Why California Sucks Ass!!!
 

God the list is so long I don't want to waste UT's bandwidth.


"Talk amongst yer'selves.." Barb.

Earthquakes

Wildfires

Mudslides

Radar

Papparzi

Madonna

Snob Hypocrital Liberal Actors

Etc.

Did I miss the law telling you to forcibly relocate, Merc?

tell me again why sucking ass is bad?

Raiders fans

Lakers fans

Allowed Barry Bonds to live there more than one day

I've never gotten into the whole California-worship thing. Whenever I've visited (San Diego, Oakland/Berkeley, and Monterey), I thought it was nice, but in a Stepford, plastic kind of way. I've always been happy to return to my native east coast.

Though I have to admit, sometimes when I'm lying awake at 3AM, I do wonder if I should have gone to Cal tech and tried to get a foot in at the JPL.

LA gave up NFL football and nobody cared.

That's just sick.

However, not all of California sucks. The further North of Sacramento you go, the better it gets. Well, the parts that aren't on fire, anyway.

Oh and its all the "way toooo the left"

Why California Sucks Ass!!!
 

Feinstein

Boxer

Waxman

ad infinitum

The Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan does your thinking for you.

The Hoover Damn.

OK, I have to play devil's advocate here. There is no state in the country where it's as easy as it is in California to change the law via direct ballot action. Yet you suggest that the government is an independent entity that thinks for the citizens. What's the deal?

OK! The land of fruits and nuts!!

don't forget the far left field libertarians who are subconsciously into the blue state mentality.

The deal is that the system is dysfunctional, if not broken.

There's a reason we have elected representatives. Professionals, or semi-pro, to do the work of legislation. When (seemingly) every law is challenged by a ballot proposition, what's the point of having a government that makes laws?

There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives. Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.

My point is that it is easy, too easy, to write a thunderously pandering proposition, gather the signatures and votes, without adequate regard to overall effect.

Additionally, we had these things on the ballot ALL THE DAMN TIME. I don't want to be a legislator. I "hired" someone to do that for me, and my neighbors. I don't want to walk around behind him, redoing all his work.

The alternative to to Prop 13 is to force people to move out of homes they've lived in their entire lives when an insane real estate bubble shoots the price of their home up by 100% in 5 years.

When my dad retired, his home was worth 1.1 million. It's a modest 3 bedroom track home in a very hot real estate market. Without prop 13, my dad would have had to come up with $11,000 a year to stay in his home. If he couldn't make that payment on his retirement pension, he would have been forced to sell his home.

The alternative to prop 13 is to leave long-term homeowners hostage to the inflated prices jacked up by speculators and foolish buyers.

I'll stipulate your points. (Notice I never suggested it was a good system.) But my original comment was about a post that suggested that the gummint does people's thinking for them, and I don't see that out of what you describe,

SD: You're right. Radar's point that teh gummint does all the thinking in California is incorrect.

Your point that there is a *very* active political culture in California is also right. Many, many good things have come from California, things that started as political ideas, brought to life by laws. Not all of them were invented there, but once adopted there, they blossomed.

sm: Prop 13 was conceived and passed because there *was* a real problem with rising tax bills. I don't contest that. My point was that it was an oversimple solution that caused as many problems as it solved. It was effective. But, because it was put together by amateurs, it was poorly made.

There is a reason we have professionals of all stripes, and this is a good example of why we should have professional lawmakers.

/devil's/ When I was new in the car biz and people would ask for a "senior salesperson" I would laugh with them and say I understood. Why would they want to deal with me and my amateurish, semi-transparent negotiating techniques when they could have a real professional; someone so experienced and versed in the trade they could assfuck them from three states away without the customer being any the wiser.

having a pro taking care of you is really only beneficial if you can trust them to really be on your side. how many "professional lawmakers" have you met that fit that description? /advocate/

Yes, you are correct. It is a matter of trust. My Dad imparted this wisdom to me, early and often, "Consider the source, son." It is so true. While we're dogging politicians, I'm reminded of the immortal words of
You're a pro, can you do a better job at what you do than some duffer? Probably. *and* you could probably do a better job at disguising your malfeasance, hypothetically assuming you committed any. Same here. Same at the capitol. But the chances that something good will come from the efforts of an amateur (or a million amateurs) compared to a pro, for something as complex as legislation are slim.

What we share here is the unspoken disgust at unethical behavior, coming from a salesman or a legislator or whomever. That chaps my ass same as you. But it's not because they're professionals.

don't mean to dodge your question about how many lawmakers have I met...

Practically none. But it is *possible* to make an informed judgment of the trustworthiness of a politician based on their words and actions. But that takes much effort, and considerable application of my Dad's wise words, "Consider the source, son."

Prop 13 didn't harm public schools, making them PUBLIC is what wrecked them. Allowing the government, especially the federal government to be involved in the funding, planning, building, testing, or designing curriculum of our schools is a nightmare.

I have to admit I was pretty angry after the last vote. We had a proposition (Prop 98) on the ballot to eliminate eminent domain for private use. It would have prevented politicians and wealthy developers from stealing someones home, rentals, business, or place of worship simply because something else would provide more tax dollars. It would have protected real property from people.

The developers, and the league of California cities, and counties, etc. created another proposition to sink the first one. They made a proposition that offered no protection at all and paid millions and millions of dollars to scare the crap out of old people and socialists by claiming Prop 98 would end rent control. Prop 98 didn't end rent control for anyone that was already renting under it....even though it should.

The scumbags got their way and the idiots of the state voted down the only protection they could get from having their property stolen from them, or their friends, neighbors, and relatives.

Thank you for providing further evidence for my point.

You forgot to pack your eloquence for this trip out to the interwebz. I understand what you're saying, but, in addition to being fundamentally wrong, you misleadingly conflate the big bad Feds with what it takes to make a school system succeed. I'm just sayin.

I'm not fundamentally wrong. Public schools are an utter failure. All schools should be private schools. Public schools teach kids to rely on the government for everything. It's these kind of people who grow up thinking if you're against government funded schools, it means you're against kids getting a decent education or you don't want an education to be available to everyone.

What it takes to make a school system succeed are good teachers who engage kids and keep their attention. It takes an environment that kids enjoy and where kids don't fear getting shot or beaten by gang members. It takes a flexible curriculum and it takes parental involvement in the process.

When government pays for any part of this, they want to control all of it. Government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, everything it touches turns to shit.

I care too much about the education of our kids to allow government to screw it up in the same way it screws everything else up.

Calm. Down.

Public schools are not an utter failure. There is a place for private schools, but that place is not "No public schools". Public education is a crucial part of the foundation of our national capital, our civic infrastructure. We could no more have only private schools than we could have only private roads, or only a private military. Your hyper-allergic reaction to all things governmental is causing an overreaction here.
Right! And this in no way precludes the idea of a public school system.

You don't want *your* kid to go to public school, fine. But that does not give you license to burn down the whole public education system.

[grumble]..teach kids to rely on government for everything... what a maroon[/mumble]

Did you go to a public school, Radar?

We could have all private roads. If we did, they'd probably be in better shape. Public schools actually are a complete failure. Government funded education is neither crucial, nor important.

If you want *YOUR* kid to go to a second rate, public school, fine. Just don't expect me to pay for it through taxes or any other way. Only those who send their kids to those schools should have to pay for them. People without kids should not be forced to pay for them, and neither should people who choose to educate their children at home, or in private schools.

It's not a matter of my right to burn down public education, it's a matter of whether or not you have the right to force others to pay to educate YOUR kids, or whether any government has such authority. Certainly the federal government has no such powers so all federal money for education should be eliminated.

Since all governments may only have the powers that the people grant to it, they may only have powers that people have without a government. If there's no government at all, you don't have a right to take what I earn to pay for the education of your kids. This means you can't grant this power to government, and neither can a million of you or a billion of you.

y'know... I don't expect you to pay for it. Just go away to anarchy-land, where there is no pesky government.

**until then**, I expect you to do as I do, and that is obey the laws, including those laws that require you to pay taxes that support our public schools, and our roads and our military, among other things.

I don't care if you like it or not. I don't care if you complain about it or not.

Your conversational style chafes me. I disagree with most of what you've posted in this conversation. Your "logic" is faulty. You assert and then build on those assertions. But you build on sand.

I'm not gonna argue with you since our positions on the initial conditions aren't even close. We're not close enough to learn anything from each other.

I do appreciate your civil tone, thank you.

shhh. he's a constitutional scholar.

1. None of my logic is faulty. If you think it is, don't merely state it, prove it.

2. I state a fact (bedrock) and build upon that. You don't have the right to force me to pay to educate your kids. This means no matter how many people vote on such a law, it is illegitimate. If I refuse to comply with an illegitimate law, I'm still morally and ethically correct.

3. I think if you and a bunch of other people want to get together and pool your money for a school and you agree to pay a certain portion of your income to support such schools, that's just great. Kudos to you. Just dont' try FORCE others to contribute with illegitimate legislation.

4. I'm sorry if my civil tone chafes you. It's just my normal conversation style.

I am indeed, but don't limit me to only being a scholar of Constitutional law and the principles behind it. You can add other areas where I've devoted a significant amount of study like computer science, libertarian philosophy, American history, etc...

I just don't get how people who live in society, who use public roads, have probably pissed in a public toilet, who have access to public libraries, who have access to a public legal system and have access to public health if their situation calls for it, can sprout so much crap.

If you don't like society, go live in a fucking cave dickhead.

Society won't let him. Why so pissed about an alternative viewpoint? Last I checked we hadn't evolved into a perfect society.

To be fair, Radar's point has often been that those public facilities shouldn't exist in the first place NOT that it's unfair he should have to pay for something he wants to exist.

The thing is that Radar's interpretation of the constitution (and yes, Radar - that's all it is - YOUR interpretation, if it was hard fact there would be no debate)and the basis for the founding of this country lead him to these extreme views. There is no point in arguing the very real details of our social and political machines with someone who begins with the view that it is all illegitimate and ends with you're a poopy head. Only frustration can come from it.

Sure. As long as you understand that when you're 75 and need prostate surgery, all doctors aged 55 and younger (the ones who were getting educated during all your working-adult-but-non-school-tax-paying years) are morally and ethically correct if they choose not to operate on you, or to only operate on you at a higher price than they would charge someone who helped educate them.

You're ok with a doctor picking/choosing patients for that type of reason Clod?

I've got no problem with that. Health care isn't a right. I'm willing to pay a fair price for that service. I have no right to force someone to provide me with service, or to force them to pay for services I want.

Socialism is not "society". I buy my own books, I hire my own lawyers, I pay for my own education, etc. Why should I also be forced to pay for someone else's?

If you don't like me keeping what I earn than go into that public toilet and flush your head down the toilet because it's more full of shit than your ass. Being against government funded schools is not the same as being against education. Being against government funded retirement is not the same as being against the elderly. Being against government funded healthcare does not mean you're against the poor getting healthcare. In fact the exact opposite is true. Those who rely on government programs get LESS help than they would otherwise privately and through non-profit charities. Only an ignorant cunt would claim otherwise.

My views are not extreme. Those who think it's ok for them to steal from others to suit their own desires are the extremists, not me.

Also, NO it is not my "interpretation" of the Constitution. I don't interpret the Constitution because it means what it says and it says the federal government may not be involved in, or legislate over areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution. End of story. I don't interpret the Constitution...I read it and unlike most people (including many on the supreme court), I actually understand it.

Each and every single thing the federal government does that is not enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional and illegitimate, PERIOD. End of story. There is no gray area.

No, just pointing out the other side of Radar's coin. I personally think the education of a society's children benefits everyone in society, not just the parents/children, and thus everyone should contribute to it in some way, whether or not they have children themselves.

Radar - Mr. Semantics

Doesn't this assume that there's a public benefit to having children? What about that one guy who thinks that the worst thing you can do to the planet is to have one more kid. I, oops, he shouldn't have to pay for public schools, should he?

EDIT: Here's another timely quote from the TipMug:

Public benefit and planet benefit are different. I've already demonstrated there is a public benefit to having children. Unless you're prepared for your quality of life to plummet significantly in your old age as the human race and all its infrastructure dies out, basic population maintenance is necessary, on the order of two children per couple. So at that point you're either going to enforce maintenance a' la China, or you're going to select which children are cared for and which have to fend for themselves. Or you're just going to suck it up and pay for public schools. :)


ETA: I'm not saying the current public school system itself is necessary or any good at all. I'm just saying that even if a better system were put in place, it should still be everyone's responsibility to contribute to that system in some way.

Those old people need something to complain about.

A lack of a public education system is not a lack of an education system. It just means we'll have no government involvement where it doesn't belong.

If you think having educated children is a benefit to "society", than having better educated kids offers MORE benefit. Giving kids a government education is a disservice to them and to "society".

By the way there is no such thing as "society". Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals. A society of a billion people has non more rights than a single person.

I have nothing significant to add. I'm just reveling in the irony of you saying a concept doesn't exist, and then in the very next sentence defining that concept in a way that does exist.

Delicious!

There is no irony for you to feast on. I was merely pointing out the fact that there is no entity known as "society". The word "society" merely describes a bunch of individuals. "Society" has no rights. Only individuals do.

Radar, did you attend public school?

i think that is fairly evident from his gaps in logic and reasoning.

I think my education is far superior to yours since you fail to see that there are no gaps in my logic or reasoning. I suppose it's something you must tell yourself to feel better since I constantly beat you in debates.

You seem to be avoiding my question.

I think you did go to public school.

fixed that for you

you got it sugar. but to be fair i don't know that we've ever had a debate.

Debate:

A: My point is X.

B: You are incorrect. Y is actually accurate because these three reasons: __________.

A: Ah, I see what you're saying, but reasons 1 and 2 don't stand up because of __________, so therefore your idea is incorrect.

and it follows in that pattern until an agreement is reached or all the evidence has been laid out but no minds have changed.

Radar's Debate Format:

A: I feel the government should ___________.

Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________.

A: I disagree with your interpretation of the document.

Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________!

A: I think the flaw in your reasoning is _____________.

Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________.

A: Have you considered ___________?

Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________. And you are stoopid compared to me. I rule, you suck and you even smell bad too. And if you don't agree I'll kill a border patrol agent for carrying out illegitimate orders and I'll be right cuz you suck!!!

A: WTF?

Radar: See? I win all debates due to my superior intellect and education.



Now, would you care to tell me I'm wrong about your debate style? or will it just be easier to say you've read a document with the One True Understanding ingrained upon your soul so everything and everyone else is irrelevent?

[halloffame]This is a Hall of Fame Statement for any discussion with Radars whacked out thinking.[/halloffame]

There are many many good public schools that do a very good time educating our kids. Everyone pays for something, this is just another example of something paid for.

Actaully it goes a bit more like this.


Lookout123: The federal government should provide meals for all hungry people.

Radar: The role and scope of the federal government is limited to only doing what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But even if this were an enumerated power, the government would be horrible at it, and we'd be better off with something more efficient like private charities.


Lookout123: I disagree with the way you INTERPRET the Constitution.


Radar: I don't interpret the Constitution, I read it. There is no "interpretation" involved. It wasn't written in Swahili, it was written in English, and the words in the Constitution specifically prohibit the federal government from taking part in or legislating anything other than the enumerated powers. This prohibition is in the 10th amendment which the founders wrote specifically to prevent anyone from claiming the federal government has "implied powers" and to place strict limits on the powers of government.


Lookout123: The flaw in your logic is that you don't agree with me in making a bogus claim that the federal government has any powers it wants to have including providing food for everyone.

Radar: There is no flaw in my logic. There is no wiggle room. It is a black and white issue. It's a binary function. The federal government may have powers other than those enumerated or it can't. I've provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that says in no uncertain terms that the federal government may not do anything other than the specific enumerated powers.

Lookout123: Have you considered that hungry people need to eat?

Radar: Yes, but this doesn't grant the federal government the power to feed them.


Lookout123: Oh, so repeating it makes it true?

Radar: No, the fact that it's true makes it true.

Lookout123: You are unreasonable and no matter what you say, you are "interpreting" the Constitution.

Radar: No, I'm not so stop lying about this.


Lookout123: Oh, calling me a liar now. You have to resort to name calling.

Radar: No, I'm using an accurate description of a person who tells lies.

etc...etc...ad nauseum.

After reading the last 4 pages I realized I forgot one~~~~~~>

Why California Sucks Ass!!!

Radar.

:lol2:

Whether or not I personally went to public school is irrelevant. The anecdotal evidence of a single person has no bearing on the state of the public education system as a whole. Also, the public education system has been steadily declining for the last 50 years and has gotten progressively worse at an alarming rate since Ronald Reagan created the federal Department of Education.

The failure of public schools has nothing to do with the amount of money they receive. On average in America, public schools get about $10,770 per pupil per year. The average tuition of a private school is $6,600 and on average the students get a better education than public schools.

When I ran for Congress, I suggested we give any person or company a dollar for dollar tax credit for any kids they send to private schools. They don't even have to be their own kids. This means if I have a $30,000 tax burden, and I choose to spend $19,800 to send 3 poor kids to a private school, my tax burden is reduced to $10,200. A business could choose to send hundreds or thousands of kids to schools.

This would also give the American people a choice of where their tax dollars are spent. If I don't want my tax money going to fund an illegal war, I can choose to spend it to provide a service the government normally provides. For the first time, Americans could choose to spend the money to send poor kids to school, to feed hungry people, to buy medicine for the elderly, etc. and all of the money would go to those in need rather than to the federal government to be spent on pork.

Kids who go to public schools are not pigs.

I disagree. I have to try to teach them once they've emerged from 12 years of public education. The metaphor stands.