From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050710305557944-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 10:03:03 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010050709524521153-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-05-07 09:36:43 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noooooooo!
>>>>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>>>>> uninterpretable.
>>>>
>>>> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
>>>> wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California
>>>> either.
>>>> But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and unions
>>>> seem
>>>> to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and other
>>>> blessings, into an economic basket case.
>>>
>>> Tell me about it.
>>> One of the reasons I retired 2 years sooner than I initially planned,
>>> was Arnie's furlough plan. That was costing me around $900/month. My
>>> pension nets me about $15 less than I had been netting the year before I
>>> retired. If I had stayed on I would be netting less than I do now on my
>>> pension. Retiring was a no brainer.
>>>
>>> As far as Mexicanization goes, there is also the argument that Americans
>>> were the the illegal aliens in Texas, and all Santa Anna was doing at
>>> the Alamo was enforcing his nation's authority, in their own country,
>>> against that invasion of American illegal aliens bent on stealing Texas
>>> for themselves.
>>>
>>> The same could be said for California.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are many Cherokee, Sioux, Iroquois, etc., who would say that about
>> a lot of other parts of our country.
>
> Aah! Manifest Destiny.
> What a concept?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
Yes. And in the older occupied territories, such as exist in Europe, (or
Africa) there is hardly any country that did not belong to others before
those who occupy it today.....So all of the present occupiers are basically,
"illegal renegades who took over someone else's territory".

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050710374015668-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-07 10:11:12 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Noooooooo!
>>>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>>>> uninterpretable.
>>>
>>> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
>>> wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California
>>> either.
>>> But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and unions
>>> seem
>>> to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and other
>>> blessings, into an economic basket case.
>>
>> In fact it is the voters who have caused all of the problems. By
>> passing propositions which reduce taxes and then passing propositions
>> which force increased spending the result is a problem. And it's not
>> liberals who demand lower taxes and it's not liberals who demand
>> bigger prison populations.
>
> Agreed.
> The California voter initiative brought most of these issues to critical
> mass. There has been much short sightedness with some of the propositions,
> with the balance between program and funding.
> That said, there are certainly areas where the voter initiative has been
> beneficial for the average Californian.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>
But legislators who write laws that cost money without including the means
to pay for the legislation are the culprits who are responsible for that,
aren't they?

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:D8adnRV2I40Ox3nWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:ffOdnf0qgpHBtHnWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4be32172$0$27753$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0PidnfYBjd7ycX_WnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hrudm3$638$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>>
>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>
>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>> do you object to?
>>>
>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>>
>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>>
>>
>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>> existed at the time of her decision.
>
> What precedents?
>
>> That decision doesn't make her a
>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>
> I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
> her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.
>
>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>
> I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score
> lower on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been pretty
> well debunked.
>
If you are testing people for a specific job, you should ask questions that
are applicable to the job, and if the evaluator of the test results does not
know who took the test (is unaware of the race or color of the testees) then
the results should be fair to all races and ethnic groups. If all this is
true, and you still end up with an all white group of firemen, then who can
you blame for that?

From: Ray Fischer on
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>I can assure you the California prison system is hardly a "liberal"
>concept. Even in the new prisons life is hard and not particularly
>comforable. The lock 'em up and throw away the key "right-wingers" in
>California voted in the "Three strikes Law" without considering the
>costs of housing those inmates.
>
>Those prisons are at 230% of capacity. Level I & II inmates housed in
>dorms sleep in triple bunks with very limited space. Those housed in
>cells are not bathed in luxury. The public is ignorant as to the
>reality of life in prison, it is not as depicted in the movies or on TV
>dramas. It is ugly nasty and dangerous.

California is just about to be forced to spend another 1-2 billion
dollars because the prison system has been mistreating inmates and
cause them to needlessly die. Currently it's a $8,000,000,000/yr
bill that the "conservatives" don't want to pay.

>The largest expansion of the California prison system took place under
>the authority of two Law & Order Republican Governors, George
>Deukmejien and Pete Wilson.
>Because honest people like you choose not to have these criminals
>running around victimizing the public freely, they are in prison, now
>those same tax payers who demand their incarceration, resent paying for
>it. Most Americans, on the right & the left are truly ignorant
>regarding life behind those walls.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>news:2010050710374015668-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-07 10:11:12 -0700, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>>
>>> Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noooooooo!
>>>>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>>>>> uninterpretable.
>>>>
>>>> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
>>>> wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California
>>>> either.
>>>> But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and unions
>>>> seem
>>>> to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and other
>>>> blessings, into an economic basket case.
>>>
>>> In fact it is the voters who have caused all of the problems. By
>>> passing propositions which reduce taxes and then passing propositions
>>> which force increased spending the result is a problem. And it's not
>>> liberals who demand lower taxes and it's not liberals who demand
>>> bigger prison populations.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> The California voter initiative brought most of these issues to critical
>> mass. There has been much short sightedness with some of the propositions,
>> with the balance between program and funding.
>> That said, there are certainly areas where the voter initiative has been
>> beneficial for the average Californian.
>>
>But legislators who write laws that cost money without including the means
>to pay for the legislation are the culprits who are responsible for that,
>aren't they?

In California it's the voters who have done the most damage.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net