Politics Domestic California Arnold - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California:Arnold:
Results 151 - 228 of 228   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

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?
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   

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/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] 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/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/SIG] 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.
2008/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:51754 Activity:low Entry has been invalidated. Access denied.
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/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Science/GlobalWarming] 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/Crime, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] 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/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] 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.
2017/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/22   
Results 151 - 228 of 228   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California:Arnold:
.