From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2010-05-07 21:00:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> ......... after 40 years there, I can safely say that there was no law
>> that I voted for that wasn't voted down by the populace and visa-versa. A
>> conservative living in California was the equivalent of being
>> disenfranchised.
> Bill it seems you limited your knowledge of California's diversity and
> political divisions. I think you will find Californians to your liking in
> Orange, Kern, Fresno, San Bernardino, Del Norte, parts of San Luis Obispo
> and San Diego Counties, All along the Central Valley, great hunting
> grounds for followers of GWB, Palin and charter Tea Partiers.
> You chose to live and work in the Bay area, complaining all the time you
> took your pay check from that "Liberal" bastion Stanford. If you were
> going to work for a University with your philosophy I would have thought a
> move South to Pepperdine would have suited you.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
No, there were some bright spots in the Stanford community....The Hoover
Institute was one such place.....I had some good friends there.

From: Bill Graham on

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote in message
> On 5/8/2010 12:06 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 21:08:50 -0400, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>> Any drug can be abused. Certain drugs, such as crystal meth and H have
>>> little or no known medical value. I also agree that substantial crime is
>>> associated with illegal drug use. While I can't cite statistics, I think
>>> that if distribution and use of certain drugs
>> That's the part that bothers me about legalization of marijuana. The
>> rules would creep. Once marijuana is legal, it would be easier to get
>> other drugs on the list.
> You mean like tobacco and alcohol being legal makes it "easier to get
> other drugs on the list"?
>>> that have legitimate medical uses, such as marijuana,
>> C'mon, now. What's the real need for medical use of marijuana?
>> One-tenth of one percent of the potential users? Yeah, it's helpful
>> to glaucoma sufferers and chronic pain victims, but so are other -
>> legal - drugs.
> My parents used to feel the same way you did. I had to struggle to keep a
> straight face watching my 70 year old mother light a pipe full of weed for
> my father when he was dying of cancer. And it did seem to help him.
>>> were legal, there would be a lower prison
>>> population.
The illegality of drugs is just another example of how we rush to give our
rights away to others whom we seem to think are "more able" to decide how
the rest of us should live.....I don't know why people don't believe that
they are the best ones to judge how they should live, rather than their
government. I have never found any government official who knows what's best
for me, better than I do myself.....None of them have ever walked even one
mile in my shoes. And most of them have poorer educations than I do, and
much lower I.Q's. But my fellow citizens seem hell bent on giving their
right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness away to these
idiots....Go figure....

From: Bill Graham on

"Steve House" <sjhouse.remove(a)> wrote in message
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:54:30 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
> wrote:
> ....
>>Be careful what you ask for.....The socialists will take away all your
>>and give it to the "Poor", unless they are true libertarians........
> If they take away all my money, then I will be poor and they will give
> me money.

Don't hold your breath....What color are you? Are you an American Indian? If
you are a "WASP" like I am, they won't give you a dime even if you are
starving to death...

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> news:s_mdnZbJPeGdOH7WnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d(a)
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:ALWdnWPXY8-yXH_WnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>> news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:VdCdnVER5Ks0dHzWnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:KP2dnX6auNel9XzWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4be14ba7$1$7706$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:846dndujn9PbRn3WnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4bdffec6$1$27720$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-felons should be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>> I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights
>>>>>>>>>> are available to all non felons......
>>>>>>>>> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose
>>>>>>>>> their rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside
>>>>>>>>> from possibly some
>>>>>>>>> under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?
>>>>>>>> In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to
>>>>>>>> vote.
>>>>>>> Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> rights they don't have.
>>>>>> G. Gordon Liddy had an interesting comment on this. He said that
>>>>>> being a convicted felon (after Watergate) he couldn't own a gun,
>>>>>> "but my wife owns a
>>>>>> gun -- and she keeps it on my side of the bed."
>>>>> That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted
>>>>> felon cannot have access to a firearm.
>>>>> ...but I don't think Liddy, or Mrs. Liddy visit California packing.
>>>> How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?
>>>> Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted
>>>> felon. Then none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks
>>>> there could own a gun either? . . . I suppose if they have one of
>>>> those silly laws about all firearms being kept in a locked safe that
>>>> might take care of it, but then again it might not. Logically the
>>>> key to the gun safe would have to be locked up too, and then the key
>>>> to THAT locked up, and so on ad infinitum. "Jane, wake up! There are
>>>> men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the key to the key to the
>>>> key to the . . . "
>>> Yes.....the California law is 1. Stupid. and 2. Grossly
>>> unconstitutional, for a variety of reasons. The founding fathers knew
>> It's stupid enough; I don't know that it's unconstitutional.
>>> and understood that everyone has the right to protect themselves. It
>>> had to take a California liberal to trash that.
>>> I love the new governor of Arizona....She just signed a bill into law
>> I love her too. Wish we had more governors like her, not to mention
>> congresscritters.
>>> that gives all citizens the right to carry weapons concealed without
>>> any licensing whatsoever.....It would seem that she can read and
>>> interpret the very plain and easy to understand English of the second
>>> amendment. I wonder why both she and my fifth grade teacher (Mrs.
>>> Hughes) can understand simple English, but the US Supreme court
>>> judges can't seem to be able to do it?
>> Easy now. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't made any all-encompassing rulings
>> on the Second Amendment, but what they've done in recent years has been
>> pretty good. They threw out the Washington D.C. handgun ban, don't
>> forget. If we got more justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas
>> we'd be in good shape. Obviously we're not going to get any more decent
>> justices while The Anointed One is in the White House, but the current
>> and soon-to-be Senate may be able to prevent any more Sotomayors.
>>> Neither can the leaders of the
>>> great state of California....:^)
>> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We probably
>> should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to have effectively
>> become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving it back would much
>> improve the electoral college.
> The problem with that is that the left coast has the nicest climate in the
> whole country.....After being born and raised on the East coast, and
> spending 17 miserable Summers there, finding the Pacific coast was like
> going to heaven. I hate the political climate, but I am still unable to
> leave it. When California became intolerable, I moved to Oregon, and the
> senior citizens up here are politically in pretty close alignment with me,
> so I will probably end up staying here.....But the California philosophy
> is creeping up here, and things are getting politically worse and worse. I
> am sure they will start a sales tax in the next 10 years of so. (for
> example) When I speak out against it to anyone less than 50 years old, I
> can see their eyes glass over, and I know they can't understand a word I
> say.....:^)

They must be aware of how things are going in California, though. I should
think that would serve as a powerful incentive not to turn left.

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> On 2010-05-08 19:04:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:

<snip>> there was any proposition that passed on the California ballot in
>> 40 years that I lived there that I voted for. Living in California was
>> just like being a convicted felon, even though I had a clean
>> record.....:^)
> Bill, you are truly in denial, or ignorant, or both, of the true
> geographic, political divide in California.
> I guess you are unfamiliar with Orange and Kern Counties, just to name
> some of the very "conservative" Californian hot beds.
> Your bitterness seems to have no end.

Substitute "selfish lack of social responsibility" for "bitterness" and you
have a more accurate description of the man.