Today is the Obama Crowley Gates beer summit!

[szh]

Also, you still have yet to EXPLAIN just how exactly California crushes liberty for other states. But, keep dancing around the question till your hearts content.

You are (conveniently? deliberately?) misreading his comment. He did not NOT say that California crushes liberty for other states - only for its own residents.

Look at the sentences preceding it ... the context is clear. It was the second of two items.

Z

[audtatious]

Z, it's a waste of time. He's already shown he throws out straw men all the time so it should not surprise you....

[szh]

Yup. Did not surprise me. But when the same question gets asked multiple times - clearly incorrectly read of the post - it is time to Fix It™.

Z

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The only President we have had that was initially from CA was.......Richard Nixon

Damn, that's grounds for a involuntary succession.

[AZhitman]

Secession.

Precedent, y'know?

[Kohster]

You are (conveniently? deliberately?) misreading his comment. He did not NOT say that California crushes liberty for other states - only for its own residents.

Look at the sentences preceding it ... the context is clear. It was the second of two items.

Z

Quote »Why people would not want to live in a state that crushes liberty for another. [/quote]The context really isn't that clear. It can be obviously be easily construed to believe he meant state and not people, since he ended the sentence with the vague word "another."

And the reason I kept pressing the question is because in this thread IT HAS been stated (by audtatious) that one of the things California does is "force things down the throats" of other states. Which is completely untrue. And I'd like to see some evidence that supports the "forcing down your throats" view if any of you actually believe that stupid right wing crap.

And California DOES NOT crush liberty for its citizens. If anything, it expands liberty. I mean, look at the Compassionate use act. It allows citizens to DISOBEY a federal law within the state

So, in the future, understand where I am coming from before you chime in. Thanks.

[Kohster]

Except RR was actually from Tampico, Illinois and did not move to CA until the 1930's due to his acting career.

Yeah, exactly. So, I say again, if it wasn't for CA, reagan would have NEVER been president.

So I say again: You're VERY Welcome, Middle America.

[szh]

The context really isn't that clear. It can be obviously be easily construed to believe he meant state and not people, since he ended the sentence with the vague word "another."

"Vague word"? It is very common English usage in this manner. For the last time, read his sentences - shown below once again - together:

I imagine there are a lot of things you don't understand. The fact that I am not a republican for instance. Why people would not want to live in a state that crushes liberty for another.

And he even told you the same thing later:

When contained in a full quote it is easy to see it was item two of a two item list.

The context of two connected sentences is clear. If not, then reading clearly escapes you, and it not worth pointing it out to you anymore. I am sorry I tried!

And I'd like to see some evidence that supports the "forcing down your throats" view if any of you actually believe that stupid right wing crap.

There is evidence around you ... if you do not see it, then the equally silly extreme left-wing crap may be blinding you too much!

FWIW, I consider myself more centrist than either left or right ... and I am not blinded by the rhetoric from the extremes of either side.

So, in the future, understand where I am coming from before you chime in. Thanks.

As a resident of California for 20 years now, and a non-apathetic citizen of this country, I am very, very clear as to my understanding of what goes right and wrong in government - both in the states and in the country. Having lived in some other states too (MA, NH and MS), I can compare things pretty well too.

And I will certainly express my views on the good and bad that CA has (or other states) have. That is the freedom I still have fortunately - despite what left-wingers would like to do to suppress protest when it suits them!

Z

[Kohster]

"Vague word"? It is very common English usage in this manner. For the last time, read his sentences - shown below once again - together:

Yes, it was vague. To be more specific, he could have said "another person."

Quote »The context of two connected sentences is clear. If not, then reading clearly escapes you, and it not worth pointing it out to you anymore. I am sorry I tried! [/quote]The post was vague, end of story. Interesting since he made the same mistake I was alleged to have made when I made my poll lol. Just because he's a mod doesn't mean you have to hold each others hands when one of you has a debate with a member.

Quote »There is evidence around you ... if you do not see it, then the equally silly extreme left-wing crap may be blinding you too much! [/quote]ok so I guess I'm too blind from all the left wing crap in this state. So please, GIVE ME an example how exactly this states crushes liberty for me, since I already showed you an example demonstrating that the opposite is true. And none of that "cell phone" law crap that no one cares about or anything similar. Show me a law that REALLY restricts me from doing something I like.

Quote »FWIW, I consider myself more centrist than either left or right ... and I am not blinded by the rhetoric from the extremes of either side.[/quote]Do you consider me blinded by the rhetoric from the extremes of the left? How can this be if I created the obama has failed in health care thread. You even posted in it. So, I guess you're actually the one who blindly believes what ever right wing rhetoric is given to yourself.

Quote »As a resident of California for 20 years now, and a non-apathetic citizen of this country, I am very, very clear as to my understanding of what goes right and wrong in government - both in the states and in the country. Having lived in some other states too (MA, NH and MS), I can compare things pretty well too.[/quote]Having been a resident of California for the past 29 years, and a non-complacent citizen of this country as well, I am also VERY clear as to my understanding about governmental affairs, both in a state and federal sense. I, too, have lived in other states (MO, PA, MI, and VT), I can also compare things pretty well.

Quote »And I will certainly express my views on the good and bad that CA has (or other states) have. That is the freedom I still have fortunately - despite what left-wingers would like to do to suppress protest when it suits them![/quote]Well, it seems to me that you just emphasize the bad since you have not mentioned ONE good thing about CA. I, at least, have mentioned how crappy some of the freeways were here and how I don't like northern CA. Seems to me you have just been "blinded by the rhetoric" from the right.
Modified by Kohster at 11:52 AM 8/21/2009

[audtatious]

Yeah, exactly. So, I say again, if it wasn't for CA, reagan would have NEVER been president.

So I say again: You're VERY Welcome, Middle America.

Are you telepathic enough to know what would have happened to RR if he had not been an actor in CA? How about we change that to "If CA was part of Mexico, Nixon would have never been a political failure"....

[Kohster]

Are you telepathic enough to know what would have happened to RR if he had not been an actor in CA?

He probably would have gone on to work at his brother's advertising firm, since his bro was an ad executive, and probably would have stayed there and done nothing politically.

Quote »How about we change that to "If CA was part of Mexico, Nixon would have never been a political failure"....[/quote]I am ashamed of both Reagan AND Nixon. I personally believe both of their administrations were failures.

And yes, Nixon was a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure

[audtatious]

He probably would have gone on to work at his brother's advertising firm, since his bro was an ad executive, and probably would have stayed there and done nothing politically.

Cool.....Can you tell me what would have happened 20 years ago if I had not moved to Atlanta? You seem so in touch with assumptions...

I am ashamed of both Reagan AND Nixon. I personally believe both of their administrations were failures.

And yes, Nixon was a failure. a REPUBLICAN failure

Yes, because only Republicans are failures.

[Kohster]

Cool.....Can you tell me what would have happened 20 years ago if I had not moved to Atlanta? You seem so in touch with assumptions...

Yes, because only Republicans are failures.

You probably would have been just a "peanut farmer."

I never said the dems arent failures either. You brought up nixon, don't blame me if he was a REPUBLICAN failure.

[AZhitman]

I personally believe both of their administrations were failures.

Historians and most political experts would disagree with you, strongly, in one of the two instances.

But that's a subject we can debate elsewhere.

[audtatious]

You probably would have been just a "peanut farmer."

I never said the dems arent failures either. You brought up nixon, don't blame me if he was a REPUBLICAN failure.

You tried to deflect and I brought in the reality check. There are plenty of politicians on both sides who I disagree with. Hell, I don't think there has been any President who I agreed with all their policies.

[szh]

So please, GIVE ME an example how exactly this states crushes liberty for me, since I already showed you an example demonstrating that the opposite is true. And none of that "cell phone" law crap that no one cares about or anything similar. Show me a law that REALLY restricts me from doing something I like.

Why does it have to be something about you? If there is some other resident who is not allowed to do something they like, then that is a sufficiently clear example.

Here is one:

1. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/pam71.htm

Seven states—Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming—have no state income tax. Two states—New Hampshire and Tennessee—tax only dividend and interest income that exceeds certain limits. Ten states—Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania—exclude all federal, military and in-state government pensions from taxation.

California taxes, on the other hand, is at or near the highest tax burden that we punish our residents with! Thus, people are forced to to act in self-defense ... by enacting Proposition 13 many years ago, for example. See http://www.hjta.org/propositions/propositions.

And, having to defend that proposition with Proposition 218 when the politicians tried to circumvent the requirements: http://www.hjta.org/propositio...n-218 to penalize residents by going around Proposition 13.

Kiplinger Magazine "California is a retiree’s tax nightmare". Read the link to see why: http://kiplinger.com/tools/ret...ornia

Well, it seems to me that you just emphasize the bad since you have not mentioned ONE good thing about CA. I, at least, have mentioned how crappy some of the freeways were here and how I don't like northern CA. Seems to me you have just been "blinded by the rhetoric" from the right.

On the contrary, there are things about CA that I do like and have said so in the past too - but this does not blind me to its faults though! The weather here in San Jose is very nice and mild most of the year. I like being able to get to the mountains easily. The coastline is spectacularly beautiful in many places. San Francisco is my second favorite city in the US.

Sometimes, the good can outweigh the bad. Most of the good, for me, are the natural items of the state - quite unlike the way I think about the bad legislature, high taxes, lousy roads (basically the way the state government is run and mismanaged).

Z

[szh]

There are plenty of politicians on both sides who I disagree with. Hell, I don't think there has been any President who I agreed with all their policies.

Same here ... on both comments.

Z

[themadscientist]

Yes, it was vague. To be more specific, he could have said "another person."

That sentence would make less sense than your attempt to deflect. There are one of two reasons you cling desperately to your thin deflection tactic.

1. You really are that dense that basic English confuses you.

or

2. You have nothing better to throw but smoke.

We both know which one it is. Drop the BS and defend your state better. Grey Davis made more sense than you do.

[szh]

Yes, it was vague. To be more specific, he could have said "another person."

And that would have been incorrect ... since it was clearly "another fact".

Z

[themadscientist]

Next, we have a guest speaker who will discuss the nuances of "is"