cmaldoon wrote:I was only slightly worried about her taking the presidency. My bigger issue was "what the hell, your first big decision was picking a VP and this is your answer? Seriously?" I no longer had faith in his decision making abilities.

That was a total, HOLY promises HAVE YOU SEEN OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS WITH WOMEN? Panic move.

bhodilee wrote:That was a total, HOLY promises HAVE YOU SEEN OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS WITH WOMEN? Panic move.

It didn't help. Maybe he should have considered why his numbers weren't great with women, and then consulted his binders to find one who didn't personify the problem. Judgement fail.

kylemittskus wrote:How did everyone do with the props?
... and two more states relaxed their views on weed (woo).

In Colorado, not only did we DECRIMINALIZE marijuana, but we made a freakin AMENDMENT to the state constitution.

Oh yeah, and we passed everything... I blame it on the weed.

texacaliali wrote:well this is interesting... http://fermentationwineblog.com/2012/11/wine-drinkers-and-winemakers-won-election-for-obama/

as is this which was offered up by someone's wife. Does Lucy have some splainin' to do?

bhodilee wrote:as is this which was offered up by someone's wife. Does Lucy have some splainin' to do?

"someone's"?

This might have been covered, but what do people think about getting rid of the electoral college and switching election to the popular vote? My friends from russia did not understand why US does not subscribe to the one person one vote concept?

tiger7610 wrote:This might have been covered, but what do people think about getting rid of the electoral college and switching election to the popular vote? My friends from russia did not understand why US does not subscribe to the one person one vote concept?

Starting here.

kylemittskus wrote:Starting here.

Thanks, although I'm curious to see why that hasnt happen in other countries? Yes there are usually more than 2 candidate but not a dozen home town heroes.

joelsisk wrote:"someone's"?

Specifically, yours :-)

rpm wrote:Well, I've quoted it before, but it's never been more true:



H.L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques (Knopf 1916)

There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

Amen

Apparently being an ORC who KILLS people and likes it is not enough to scare voters away.

I love World of Warcrack. My Pandaren is level 83 and she is a healing machine.

The smear campaign based on this candidate's gaming was just hilarious. I'm glad voters didn't buy it.

chemvictim wrote:Apparently being an ORC who KILLS people and likes it is not enough to scare voters away.

I love World of Warcrack. My Pandaren is level 83 and she is a healing machine.

The smear campaign based on this candidate's gaming was just hilarious. I'm glad voters didn't buy it.

I understood very little of what you just said.

tiger7610 wrote:This might have been covered, but what do people think about getting rid of the electoral college and switching election to the popular vote? My friends from russia did not understand why US does not subscribe to the one person one vote concept?

So if we had done that in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote, we might have stopped 9/11. The Bush administration cut the anti terrorism budget by more than half and ignored multiple serious warnings from what remained of the intelligence community.

rpm wrote:This really is goodbye to this thread for me. I may lurk, but I simply can't continue to engage anymore. It's too depressing.

I was going to ask if I could have your wine when you flee the country, but then I realized that Sparky's wine would already be a several-lifetime supply...

There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

But those are the only people you *can* explain it to.

rpm wrote:Well, I've quoted it before, but it's never been more true:



H.L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques (Knopf 1916)

This really is goodbye to this thread for me. I may lurk, but I simply can't continue to engage anymore. It's too depressing. There is really no point in trying to explain liberty to people who don't understand what it means.

Hello folks. (guess I shouldn't use that term here!). Sad to see RPM throw in the towel...I did long ago, but I did not have his knowledge nor insight. I just watched a man ruin my profession over the last half decade.

One question that I have never heard asked, but has run through my mind for almost five years is: Why would a person that was born to BHO's circumstances in life, fervently work to bring about a fundamental transformation to a society that allowed him (or...gave him the opportunity) to rise above all others to become President of the country he (seemingly) disdains?

I guess I'll never figure that out. Back to the grind...I'll be lurking. Good-bye old friends!

gregorylane wrote:Hello folks. (guess I shouldn't use that term here!).

Shouldn't use which term? Folks? I don't understand.

oops

gregorylane wrote:Hello folks. (guess I shouldn't use that term here!). Sad to see RPM throw in the towel...I did long ago, but I did not have his knowledge nor insight. I just watched a man ruin my profession over the last half decade.

One question that I have never heard asked, but has run through my mind for almost five years is: Why would a person that was born to BHO's circumstances in life, fervently work to bring about a fundamental transformation to a society that allowed him (or...gave him the opportunity) to rise above all others to become President of the country he (seemingly) disdains?

I guess I'll never figure that out. Back to the grind...I'll be lurking. Good-bye old friends!

A difference in perspectives, I imagine; I am sure that Obama is convinced that he got where he is through luck and a good measure of absolutely exceptional abilities and characteristics that most people lack, and he's more interested in seeing (again, from his perspective) those who lack said luck and exceptional abilities still able to live secure and comfortable lives. Essentially, I don't doubt his sincerity in the larger philosophical sense (though on practical matters he is every bit as much of a schemer who is willing to abandon a particular single-issue conviction for power/success/etc as any other politician). And his own faith in his exceptional abilities helps him to believe that he knows what is best for everyone else in the country - on environmentalism, fiscal policy, race relations, health care, etc etc etc. To be fair, many seem to agree with him that he does indeed know what is best for the people more than the people themselves do.

Of course, many of us don't believe that, and feel that individuals should be (mostly) free to live our lives as we see fit, and see to our own circumstances and finances and other decisions ourselves without some outside force (benevolent or not) guiding our decisions for us. I personally don't understand how, say, a farmer in California can think that a politician living 3000 miles away from him can know better how he should be living than the farmer himself, but then many people are these days more comfortable with some form of parental-like guidance over them, and hardly anybody ever stops to consider the vastly different geographies that have been such an important part of this country throughout its history.

jawlz wrote:A difference in perspectives, I imagine; I am sure that Obama is convinced that he got where he is through luck and a good measure of absolutely exceptional abilities and characteristics that most people lack, and he's more interested in seeing (again, from his perspective) those who lack said luck and exceptional abilities still able to live secure and comfortable lives. Essentially, I don't doubt his sincerity in the larger philosophical sense (though on practical matters he is every bit as much of a schemer who is willing to abandon a particular single-issue conviction for power/success/etc). And his own faith in his exceptional abilities helps him to believe that he knows what is best for everyone else in the country - on environmentalism, fiscal policy, race relations, health care, etc etc etc. To be fair, many seem to agree with him that he does indeed know what is best for the people more than the people themselves do.

Of course, many of us don't believe that, and feel that individuals should be (mostly) free to live our lives as we see fit, and see to our own circumstances and finances and other decisions ourselves without some outside force (benevolent or not) guiding our decisions for us. I personally don't understand how, say, a farmer in California can think that a politician living 3000 miles away from him can know better how he should be living than the farmer himself, but then many people are these days more comfortable with some form of parental-like guidance over them, and hardly anybody ever stops to consider the vast geographies of difference that have been such an important part of this country throughout its history.

I approve of this post.

kylemittskus wrote:I approve of this post.

I approve your approval of said approval post

Wow! I can see why these threads are so popular - it's entertaining reading.

If I understand correctly, rpm left the thread because (an electoral majority of) people are too stupid to be able to understand the concept of liberty.

Then jawlz wonders how a group of people with the drive to get to positions where they run the government can think that they know better than the (irredeemably stupid) populace.

Hmmm...

zTimothyBz wrote:Wow! I can see why these threads are so popular - it's entertaining reading.

If I understand correctly, rpm left the thread because (an electoral majority of) people are too stupid to be able to understand the concept of liberty.

Then jawlz wonders how a group of people with the drive to get to positions where they run the government can think that they know better than the (irredeemably stupid) populace.

Hmmm...

To be clear, I'm not calling anyone irredeemably stupid, and am not really wondering how people with the drive to get positions in power can think they know better than the rest of the populace (really, it's pretty easy to make the connection between a person having a great deal of drive, intelligence, charisma, etc, and an associated belief that said person therefore believes he could 'run things well' if he were 'put in charge').

I don't subscribe to either set of thoughts (that a group of elites should be running things, or that the 'non-elites' are stupid per se), but see those who do as holding a different philosophical perspective, if that makes any sense.

The stupid people part wasn't you. I felt it implied by the other quote.

Anyway, I was considering which tack to take in replying to gregorylane's post- which seemed to me to be written from deeply within his point of view - when your post came up and seemed supportive of it on first read.

Politically, I can only aspire to be a wise fool. It's depressing being the most sane person amongst my acquaintance when my chief qualification is an awareness of my irrationality.

kylemittskus wrote:How did everyone do with the props?

In CA, we're (snip)not labeling food as genetically modified (woo),

This was one prop from CA that I was really hoping would pass... why are you wooing at LESS information for the consumer? Just curious, not trying to start a flame war. It's just... wow, what are those companies trying to hide? They spent millions of dollars in advertising to make sure they didn't have to change their labels? They change their labels on a whim just for artistic license, but somehow, labeling something that's been genetically modified using bacteria is somehow going to be expensive and raise costs? Not buying that excuse.

tilandra wrote:This was one prop from CA that I was really hoping would pass... why are you wooing at LESS information for the consumer? Just curious, not trying to start a flame war. It's just... wow, what are those companies trying to hide? They spent millions of dollars in advertising to make sure they didn't have to change their labels? They change their labels on a whim just for artistic license, but somehow, labeling something that's been genetically modified using bacteria is somehow going to be expensive and raise costs? Not buying that excuse.

Not so much the lack of info, but a poorly written prop by trial lawyers that would turn into a morass of litigation for retailers, to the TL's benefit, or so the argument went.
A product could have been sold by, say a deli and the deli wouldn't have to post GM's, however the small market next door, selling the same product, would, and the proposed fines were out of line if proper signage wasn't posted.

CA is already hostile to business, this is one small victory for the small guy, but yes, the producers as well.

tilandra wrote:This was one prop from CA that I was really hoping would pass... why are you wooing at LESS information for the consumer? Just curious, not trying to start a flame war. It's just... wow, what are those companies trying to hide? They spent millions of dollars in advertising to make sure they didn't have to change their labels? They change their labels on a whim just for artistic license, but somehow, labeling something that's been genetically modified using bacteria is somehow going to be expensive and raise costs? Not buying that excuse.

If you don't want to eat genetically modified food, you'll need 40 acres and a mule. Plus a bunch of heirloom seeds. Oh, and have fun starving to death when you get poor moisture conditions, bugs, disease, all the fun stuff that kept the population down for millennia.

My brother thinks the Green Party is too far to the right. Given that, you might think he'd have been a supporter of the Calfornia GM labeling initiative, but he wasn't. You see, he's also a PhD geneticist.

He told me that genetic engineering is the safest way to modify plants - selective breeding, grafting, and the other "natural" means will give you the desired genetic modifications if you do it right, but also come with unknown genetic changes that tag along, since these methods put the entire genome into play rather than just the specific part desired. With genetic engineering, you avoid these unintended consequences by only changing one thing.

Genetic engineering sounds scary - it brings to mind a lot of science fiction disaster narratives. Those narratives shouldn't drive policy, though.

tilandra wrote:This was one prop from CA that I was really hoping would pass... why are you wooing at LESS information for the consumer? Just curious, not trying to start a flame war. It's just... wow, what are those companies trying to hide? They spent millions of dollars in advertising to make sure they didn't have to change their labels? They change their labels on a whim just for artistic license, but somehow, labeling something that's been genetically modified using bacteria is somehow going to be expensive and raise costs? Not buying that excuse.

Hi. Sorry it's taking me so long to respond. First of all, no flame wars here. The nature of this thread is contrarian, argumentative, and at times, heated. Stick around! New blood is always a positive thing in this thread.

As to your question, it's been pretty well covered by the three gents (well, two and BowTie) above me.

My main issue was "what's the point." Every single thing you eat has been genetically modified. And that's a good thing! Bug resistant, weather strong, faster growing, healthier, etc. etc. etc. All upsides. And there is NO downside.

Another issue I had was the sponsorship on the "pro 37" side. The g*d damn, quasi-religious, "Organic" food gourds! I hate that entire movement. It's probably the biggest BS movement of this decade along with AirBorn and those stupid power bracelets. This is a great article written by Peter Wellington on the topic.

And lastly, my issue was the negative impact on the free market. It's going to cost extra money on multiple levels (lawyers for the relabeling which the consumer pays for, court fees associated with lawsuits, etc.) And all that for something that should be known by every single person who eats any food at all (see point one). As to the excuse you're not buying, this isn't changing a label to make it look pretty. That's easy to do. Changing a label to follow legal changes is much different. I do a little with compliance, although in a completely different realm (education), and it is difficult, full of minutiae, and expensive. And if you make a single mistake, you get sued with returns us to the lawyers and court fees, both of which we, the consumers will pay, via increased food cost and taxes.

Edit: I just reread PW's article. Probably my favorite of his ramblings. He mentions Ted Kaczynski along with Organic food. Awesome!

kylemittskus wrote:
Another issue I had was the sponsorship on the "pro 37" side. The g*d damn, quasi-religious, "Organic" food gourds! I hate that entire movement. It's probably the biggest BS movement of this decade along with AirBorn and those stupid power bracelets. This is a great article written by Peter Wellington on the topic.

Kyle, thanks for the link to Peter's piece. Good to have long time folks here to point the way.

tilandra wrote:This was one prop from CA that I was really hoping would pass... why are you wooing at LESS information for the consumer? Just curious, not trying to start a flame war. It's just... wow, what are those companies trying to hide? They spent millions of dollars in advertising to make sure they didn't have to change their labels? They change their labels on a whim just for artistic license, but somehow, labeling something that's been genetically modified using bacteria is somehow going to be expensive and raise costs? Not buying that excuse.

In addition to the points above, it was also poorly written and vague as to what constitutes "genetically modified". From my biologist girlfriend and my bioengineering PhD we were both fairly against it. Although we didn't necessarily think it was a bad idea outright, just a bad law (as are most citizen-initiated propositions...Prop 13 anybody?).

klezman wrote:In addition to the points above, it was also poorly written and vague as to what constitutes "genetically modified". From my biologist girlfriend and my bioengineering PhD we were both fairly against it. Although we didn't necessarily think it was a bad idea outright, just a bad law (as are most citizen-initiated propositions...Prop 13 anybody?).

Actually, Prop 13 was not a bad law. It's just that the dang Democrats in Sacramento can't keep their hands in their own wallets.

The problem is that the Dems can't stop spending $$$ to save California. We pass one Prop/Bond after another to help the Schools, and they just keep taking it away.

And what happened to all the funds from the CA Lottery that was to go to schools?


Prop 13 Debunkers Debunked

For example, just a few months before Proposition 13 passed in 1978, then-Los Angeles County Assessor Alexander Pope announced that many parcels of property would see assessed valuations increase by as much as 100%.
...
And renters also reap benefits. Without Proposition 13, you can be sure that higher business property taxes on apartment buildings would be passed on, in the form of higher rents, to working families and seniors living on fixed incomes.

You ready to pay more in Rent???


So you want us to go from our current level (higher than 36 other states) in property taxes to paying more??? So not just being at or near the top in sales, car, gas and personal income taxes, but also Property Tax as well?


I guess that's one way to get people to move out of California.

MarkDaSpark wrote:You ready to pay more in Rent???


So you want us to go from our current level (higher than 36 other states) in property taxes to paying more??? So not just being at or near the top in sales, car, gas and personal income taxes, but also Property Tax as well?


I guess that's one way to get people to move out of California.

No, I simply think it's inequitable that my property taxes could be double yours simply because I bought my home when the market had gone up by a factor of two compared to when you bought yours. Assuming, of course, our homes are identical and next door to each other.

klezman wrote:No, I simply think it's inequitable that my property taxes could be double yours simply because I bought my home when the market had gone up by a factor of two compared to when you bought yours. Assuming, of course, our homes are identical and next door to each other.

Why is it inequitable? If I've owned my property longer, why should I have to pay more?

After all, this isn't Canada ... err, Communist Russia.



Why should you make more as an engineer? Why should anyone make more? Slippery path there.


Edit: Or do you want homeless Senior Citizens, dependent on the cold, heartless Gov't for housing?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Why is it inequitable? If I've owned my property longer, why should I have to pay more?

After all, this isn't Canada ... err, Communist Russia.



Why should you make more as an engineer? Why should anyone make more? Slippery path there.


Edit: Or do you want homeless Senior Citizens, dependent on the cold, heartless Gov't for housing?

Supply and demand accounts for salary differences, of course. If you've owned your property longer why should you pay less? That seems to be the onus of proof to me. Your property taxes go to fund the city government - why should you fund it less because you bought your house longer ago? We get the same services from the city. Unless they let your sidewalk crumble and repair mine because I pay more tax.

klezman wrote:Supply and demand accounts for salary differences, of course. If you've owned your property longer why should you pay less? That seems to be the onus of proof to me. Your property taxes go to fund the city government - why should you fund it less because you bought your house longer ago? We get the same services from the city. Unless they let your sidewalk crumble and repair mine because I pay more tax.

Apparently he should pay less because otherwise he'd be a homeless senior citizen. It doesn't make much sense if you believe everyone should pay his own way. Makes perfect sense if you're a bleeding-heart liberal (which I thought was supposed to be my job).

MarkDaSpark wrote:So not just being at or near the top in sales, car, gas and personal income taxes, but also Property Tax as well?

I guess that's one way to get people to move out of California.

And now we have the CA version of Cap and Tax kicking in. Yeah, that'll keep expenses down for everybody, and business is sure to fully embrace it; by moving out to a competitive state.. Oh wait, that's already happening isn't it.

rjquillin wrote:And now we have the CA version of Cap and Tax kicking in. Yeah, that'll keep expenses down for everybody, and business is sure to fully embrace it; by moving out to a competitive state.. Oh wait, that's already happening isn't it.

Maybe it will be less crowded, more for whoever's left to enjoy!

klezman wrote:Supply and demand accounts for salary differences, of course. If you've owned your property longer why should you pay less? That seems to be the onus of proof to me. Your property taxes go to fund the city government - why should you fund it less because you bought your house longer ago? We get the same services from the city. Unless they let your sidewalk crumble and repair mine because I pay more tax.

Why should I pay more? The onus is on you to explain why. The young go out more, exercise more, and therefore cause more damage to city streets and sidewalks. You also shower more (due to the exercising), causing more damage to water and sewer lines. Cause you know us old folks only take sponge baths.

We all pay Sales Tax (portion goes to the City), Utility Taxes (Water, Gas, Sewer, etc.), as well as portions of the Electric & Cable/Phone/TV bills go to the City.

Those are all based on usage, whereas Property Tax isn't. And it still goes up, just not the 100% that it used to before 1978 when Prop 13 passed. It's been 30+ years, isn't it time to stop blaming Prop 13 and put it squarely on the politicians that can't stop over-spending to save the state?


However, I can still see the Democrats blaming Bush in 30 years.


And as for education, you must have missed this ...

First and foremost, Proposition 13 did not dictate how our government would spend property tax revenues. It simply set a property tax rate of 1% and limited annual tax increases to no more than 2%.

Proposition 13 is not responsible for shifting the responsibility of education funding from the local level to Sacramento. Years before Proposition 13 passed, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serrano vs. Priest, an equal-protection case, that school funding must be equalized for all California students. That meant education funding could not be based on property tax receipts, because wealthy neighborhoods with high property values could spend more per student than poor neighborhoods with lower property values. The funding of our education system based on varying property tax receipts was found unconstitutional, but you never hear the Proposition 13's opponents discuss this ruling or its implications.

You also never hear them talk about the fact that spending per pupil has actually increased 30%, adjusted for inflation, since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, according to research by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

So the problem isn't with Prop 13, but with the politicians and unions in bed with them.

klezman wrote:Supply and demand accounts for salary differences, of course. If you've owned your property longer why should you pay less? That seems to be the onus of proof to me. Your property taxes go to fund the city government - why should you fund it less because you bought your house longer ago? We get the same services from the city. Unless they let your sidewalk crumble and repair mine because I pay more tax.

So the same goes for income.. Why should I pay more, we use the same services.