I think you just misunderstood the purpose of my post and what I was describing. I guess we'll leave it at that.
Originally posted by: Craig234
-cut-
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The mess that is California is all the proof that is needed. Liberals can flail around the truth all they want, but eventually, reality will always win.
Oh, and Common Courtesy, your warning is almost sig worthy.
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
California's graduation rate is at 50%. Not much better for a state that spends more money on education than the entire GDP of some countries.
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The mess that is California is all the proof that is needed. Liberals can flail around the truth all they want, but eventually, reality will always win.
Oh, and Common Courtesy, your warning is almost sig worthy.
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The mess that is California is all the proof that is needed. Liberals can flail around the truth all they want, but eventually, reality will always win.
Oh, and Common Courtesy, your warning is almost sig worthy.
you guys do realize that we voted down all spending measures and the state is going to do some big cuts? Yes?
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The mess that is California is all the proof that is needed. Liberals can flail around the truth all they want, but eventually, reality will always win.
Oh, and Common Courtesy, your warning is almost sig worthy.
you guys do realize that we voted down all spending measures and the state is going to do some big cuts? Yes?
Yes, it is potentially a good thing. However, it is very likely that Big Papa O will just bail out California. After all, can't let those big unions suffer any cuts! When he mentions "sacrifice", he only means that the people on the "wrong team" have to sacrifice. Hence, the rest of the nation will have to bail out California's mess. And NYC's mess...and Michigan's mess...etc. etc. ad nauseum for every blue city/state that is going down the tubes.
What I was mostly referring to is what got California to this point to begin with. It is abundantly clear every time it is put into practice that entitlement programs and taking money from the producers and giving it away to the non-producers DOES NOT WORK.
Ever.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The mess that is California is all the proof that is needed. Liberals can flail around the truth all they want, but eventually, reality will always win.
Oh, and Common Courtesy, your warning is almost sig worthy.
you guys do realize that we voted down all spending measures and the state is going to do some big cuts? Yes?
Yes, it is potentially a good thing. However, it is very likely that Big Papa O will just bail out California. After all, can't let those big unions suffer any cuts! When he mentions "sacrifice", he only means that the people on the "wrong team" have to sacrifice. Hence, the rest of the nation will have to bail out California's mess. And NYC's mess...and Michigan's mess...etc. etc. ad nauseum for every blue city/state that is going down the tubes.
What I was mostly referring to is what got California to this point to begin with. It is abundantly clear every time it is put into practice that entitlement programs and taking money from the producers and giving it away to the non-producers DOES NOT WORK.
Ever.
And red state Arizona's mess, and red state Alabama's mess, and red state Iowa's mess, etc... etc.
EDIT: While Obama won Iowa, it's still a red state... sorry. Same with North Carolina and others.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
WRONG. Iowa isn't even close to red, you twit. The libs run the House, Senate, and Gov mansion here. Not surprisingly - the state is F'd since this has transpired. Excessive spending, increased corruption, etc...
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Maybe the Fed should just send back all the taxes collected from CA to them. That should help, of course some of the parasitic states might have to do without.
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Most (not all) of your arguments are SUBJECTIVE opinions. It is your OPINION that Texas has bad weather, no culture, etc.
"the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
Using the dictionary is hard! :roll:
In plain English for you, since you obviously have very poor reading comprehension:
Tax the producers (working taxpayers) and redistribute the wealth to the non-producers (social services, AKA welfare).
Hahaha. Nice job taking the #3 definition to the word, editing it to remove the fact that it was referring to Marxist theory, and not even mentioning the #1 definition of community ownership of the means of production. That is unless you are attempting to claim that the US operates under Marxist theory.
All that dishonesty and selective quoting aside, I can still beat you up the same way I was going to. I've already showed you how your previous statement was stupid but you still haven't put two and two together. If California is a 'socialist experiment', then what is Texas? Texas has welfare and social programs too, you know. Since Texas' economy is still growing, I guess the great socialist experiment there has succeeded!
I should have not even wasted my time. Any response I would have provided would have been immediately insulted and discredited. It's a typical tactic from the left, and I fell for the bait. That's my bad.
You have already shown your true colors. Please, stay in California.
Hahahaha. You're right, your response was discredited.
It's not my fault you said something dumb. If I were to complain about a state having welfare, I would be damn sure that the state I was holding up as a counterexample for what we should be doing DIDN'T have welfare.
/sigh
If you're seriously implying that Texas has the same level of handouts as California, I honestly don't know what to say to you...
Then again, I should probably say nothing to you any more, since it's very obviously a waste of time.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Craig234
I disagree that it's a 'perfectly valid criticism' akin to 'nasty people'. It is certainly an issue that's valid to raise - but not the same as an issue like 'nasty people'.
It's not enough to say they can control their weight; let's put aside the fact that the truth is a lot more complicated than that, and pretend it were true for the sake of argument.
Why does their weight deserve to be attacked the same as if they are immoral, say, thieves or war lovers? Those are very different things, even if both can be controlled.
If you have a fat person who is doing good for others, and a thin person who is lobbying for tobacco to kill people, those are not the same type of thing. You are wrong to attack the fat person the way you suggest, IMO. If you want to discuss the weight issue *legitimately* - in terms of the causes, the harmful effects, the public policy issues - fine. But to attack the person the same way you would a person doing evil, is highly misguided.
It's similar to attacking bald people, saying that it's a 'choice' since there are hair cosmetic procedures and wigs available, and so if someone 'chooses' to remain bald, then it's ok to ridicule them and say that they're no better than people who do evil. I've seen 'fitness Nazis' who seem to despise fat people much the way gay bigots despise gays - with a sort of weird passion to the disgust - but I'm surprised to see that appearing to come from you against fat people. So far, though, you are unapologetic.
Mixing things like weight and politics makes no sense. "Evil Rush" makes sense. "Evil, fat Rush", "Evil, bald Rush", "Evil, white Rush", "Evil ugly Rush" don't.
Those are simply abusive to people with those physical conditions. Do you make a point so say "fat serial killer", or "bald thief", as if those things are equally notably bad?
If an entire state was significantly more bald than the rest of the country and it could be traced to some lifestyle choice, I would most certainly view it as a valid criticism, and the health of a society as it relates to weight is most certainly a mixture of weight and politics, and it has every place here.
People who are obese are unattractive to me. A state that has a rampant obesity problem is somewhere I would like to avoid. (although in the US now that's pretty hard to do). I'm not disgusted by individuals who are overweight, in fact my brother weighs about 350 pounds. It is a health problem for society and something I find unattractive however, and so I most certainly view it as a negative aspect of an area.
I think you are confusing calling a person fat as some sort of attack on their character, with me calling a state fat because their lifestyle encourages it. Individual people can have great difficulty controlling their weight due to genetics, and I sympathize. Texas as a state does not have a genetic obesity problem that I am aware of.
Originally posted by: microbial
If people do leave the state, it can only make it better for those who stay. Same true for everywhere else.
Cut population in half anywhere--and it would be a better place to live in.
I don't buy it. There aren't people lining up to leave their productive, well-paying jobs in California (especially in this economic climate) to move to some red state.Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Originally posted by: microbial
If people do leave the state, it can only make it better for those who stay. Same true for everywhere else.
Cut population in half anywhere--and it would be a better place to live in.
The problem is that the majority of people leaving are productive, while the majority of new californians are leeches.
True, I don't know many ex-cons that can afford $1500/month rent for an apartment in CA. But I bet they can easily afford rent in Texas.Originally posted by: marincounty
California is likely to make big cuts to its prison budget and law enforcement. So California will be releasing lots of prisoners, and if you are correct, they will be fleeing to your state. Your great states will see an influx of our ex-cons and the gayz leaving this failed state. Be afraid, very afraid.
Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Originally posted by: microbial
If people do leave the state, it can only make it better for those who stay. Same true for everywhere else.
Cut population in half anywhere--and it would be a better place to live in.
The problem is that the majority of people leaving are productive, while the majority of new californians are leeches.
Originally posted by: Eeezee
CA needs to repeal prop 13 (cap on property taxes, keeping them 45th lowest in the country) and then reform its budgeting methods. Voters can assign spending with a 50% majority, but legislators can only make budgetary changes (cutting projects or raising taxes) with a supermajority. That makes no sense.
Coincidentally, CA's deficit exactly matches the amount of money it would have earned if property taxes had been allowed to rise to the national average (a little under 2%).