongs: the people. |
| 2005/11/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40503 Activity:low |
11/8 Potential headlines for tomorrow:
ARNOLD TERMINATED AT POLLS
\_ Take that republi-monkeys:
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/sff/prop/00.htm
\_ Um, yeah, like the SFChron, LATimes, OakTribuine, SacBee-- you
mean *those* republi-monkeys?
\_ I don't give a rats ass what a bunch of media flaks think.
\_ You know that Republicans were campaigning against 77,
right? -emarkp
\_ Boy, that was a big waste of money.
\_ Partisanship has won the day. No more room for moderates. CA,
\_ Partisanship has won the day. No more room for moderats. CA,
you've made Tom DeLay proud. Dems in CA should ignore R's from now
on. R's in the senate should eliminate the filibuster and
steamroller over anything the D's say. Good bye sweet America.
\_ Wow, thanks for censoring my post. I'll say it again: if
you're not happy with California then *leave*.
\_ I'll leave after all the fucking Mormons, er, Morons leave.
You may go fuck yourself.
\_ California's doing just fine, thanks. Feel free to move
back to Texas, Florida or wherever it is you came from.
\_ I've been here my whole life. My whole family is here. And
yet I'm surrounded by people who will happily hand over their
votes to whoever pays the most.
\_ Uh, Schwarzenneger paid the most, and got punked. -tom
\_ Uh, no he didn't. Unions spent $100M, pharmaceuticals
spent $80M, which leaves (at most) $70M for Arnold.
http://csua.org/u/dz0
\_ I must confirm that I got way more mailings and
messages on the answering machine from the
anti-Ahnold folks. |
| 5/16 |