As always, California remains the sane voice of reason

[gabosaurus]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

[Pagan]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

Is that why they passed Prop 8? http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/rub.gif

[Little-Acorn]

California is the most debt-ridden state in the union. Both houses of the state legislature are far-left, with minorities of Republicans left to resist the insane spending the Democrats keep tryiing to impose.

The law said that it took a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget (including spending programs), and also a 2/3 supermajority to pass any tax increases.

On Nov. 2, 2010, Californians passed a ballot initiative lowering the 2/3 reauirement for passing a budget, down to 1/2. They were fooled by a provision in the initiative, saying that if legislators failed to pass a budget by the required deadline (as they have failed year after year), the legislators would lose their pay until the budget was passed.

What wasn't pointed out, was that every year, the legislators could simply cobble up a one-page "budget" saying we are going to build ten copies of Disneyland out in the desert, and nothing else. Vote on it, pass it, it goes to the governor who will of course veto it. And the requirement is fulfilled: The legislature passed a "budget" on time, so they don't lose any pay. Meantime, the state still doesn't have a budget.

But that ballot initiative has, as I said, the main provision, lowering the required majority to 50% plus 1. Now the liberal Democrats infesting the legislature will be able to hike spending to stratospheric heights. And the minority Republicans will no longer be able to stop them, as they have stopped them in the past. And the new/old Governor Moonbeam can be counted on to sign everyone of those spending programs.

Yep, bastion of Sanity, that's California. At least in little gabby's bleary-eyed view.

The state govt of California has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for several years now, as the legislature keeps passing crazier and crazier spending programs while the minority Republicans fight a losing battle to stop them... while those programs drive more and more industry out of the state, devastating the tax base.

This ballot initiative, in my considered opinion, will firmly push it over the edge.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr110410dAPR20101104044549.jpg

[darin]

Very very well-said, Acorn

[LuvRPgrl]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

Yea, what the hell, people back east dont need jobs

[SpidermanTUba]

As always, right?

California voted Republican in every Presidential election between 1968 and 1988.

[Trigg]

As always, right?

California voted Republican in every Presidential election between 1968 and 1988.

sadly since 1988 they've had their heads to far up their asses to think clearly.

[NightTrain]

This ballot initiative, in my considered opinion, will firmly push it over the edge.

You hit it right on the head.

Now things will take a turn for the worse because the liberals will be able to foist their bizarre and ill-conceived ideas on to the public.

Things will get unbelievably bad, which needs to happen to educate the voting base as to where Liberalism leads. Then the next round of elections will sweep in more responsible politicians by pissed off voters - and California will begin to wake up.

[SpidermanTUba]

sadly since 1988 they've had their heads to far up their asses to think clearly.

Because if they "thought clearly" they would vote Republican. If this nation would just "think clearly" all 538 electoral votes would be Republican, all 535 members of Congress would be Republican, and all federal judges - then we'd have true freedom!


You hit it right on the head.

Now things will take a turn for the worse because the liberals will be able to foist their bizarre and ill-conceived ideas on to the public.

Ill conceived ideas like the civil rights act, Medicare, social security - things that people hate.



Things will get unbelievably bad, which needs to happen to educate the voting base as to where Liberalism leads.

You can't just scream that you love the Constitution more? Seems to have worked this time around.

[SassyLady]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

Totally disagree with you Gabby. Living in CA is like "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"......I now know what it's like being a sane person put in with a majority of insane people.

Potheads and unions are destroying CA.

[SpidermanTUba]

Potheads and unions are destroying CA.

Potheads? :laugh: That's hilarious.

[SassyLady]

California is the most debt-ridden state in the union. Both houses of the state legislature are far-left, with minorities of Republicans left to resist the insane spending the Democrats keep tryiing to impose.

The law said that it took a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget (including spending programs), and also a 2/3 supermajority to pass any tax increases.

On Nov. 2, 2010, Californians passed a ballot initiative lowering the 2/3 reauirement for passing a budget, down to 1/2. They were fooled by a provision in the initiative, saying that if legislators failed to pass a budget by the required deadline (as they have failed year after year), the legislators would lose their pay until the budget was passed.

What wasn't pointed out, was that every year, the legislators could simply cobble up a one-page "budget" saying we are going to build ten copies of Disneyland out in the desert, and nothing else. Vote on it, pass it, it goes to the governor who will of course veto it. And the requirement is fulfilled: The legislature passed a "budget" on time, so they don't lose any pay. Meantime, the state still doesn't have a budget.

But that ballot initiative has, as I said, the main provision, lowering the required majority to 50% plus 1. Now the liberal Democrats infesting the legislature will be able to hike spending to stratospheric heights. And the minority Republicans will no longer be able to stop them, as they have stopped them in the past. And the new/old Governor Moonbeam can be counted on to sign everyone of those spending programs.

Yep, bastion of Sanity, that's California. At least in little gabby's bleary-eyed view.

The state govt of California has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for several years now, as the legislature keeps passing crazier and crazier spending programs while the minority Republicans fight a losing battle to stop them... while those programs drive more and more industry out of the state, devastating the tax base.

This ballot initiative, in my considered opinion, will firmly push it over the edge.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr110410dAPR20101104044549.jpg

Acorn.....I voted against this ... I've always wanted a 2/3rds and was absolutely flabergasted when it passed. I'm still in shock.

I'm still in shock about Brown .... but, I also remember that we got Davis out of there .... perhaps there is hope that we can do a recall on Brown.

[Little-Acorn]

Acorn.....I voted against this ... I've always wanted a 2/3rds and was absolutely flabergasted when it passed. I'm still in shock.


All I can think is that people saw the part about the legislators losing their pay if they didn't pass the budget on time, and went with it.

Ironically, the 1/2-majority part will probably result in budgets finally being passed on time anyway. The reason they wer late in the past, is mostly because liberals put in wild taxing and spending programs, and Republicans stood fast against them, creating an impasse that dragged on and on.

Now liberals will continue to put in their spending programs, and pass them on the first vote with a simple majority since the minority Republicans can no longer stop them.

And the gap between spending and income will explode even more than it already has for the last few years, and the state govt will rush headlong into bankruptcy.

BTW, something I'm VERY curious about:

How has the liberal/conservative balance in the state Assembly and state Senate, been affected by that last few elections? Both have been extrem-left for many years, with a small but valiant group of conservatives saving us from total disaster. I'd like to think that the percentage of conservs has been increasing for the last several elections, but I've seen no data on that. Any idea?

AND....

Redistricting will happen next year, as it happens after every decennial census. But this time, districts will be redrawn by the Independent Panel, rather than by the mostly-liberal legislature. How will this affect the liberal/conserv balance in the state houses for the 2012 elections and beyond... and in the U.S. House and Senate?
________________________
ON EDIT:

How silly is it that there is now a State in this union, that has a 2/3 voting requirement for increasing taxes but only a 51% requirement to increase spending?

[Gaffer]

Every time I hear this stuff about calif I am so thankful I no longer live there. It will go under in a few years because its populated by gabby's. They are droning in their own shit and to fix the problem...they're producing more shit.

[SassyLady]

I don't know Acorn....as I said, I'm still in shock that all this happened. I think conservatives are moving out of the state .... and there are just not enough of them left to pull it back. The only way is to break the unions and even the Governator got his ass kicked by them.

The country should watch CA .... wake up now or this could happen to you and your state.


Every time I hear this stuff about calif I am so thankful I no longer live there. It will go under in a few years because its populated by gabby's. They are droning in their own shit and to fix the problem...they're producing more shit.

Hey now...wait a minute Gaffer ... I'm still here!!! :cool:

However, I do feel like a freak. It's gotten to the point that if you meet someone in the bookstore, looking at a book written by a conservative, you talk to them in whispers because the progressives are so brazen as to dress you down in public for daring to read "that trash". They are so brazen that they walk by and slap the book if the face of the author (say Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Hannity, etc.) is on the cover. They are coming unhinged but we all know what happens when the patients start running the asylum.

[Gaffer]

Hey now...wait a minute Gaffer ... I'm still here!!! :cool:

However, I do feel like a freak. It's gotten to the point that if you meet someone in the bookstore, looking at a book written by a conservative, you talk to them in whispers because the progressives are so brazen as to dress you down in public for daring to read "that trash". They are so brazen that they walk by and slap the book if the face of the author (say Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Hannity, etc.) is on the cover. They are coming unhinged but we all know what happens when the patients start running the asylum.

Yeah you need to look seriously at Arizona, as you said earlier. The states going to collapse, especially with brown running things. He's the one that started it on this course to begin with. Now he can take it to the bottom. When the cities start to burn its best to hunker down or move.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, Gabs, put the crack pipe down and re-read what you posted in this thread.

There is a reason that people roll their eyes when CA is mentioned in any discussion of a serious nature.

[Little-Acorn]

Wow, Gabs, put the crack pipe down and re-read what you posted in this thread.

There is a reason that people roll their eyes when CA is mentioned in any discussion of a serious nature.

Then again, there's a reason that people roll their eyes when little gabby is mentioned in any discussion of a serious nature, too. :uhoh:

[SassyLady]

Yeah you need to look seriously at Arizona, as you said earlier. The states going to collapse, especially with brown running things. He's the one that started it on this course to begin with. Now he can take it to the bottom. When the cities start to burn its best to hunker down or move.

Well, if anyone is interested in living in the land of fruits and nuts (:laugh: I have walnut trees and blackberry vines everywhere), I might be selling soon.

[Little-Acorn]

Well, if anyone is interested in living in the land of fruits and nuts (:laugh: I have walnut trees and blackberry vines everywhere), I might be selling soon.

After all the praise you've been giving the place for the last few days, how could we resist a deal like that? :laugh:

[SassyLady]

I thought maybe the liberals on here might be interested ... but I guess I wouldn't know that .... I got most of them on ignore. Please let me know if anyone takes me up on the offer!!!

:laugh2::laugh2:

PS ... the weather is awesome!!!

[Little-Acorn]

PS ... the weather is awesome!!!

Yep... even if it did hit 100F here today.

At least you don't have to shovel sunshine! :beer:

[SassyLady]

Nope...no shoveling of sunshine...but I do have to worry about floating away during the winter when it rains so much!!!

[Palin Rider]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

When the major Republican candidates are ex-CEOs with zero political background - and who were blatantly trying to buy their elections - the people didn't take kindly to it.

Thank goodness for small favors.

[MtnBiker]

In the sane city of San Francisco the little crumb crunchers cannot have their Happy Meals anymore. :(

[fj1200]

When the major Republican candidates are ex-CEOs with zero political background...

As opposed to the "professional" politicians who've been doing a great job with the finances of CA?

[Palin Rider]

As opposed to the "professional" politicians who've been doing a great job with the finances of CA?

It's the old lesser-of-two-evils dilemma. :(

[fj1200]

It's the old lesser-of-two-evils dilemma. :(

So the voters went with proven failure? Excellent decision making out there.

[Palin Rider]

So the voters went with proven failure? Excellent decision making out there.

The real problem with California's finances isn't the pols; it's dozens of ridiculous initiatives that earmark almost all the budget before it can even be debated.

The state needs a Constitutional convention.

[fj1200]

The real problem with California's finances isn't the pols; it's dozens of ridiculous initiatives that earmark almost all the budget before it can even be debated.

The state needs a Constitutional convention.

So increasing pension liabilities was a ridiculous initiative?

[Palin Rider]

So increasing pension liabilities was a ridiculous initiative?

Some of the initiatives have been good ones, but more often they're not.

[fj1200]

Some of the initiatives have been good ones, but more often they're not.

Voter initiatives explain a budget approaching $100 bb dollars?

[Palin Rider]

Voter initiatives explain a budget approaching $100 bb dollars?

Believe it or not, they do explain most of it. The process is totally out of control.

[fj1200]

I might believe a link.

No offense. ;)

[Palin Rider]

I might believe a link.

No offense. ;)

None taken. :)

We can start with a database (http://library.uchastings.edu/library/california-research/ca-ballot-measures.html) of all initiatives from the inception of the process in 1911 until now. About 30% of these directly impact spending and taxation.

Not to mention that California has one of the most stringent balanced budget requirements of all the 50 states. These two factors are a recipe for a fiscal crisis at some point in time.

[Jeff]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

How is the economy out there Gabs ? I guess it is about the same as all that hope and change the Country is waiting for

[Trigg]

Because if they "thought clearly" they would vote Republican. .

22 years of Democratic rule has worked so well for them, gosh I don't know why they'd like a change.

[SpidermanTUba]

22 years of Democratic rule has worked so well for them, gosh I don't know why they'd like a change.

Funny how the government is responsible for the economy only when Democrats are in office.

[fj1200]

Funny how the government is responsible for the economy only when Democrats are in office.

Yeah, damn them and their anti-growth policies.

[SpidermanTUba]

Yeah, damn them and their anti-growth policies.

Sure. The Dems have run California for decades - all the growth California saw in the previous decades had nothing to do with them, but they had 100% everything to do with the growth stopping.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you make sense of things.

[gabosaurus]

How is the economy out there Gabs ? I guess it is about the same as all that hope and change the Country is waiting for

The economy is about the same as everywhere else. If California is so bad, why does everyone want to live here? We have wonderful weather and a lot of economic opportunities. And our political system isn't infested by teabaggers. What else can you ask for?

[Little-Acorn]

If California is so bad, why does everyone want to live here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

Comparing migration INTO California from the rest of the country, with migration OUT of California to the rest of the country, shows a net DECREASE of 1.5 million people in California's population since the last census.

The only increase comes from babies born here (who had no choice in the matter), and people who come from other countries (Mexico, China, Vietnam etc.) where conditions are even worse and governments even more irresponsible and oppressive than little gabby wants California's to be.

People who can choose where they want to live, between California and the rest of the country, are leaving in droves. And that's DESPITE the wonderful weather.

(yawn)

Has little gabby been right in ANY post she has made in this forum..... ever?

[Trigg]

Funny how the government is responsible for the economy only when Democrats are in office.

putting words in my mouth won't help your position. California has been in the hands of dems for 22 yrs and their economy is in the shitter. If I lived their I'd be looking for a change.



The economy is about the same as everywhere else. If California is so bad, why does everyone want to live here? We have wonderful weather and a lot of economic opportunities. And our political system isn't infested by teabaggers. What else can you ask for?

California's population growth has leveled out, I'd even say that the only reason the population is growing at all is the illegal population just keeps coming.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/01/local/me-population1

according to this websight california lost more people than it gained in 2007 through migration OUT of the state.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/

[Little-Acorn]

After the most recent census, California will be LOSING one seat in the House of Representatives.

This has never happened in the history of the state. It took a couple decades of extreme-left dominance to drive out enough productive people, to finally make it happen.

[Palin Rider]

After the most recent census, California will be LOSING one seat in the House of Representatives.

This has never happened in the history of the state. It took a couple decades of extreme-left dominance to drive out enough productive people, to finally make it happen.

There are still at least as many productive people; a much greater percentage of them are now legal immigrants who can't vote.

[NightTrain]

The economy is about the same as everywhere else. If California is so bad, why does everyone want to live here? We have wonderful weather and a lot of economic opportunities. And our political system isn't infested by teabaggers. What else can you ask for?

Steering clear of people like you is the primary reason why the majority of the country doesn't want to live there. Honest Injun.

[SpidermanTUba]

After the most recent census, California will be LOSING one seat in the House of Representatives.

This has never happened in the history of the state. It took a couple decades of extreme-left dominance to drive out enough productive people, to finally make it happen.

LOL! Yeah, it took a couple of decades of rapid economic growth under "extreme-left dominance" before they lost a single seat in Congress.

[SpidermanTUba]

putting words in my mouth won't help your position. California has been in the hands of dems for 22 yrs and their economy is in the shitter.
And in those 22 years California posted zero economic and population growth, right?


Hey how well is your "liberalism is bad for the economy!" theory working in New York City? The land of absurdly high taxes and rent control is apparently where everyone wants to live.

[Jeff]

The economy is about the same as everywhere else. If California is so bad, why does everyone want to live here? We have wonderful weather and a lot of economic opportunities. And our political system isn't infested by teabaggers. What else can you ask for?

You hit the nail on the head Gabs, for such a intelligent person I figured you would do better, but IF ( witch no Gabs Cali is tanking quicker ) but IF the economy is the same there that it is everywhere else why haven't yall figured out how to fix it ? Cause god knows it isn't good anywhere. I guess even as smart as y'all are out there y'all still have young men and woman going to die over seas , and please understand my comment( although I usually do ) wasn't a slam against cali it was a question if y'all are so superior than the rest of the world why is your economy about the worst?

I do have
to agree about the nice weather though Gabs unfortunately when I was there it was to cool to really enjoy it , I would of love to of seen the beaches they look beautiful

But we probably ought not call it paradise either with the smog alone, add the earthquakes in Gabs and you have a state some wouldn't want to live in, kind of like Florida and the Hurricanes the North East with the traffic ( ooo yea I forgot that one check that up for Cali also) and the cold weather

The moral of the story here Gabs ( if ya haven't caught it) is California is no better than any place else, it is up to the individual where they would like to live, as for everyone wanting to live there,:laugh: I don't know of any except a couple good people I have met that lived there already and a bunch of Hollywood weirdos you know the ones that threaten to leave the Country every election year but yet love to live off of our money ( jezz I kinda wish they would Move out ) and stay even when they lose, so what it comes down to is you think it is great cause there are a bunch of libs with no morals out there, and that's really not fair cause I see your post about your child and you do have morals but in general is what I am saying

See Gabs unfortunately all I got to see was the LA area( and I wasn't impressed) I understand Northern California is beautiful, in fact I am planning a bike trip threw there , So who knows Gabs maybe I can head a bit south and you can show me around cook some dinner for me and and show why y'all are so much better than the rest of the country

[fj1200]

Sure. The Dems have run California for decades - all the growth California saw in the previous decades had nothing to do with them, but they had 100% everything to do with the growth stopping.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you make sense of things.

Correct, the growth had to do with the business people that actually created the jobs. To be sure, California has some great externalities that encourage business formation, etc. but steadily increasing taxes and regulations will take their toll. CA has been recently ranked near the bottom of the state business rankings which speaks to its troubles.

But it is kind of funny how you are claiming the brilliant successes of CA when they are in serious financial troubles.

[Trigg]

And in those 22 years California posted zero economic and population growth, right?



Are your reading comprehension skills lacking?? No one is talking about zero growth. The topic, from gabby, that I was responding to, was her assertion that "everyone wants to live there".

News outlets have been talking about California OUT migration since at least 2007.

Every once in a while, if things aren't working out, things need to change.

Dems have been in control in Cali since 1988, the economy is in the shitter and more people are leaving than coming in. Seems to me that it makes sense to VOTE SOMEONE NEW IN.

[Palin Rider]

Every once in a while, if things aren't working out, things need to change.

Dems have been in control in Cali since 1988, the economy is in the shitter and more people are leaving than coming in. Seems to me that it makes sense to VOTE SOMEONE NEW IN.

When the alternative is a CEO who didn't even bother to vote for 20 years, and gave herself an 8-figure bonus right before laying off 10% of her company...that's not the kind of change anybody wants except for the CEO and her friends. And the voters knew that.

[LuvRPgrl]

When the alternative is a CEO who didn't even bother to vote for 20 years, and gave herself an 8-figure bonus right before laying off 10% of her company...that's not the kind of change anybody wants except for the CEO and her friends. And the voters knew that.

Do you have something to verify your figures?

[SassyLady]

After the most recent census, California will be LOSING one seat in the House of Representatives.

This has never happened in the history of the state. It took a couple decades of extreme-left dominance to drive out enough productive people, to finally make it happen.

I believe CA is one of the most regulated states in the union which is also killing jobs here. Businesses cannot afford to operate in the state any more.

And, gabby.... where are all those economic opportunities you were talking about?

And one of your favorite democrats...Boxer.... is killing the central valley agricultural industry. Where will all your immigrants be working now?

[LuvRPgrl]

Ill conceived ideas like the civil rights act, Medicare, social security - things that people hate.
.

Hmmm, House and Senate voting records show that between 39%-69% of Democrats voted in favor of the civil rights bill of 1964 (variouis versions in Senate/House) whilst Republicans voted in favor of it by a 80%-95% range,,,

Uhhh, who passed the civil rights act??

a couple of notables who were most extremely opposed to it

Storm Thurmond (a Democrat in 64)
Robert Byrd ( a real darling of the left)

[LuvRPgrl]

The State Senate and Assembly has held its ratio, of Dems to Repubs, steady for this entire century, about 25-15 Senate and 48-32 Assembly, it may vary by one or two, but thats it.

The 80's was when the Republicans had any control, and in 94, not sure about any of the other years.


All I can think is that people saw the part about the legislators losing their pay if they didn't pass the budget on time, and went with it.

Ironically, the 1/2-majority part will probably result in budgets finally being passed on time anyway. The reason they wer late in the past, is mostly because liberals put in wild taxing and spending programs, and Republicans stood fast against them, creating an impasse that dragged on and on.

Now liberals will continue to put in their spending programs, and pass them on the first vote with a simple majority since the minority Republicans can no longer stop them.

And the gap between spending and income will explode even more than it already has for the last few years, and the state govt will rush headlong into bankruptcy.

BTW, something I'm VERY curious about:

How has the liberal/conservative balance in the state Assembly and state Senate, been affected by that last few elections? Both have been extrem-left for many years, with a small but valiant group of conservatives saving us from total disaster. I'd like to think that the percentage of conservs has been increasing for the last several elections, but I've seen no data on that. Any idea?

AND....

Redistricting will happen next year, as it happens after every decennial census. But this time, districts will be redrawn by the Independent Panel, rather than by the mostly-liberal legislature. How will this affect the liberal/conserv balance in the state houses for the 2012 elections and beyond... and in the U.S. House and Senate?
________________________
ON EDIT:

How silly is it that there is now a State in this union, that has a 2/3 voting requirement for increasing taxes but only a 51% requirement to increase spending?

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure. The Dems have run California for decades - all the growth California saw in the previous decades had nothing to do with them, but they had 100% everything to do with the growth stopping.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you make sense of things. '

The growth in the mid to late ninties had nothing to do with the Dems being in power, but it happened IN SPITE of them being in power.
The economic growth was fueled by Silicon Valley (San Jose) and the .com engine. NOT BECAUSE OF ANY DEMOCRAT POLICIES.

The story for 2000-2010 is the same, the National economy was trending upwards during most of that time, and it carried Ca with it, as our business climate as rated by Site Selection Magazine, went from #1 & steadily declined until our most recent ratings have all been above 20-25 since 2007/

200-2002 ranking for California went from 1 to 7
2004-2006 saw us climb over 10 and remain in the 10-20 range
(each year saw a steady decline in our rating for "business friendly")
2007 saw us go over 20 as it has been since, I THINK the latest puts us at 25.

When you consider a great many states are almost exclusively non business economies, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc. etc., 25 is closer to the bottom than it sounds

JEFF mentioned smog and earthquakes. And that he only experienced Los Angeles (the O in Los is suppose to be pronounced as a long O, but most, even those from LA, pronounce it like its cousin Las, which is wrong)

LA is a dump. Majority of people there want to get out, but say they stay cuz of their jobs.
SF is simply so gay and liberal
SD and Orange counties are much more conservative, and a much better place to live. Most in San DIego really enjoy living here. The people are much friendlier and helpful than LA, I have lived in all four areas.

earthquakes are a joke, we had about 4-5 this summer, you just have to make sure your large screen tv is secure. Nobody dies in earthquakes as compared to other natural disasters in other parts of the country.

Along the southern coast of Ca. it was rated as having the least amount of natural disasters in the entire world.

As for people choosing to live here, or back east. A very large amount of people back east say they would like to move to Ca, but their job and family keep them back east. I believe the family is the big factor, if you move out here, say goodbye to your family, plain and simple.

As for losing a seat in Congress for the first time, it is indicitive of the lousy job the Dems have been doing. ALthough it is the first time, the rate of increase has been steadily declining.

We were having an increase of 3-4 every election cycle, until around 2000, if I recall correctly. Then the rate of increase went to about 2 for several elections, then 1, then 0 and now, finally a decline.

San Diego is the greatest place to live, everything else being equal, but I think there might be some spots in Florida that might rank up there with us, but Im not sure about the hurricanes there, and if there are areas that dont get them.

[fj1200]

a couple of notables who were most extremely opposed to it

Storm Thurmond (a Democrat in 64)
Robert Byrd ( a real darling of the left)

Did you forget Al Gore? Sr. that is.

[red states rule]

People are fleeing CA the same way they are flleing NY City and the state of Maryland

When libs continue to punish success by incrasing taxes they leave. The result is less tax money despite the tax increase

Now CA has tax and spend libs running things as usual and their problems will only get worse. Soon we will hear the plaes for more "stimulus" money or else teachers, police, fire fighters, widows, children, and old folks will be tossed into the street to die

The libs in CA will buy the BS once again and fork over more of their money to the government to keep the bloated pig fed for a little while longer - until that money runs out

[jimnyc]

Steering clear of people like you is the primary reason why the majority of the country doesn't want to live there. Honest Injun.

I've been to California. It's quite beautiful, at least where I was at (Silicon Valley, San Mateo, San Francisco...). But I wouldn't move there if someone picked up all the expenses and bought us a home. It's a liberal shithole where the atmosphere and people make it so that the "beauty" in the area is useless due to the assholes who live there.

[Jeff]

Jim If Memory serves me Gabs says she lives in the LA area, check that out, NYC only with a RAD attitude, LOL, as I said I am being unfair labeling all of Cali on what I saw as I understand there are beautiful areas but I can tell you LA is NOT a beautiful place, but ya know Jim that's what makes the world go round different strokes for different folks, personally I think living in the country deer in my yard room for my kids to grow is where to be

[actsnoblemartin]

yeah, one party rule of a state is excellent

sincerely

china

[Palin Rider]

Do you have something to verify your figures?

Just look at the press releases out of eBay when Meg Whitman was CEO, and out of HP when Carly Fiorina was CEO.

[SassyLady]

Just look at the press releases out of eBay when Meg Whitman was CEO, and out of HP when Carly Fiorina was CEO.

Why don't you show us one or two?

[Palin Rider]

Why don't you show us one or two?

Here's a two-in-one bonus.


Now that’s retiring in style.

In an 8-K filing with the SEC this afternoon {1/27/08}, eBay (EBAY) disclosed that outgoing CEO Meg Whitman will draw a $600,000 annual salary as a “special advisor” to the company through the end of the year. She also will have a target incentive bonus equal to her base salary, i.e., another $600,000. Whitman also remains eligible for the eBay Incentive Plan through the first quarter of 2009, and will vest in performance based restricted stock units she would been granted had she remained eligible through the 2009 first quarter. She also gets use of office space, IT and secretarial services for three years.
SEC Filing (http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000129993308000426/htm_25158.htm)

Quote source (http://seekingalpha.com/article/61756-ebay-s-whitman-retires-in-style)

[SassyLady]

Here's a two-in-one bonus.


SEC Filing (http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000129993308000426/htm_25158.htm)

Quote source (http://seekingalpha.com/article/61756-ebay-s-whitman-retires-in-style)

And this is the source of your hatred for Meg Whitman. You are mad because she's getting paid for an advisory role to E-Bay??!!

[Palin Rider]

And this is the source of your hatred for Meg Whitman. You are mad because she's getting paid for an advisory role to E-Bay??!!

Hardly. I'm mad because she got paid for mismanaging eBay while 10% of its workforce got pink-slipped. Which is pretty much the same story with Carly, as I'm sure you know.

[BoogyMan]

Jealous much?


Here's a two-in-one bonus.


SEC Filing (http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1065088/000129993308000426/htm_25158.htm)

Quote source (http://seekingalpha.com/article/61756-ebay-s-whitman-retires-in-style)

[Palin Rider]

Jealous much?

Not at all. Clearly you wouldn't know this, but there's plenty of money to go around.

[SassyLady]

Not at all. Clearly you wouldn't know this, but there's plenty of money to go around.

Except that you want what someone else has...or to give away what someone else has.

Perhaps you should ask movie stars to quit demanding such outrageous contracts to act out fantasies for the public; or for professional athletes to quit demanding such outrageous contracts to play a sport.

I could go on and on, but it seems as if liberals are only pissed that CEO's and business owners get the big bucks.

[fj1200]

Hardly. I'm mad because she got paid for mismanaging eBay while 10% of its workforce got pink-slipped. Which is pretty much the same story with Carly, as I'm sure you know.

Mismanaging eBay? :laugh:


Whitman joined eBay on March 1998, when it had 30 employees[19] and revenues of approximately $4 million. During her time as CEO, the company grew to approximately 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue by 2008.[20]

And you're not upset about BO mismanaging the US economy? :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

Except that you want what someone else has...or to give away what someone else has.

So do Meg and Carly. That's why they laid off so many employees in order to give themselves big bonuses.

[Pagan]

So do Meg and Carly. That's why they laid off so many employees in order to give themselves big bonuses.

Incomplete statement, let me fill in if I may -

So do Meg and Carly. That's why they laid off so many U.S. employees then outsourced overseas in order to give themselves big bonuses.

[fj1200]

I'm just so mad about those approximate 14,970 jobs that were created during her time there. That billions in market cap sucks too.

[Palin Rider]

Incomplete statement, let me fill in if I may -

So do Meg and Carly. That's why they laid off so many U.S. employees then outsourced overseas in order to give themselves big bonuses.

No problem, Pagan.

I knew about that, but I didn't want to burden poor mrsKP with too many facts at once.

[SassyLady]

No problem, Pagan.

I knew about that, but I didn't want to burden poor mrsKP with too many facts at once.

Thanks for thinking of my poor, feeble mind PR.

I think Carly did what any CEO would do to improve the bottom line, and quite frankly, what a lot of companies in CA did. And did she get bonuses for improving the bottom line? Sure she did.

Perhaps one should look at what Boxer did that allowed/caused companies to begin outsourcing jobs overseas.

People never look at the amount of jobs that are potentially saved as a result of layoffs. Do layoffs suck? Yes, especially if you are the one that is laid off. But ask the guy/gal who still has a job because the company didn't close their doors if they think the layoffs were a good thing.

I believe Carly and Meg would have fought to change the laws in CA to make it a more business friendly climate so that companies don't need to resort to outsourcing jobs overseas.

But I'm a heartless capitalist, remember. I would have done the same thing to keep the rest of the people, depending on their jobs, working.

[Pagan]

Thanks for thinking of my poor, feeble mind PR.

I think Carly did what any CEO would do to improve the bottom line, and quite frankly, what a lot of companies in CA did. And did she get bonuses for improving the bottom line? Sure she did.

Perhaps one should look at what Boxer did that allowed/caused companies to begin outsourcing jobs overseas.

People never look at the amount of jobs that are potentially saved as a result of layoffs. Do layoffs suck? Yes, especially if you are the one that is laid off. But ask the guy/gal who still has a job because the company didn't close their doors if they think the layoffs were a good thing.

I believe Carly and Meg would have fought to change the laws in CA to make it a more business friendly climate so that companies don't need to resort to outsourcing jobs overseas.

But I'm a heartless capitalist, remember. I would have done the same thing to keep the rest of the people, depending on their jobs, working.

Carly was fired for incompetence from HP

[BoogyMan]

Not at all. Clearly you wouldn't know this, but there's plenty of money to go around.

Then why do you bring it up like a class warrior talking point? :lame2:

[Palin Rider]

Then why do you bring it up like a class warrior talking point? :lame2:

To make the likes of you you look even dumber by your failing to come up with a real argument.

[Kathianne]

To make the likes of you you look even dumber by your failing to come up with a real argument.

and yet you fail and somehow manage to be proud of it.

[SassyLady]

<IFRAME style="Z-INDEX: 100000; POSITION: absolute; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=_atssh896 height=1 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh26.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=www.debatepolicy.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D29747&dt=&inst=1&lng=en-us&pc=men&pub=archivedigger&ssl=0&sid=4cd8ae3d33b51f1b&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=250&xck=0&rev=84393&xd=1" frameBorder=0 width=1 name=_atssh896></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="Z-INDEX: 100000; POSITION: absolute; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=_atssh906 height=1 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh26.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=www.debatepolicy.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D29747&dt=&inst=2&lng=en-us&pc=men&pub=archivedigger&ssl=0&sid=4cd8ae29f58fd43b&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=250&xck=0&rev=84393&xd=1" frameBorder=0 width=1 name=_atssh906></IFRAME>

Carly was fired for incompetence from HP

Here's another perspective .... from someone who was there at HP...at the top and not a disgruntled former employee like the ones used in Boxer's ad.




Carly Fiorina laid groundwork for HP's success

<!-- Module ends: article-header--><!-- Module starts: article-byline (ArticleByline) -->October 28, 2010|By Sam Ginn

<!-- Module ends: sm-badge-facebook-->
<!-- Module starts: a-body-first-para (ArticleText) -->In today's tough political environment, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Carly Fiorina (http://www.sfgate.com/carly-fiorina/) is once again the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Her track record at Hewlett-Packard has been injected into the campaign, and I suspect that some believe attacking her legacy will somehow result in political gain.

My problem is that the criticism bears little relation to what I observed while serving some eight years on the HP board of directors. This has caused me to rise to her defense. My simple view is that you can support Fiorina or not support Fiorina, but it would be helpful to have a point of view from someone who observed her closely for years.

<!-- Module ends: a-body-first-para-->
http://articles.sfgate.com/images/pixel.gif
http://articles.sfgate.com/images/pixel.gif
<!-- Module starts: a-body-after-first-para (ArticleText) -->I first met Carly in 1999 when I served on the HP board and chaired the search committee appointed to recommend a new chief executive officer to the full board. A number of top senior managers, mainly from the technology sector, were considered. In the end, Fiorina was the committee's unanimous choice. Not only did she score exceptionally high on tests designed to measure leadership potential, but she also surprised the committee with her intelligence, thoughtfulness and vision for the company.

It also was our judgment that she would dedicate herself to the task of transforming HP. Today, HP is a successful world leader in each of its market segments. I understand that there is some debate as to how much credit goes to Fiorina and how much to her replacement, Mark Hurd. Early on, Fiorina challenged what had become a perversion of "The HP Way." She reduced the work force, cut costs, reduced bureaucracy and challenged the sense of entitlement.

It was tough sledding. These changes were not universally popular, but they were necessary. As I see it, Fiorina set the table, and Hurd executed superbly. HP is today a company well positioned to serve its customers for another generation.

Washington could stand a dose of cutting costs, reducing bureaucracy and challenging the unhealthy sense of entitlement creeping into our culture. Sound like someone we need in a political leader? I think it does. Attacks on Fiorina focus on her decision to reduce the number of jobs and move jobs oversees. I would venture to say that every CEO who has ever fulfilled his or her corporate responsibilities during a time of economic downturn (as Fiorina experienced) makes similar moves. Every CEO weighs tax and regulatory implications as they choose where plants and people are located. In fact, it is these tough choices that qualify Fiorina for the U.S. Senate.

I say this for two reasons:
She knows firsthand why businesses bring jobs to this country and why they make the strategic decision to grow them elsewhere. She proved at HP that she is willing to make the right choices for the long-term health of the organization, even when those choices are accompanied by heavy personal criticism.

Today, we know her tough choices resulted in ultimate job growth at HP. It is true that Fiorina was an outsider, not an engineer and not of Silicon Valley, which offended many of the traditionalists. She was the favorite female CEO on magazine covers, and that didn't do her any favors. She clearly could have done a better job in that respect, but it is also true that she sought to alter a culture that was complacent and needed to be changed.

I believe that, given the opportunity, Fiorina will deliver the same leadership for California in Washington. Everyone who believes creating jobs and restoring American competitiveness should be our priorities would be well served by considering this tenacious woman's true track record, not the politically motivated distortions, and electing Fiorina to the U.S. Senate.

<!-- Module ends: a-body-after-first-para-->
<!-- Module starts: article-tagline (ArticleTagline) -->Sam Ginn is a former member of the Hewlett-Packard board of directors.<!-- Module ends: article-tagline-->
<!-- Module starts: article-copyright (ArticleCopyright) -->(C) San Francisco Chronicle 2010

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-10-28/opinion/24540096_1_carly-fiorina-hp-mark-hurd

[Pagan]

<IFRAME style="Z-INDEX: 100000; POSITION: absolute; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=_atssh896 height=1 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh26.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=www.debatepolicy.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D29747&dt=&inst=1&lng=en-us&pc=men&pub=archivedigger&ssl=0&sid=4cd8ae3d33b51f1b&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=250&xck=0&rev=84393&xd=1" frameBorder=0 width=1 name=_atssh896></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="Z-INDEX: 100000; POSITION: absolute; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=_atssh906 height=1 src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh26.html#cb=0&ab=-&dh=www.debatepolicy.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debatepolicy.com%2Fnewreply.ph p%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D29747&dt=&inst=2&lng=en-us&pc=men&pub=archivedigger&ssl=0&sid=4cd8ae29f58fd43b&srd=1&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srx=0&ver=250&xck=0&rev=84393&xd=1" frameBorder=0 width=1 name=_atssh906></IFRAME>


Here's another perspective .... from someone who was there at HP...at the top and not a disgruntled former employee like the ones used in Boxer's ad.

One person, wow ....... :lame2:

Sorry but I may not have worked "for" HP but I've dealt with them on a Professional level for many years.

She was fired for incompetence, that is the facts and no amount of spin from Carly and her blaming others is going to change that.

[SassyLady]

One person, wow ....... :lame2:

Sorry but I may not have worked "for" HP but I've dealt with them on a Professional level for many years.

She was fired for incompetence, that is the facts and no amount of spin from Carly and her blaming others is going to change that.

Are you saying this guy is lying? And, he didn't work for HP ... he was on the Board of Directors.

And, again, what are your credentials with regard to HP?

Also, you have access to the "facts" or just what was reported in the media?

And, where, in this article does Carly blame anybody for anything?

[Palin Rider]

Thanks for thinking of my poor, feeble mind PR.

I think Carly did what any CEO would do to improve the bottom line, and quite frankly, what a lot of companies in CA did. And did she get bonuses for improving the bottom line? Sure she did.

Perhaps one should look at what Boxer did that allowed/caused companies to begin outsourcing jobs overseas.

People never look at the amount of jobs that are potentially saved as a result of layoffs. Do layoffs suck? Yes, especially if you are the one that is laid off. But ask the guy/gal who still has a job because the company didn't close their doors if they think the layoffs were a good thing.

I believe Carly and Meg would have fought to change the laws in CA to make it a more business friendly climate so that companies don't need to resort to outsourcing jobs overseas.

But I'm a heartless capitalist, remember. I would have done the same thing to keep the rest of the people, depending on their jobs, working.

As a fellow capitalist, I'm not opposed to layoffs, as long as they're done for the correct reason. Problem is, 99.9% of them are not.

The usual scenario (in public companies, at least) is that investors start to panic at the sign of any hiccup in the quarterly forecast growth rate. To keep her job, the CEO makes a show of dramatic cost cutting as a sign of quick and strong action. This kind of fly-swatting with a sledgehammer predictably ends up harming the company, not helping it. It doesn't "keep the rest of the people working," and in fact often leads to more waves of layoffs.

[Palin Rider]

and yet you fail and somehow manage to be proud of it.

Having a bad day, Kath?

[Indy]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-20101104,0,1915403.story

What is it that you're not buying? The simple fact that liberals have destroyed this state in less than 35 years? Jerry Brown is responsible for a lot of the destruction. Liberals have for decades passed spending legislation with no clear means of funding it. We have large counties in this state where almost half of the residents are on entitlement programs. They have passed the most ridiculous environmental laws than any state in the union, causing industry to pack up and leave. Once one of the most productive and desirable states in the union is on the verge of bankruptcy. With Jerry Brown as Governor this state will be completely broke within two years. With a conservative majority in the house, forget about another bailout. So huge increases in taxes a fees will be their only option. What don't you understand? No, you won't be buying much of anything. To sit there and pretend that liberals aren't responsible for this mess boarders on complete stupidity. But you go right ahead and delude yourself, liberals are good at that.Brown took a surplus and left a debt and we also had a less than 5% unemployment rate that was over 19% when he left. after two terms in the seventies and eighties. He devastated the Oakland economy when he was mayor. He's an admitted habitual liar. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is the worst thing for California

[SassyLady]

What is it that you're not buying? The simple fact that liberals have destroyed this state in less than 35 years? Jerry Brown is responsible for a lot of the destruction. Liberals have for decades passed spending legislation with no clear means of funding it. We have large counties in this state where almost half of the residents are on entitlement programs. They have passed the most ridiculous environmental laws than any state in the union, causing industry to pack up and leave. Once one of the most productive and desirable states in the union is on the verge of bankruptcy. With Jerry Brown as Governor this state will be completely broke within two years. With a conservative majority in the house, forget about another bailout. So huge increases in taxes a fees will be their only option. What don't you understand? No, you won't be buying much of anything. To sit there and pretend that liberals aren't responsible for this mess boarders on complete stupidity. But you go right ahead and delude yourself, liberals are good at that.Brown took a surplus and left a debt and we also had a less than 5% unemployment rate that was over 19% when he left. after two terms in the seventies and eighties. He devastated the Oakland economy when he was mayor. He's an admitted habitual liar. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is the worst thing for California

Gabby doesn't remember the Brown days ... either Jerry or his father Ed.

[Palin Rider]

Brown is no messiah, but Queen Meg would have been many times worse.

[Pagan]

Are you saying this guy is lying? And, he didn't work for HP ... he was on the Board of Directors.

And, again, what are your credentials with regard to HP?

Also, you have access to the "facts" or just what was reported in the media?

And, where, in this article does Carly blame anybody for anything?

Aaaah look at my post I said "one person".

Like I said -

"Sorry but I may not have worked "for" HP but I've dealt with them on a Professional level for many years."

As for "opinions", I suggest you actually at least make an effort to look around a bit.

Here, here's a site with HP employee's speaking out about Carly -

http://www.carly-fiorina.com/hp-employees-on-carly-fiorina/gbook.php?page=1

This sums it up rather well with these two HP employee's comment -


Submitted by
Name: Mark
From: HP
Comments:
I worked at HP for 18 years beginning 1985.

My first thought was that Carly was being hired as a hatchet-woman to reduce staff and then would be let go, so the Board could say "It wasn't us...".

My first impression of her was an outsider, a bad outsider. She immediately began speaking as "WE did this, WE did that" rather than what I would have said, "Hewlett Packard Employees did this and I'm glad to be a part of you now and I hope that WE can do this going forward". It was my opinion from the start that she was trying to take credit for things she has no history with.

We had already been told that we were eliminating employees, however we never were told just what criteria was being used. Then we received an email directly to our HP email accounts and were supposed to reply to it with how long we had been with HP and what we thought of the Compaq merger. I personally ignored the email, however many of my co-workers wanted to look like team members and answered that they thought it was a good idea. Yet in person they said it was a horrible idea. Thus Carly said to the public that employees were behind her with the merger. Had she sent out an anonymous survey, her response would have been drastically different. I could not believe this was a directed email to be replied to!

Managers told me that they received directives as to who was terminated. It did not appear that employee evaluation had anything to do with who stayed and who left.

Managers would come by and tap an employee on the shoulder to go to the conference room. In some cases, security was notified, just in case. What a way to have to end your job at HP. Since we were not told the criteria for leaving, people would just wait at their desks, not concentrating on work, figuring that they were next. Why work hard when it appeared that was not going to help you stay. It was very depressing as people just sat there and waited for the other shoe to drop.

It was different for us with Early Retirement and I thought we were treated pretty well. However, I was offered an extra incentive if I agreed NOT to speak poorly about Carly in the press for 1 year! I admit to taking the bribe and still talking about her to the press anonymously.


"Name: Art
From: HP, 1985-present
Comments:
Carly Fiorina never 'got' what Silicon Valley is about. She didn't understand that companies like Hewlett-Packard are built on creativity, innovation, solid engineering and great products... NOT restructuring, mergers, and layoffs.

Almost 5 years after Carly was forced out, HP is once again a great company and a great place to work, but I'm saddened by the many good people who lost their jobs, or quit in disgust during Carly's "reign of error."


She trashed a once great company, but they fired her for incompetence. Once they did that it took them a few years but they have recovered a bit, but they still are a shell of their former self.

Much like EDS, when Ross Perot owned EDS it was an outstanding company. But he sold it and it went to shit, incompetence reigned and still did. They've been bought by HP in 2008 and under HP's "Post" Carly leadership their quality has slowly been improving along with HP's. But it's a long road and there is a lot of damage to be repaired.

Wanna see an example of the incompetence? The Navy/Marine Corps Intranet NMCI is one example.

[Pagan]

Oh also if you wanna have a good read, here's another good one by Entrepreneur

The rise and fall of Carly Fiorina: an ethical case study.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/187962046.html

Boxer, yes California badly needs to get rid of her. But "if" they elected Carly they would have been just going from the Frying Pan into the Fire.

I fault the GOP for not putting up a credible candidate, the climate was ripe to unseat Boxer but they blew their chance.

[SassyLady]

Aaaah look at my post I said "one person".

Like I said -

"Sorry but I may not have worked "for" HP but I've dealt with them on a Professional level for many years."

As for "opinions", I suggest you actually at least make an effort to look around a bit.

Here, here's a site with HP employee's speaking out about Carly -

http://www.carly-fiorina.com/hp-employees-on-carly-fiorina/gbook.php?page=1

This sums it up rather well with these two HP employee's comment -






She trashed a once great company, but they fired her for incompetence. Once they did that it took them a few years but they have recovered a bit, but they still are a shell of their former self.

Much like EDS, when Ross Perot owned EDS it was an outstanding company. But he sold it and it went to shit, incompetence reigned and still did. They've been bought by HP in 2008 and under HP's "Post" Carly leadership their quality has slowly been improving along with HP's. But it's a long road and there is a lot of damage to be repaired.

Wanna see an example of the incompetence? The Navy/Marine Corps Intranet NMCI is one example.

I don't think there is a CEO alive that hasn't been trashed by at least one or two employees...both current and former.

This still does not negate what this board member knows about Carly. And as for her successor ... Hurd....well, we all know how that turned out.

[Pagan]

I don't think there is a CEO alive that hasn't been trashed by at least one or two employees...both current and former.

This still does not negate what this board member knows about Carly. And as for her successor ... Hurd....well, we all know how that turned out.

I take it you didn't read the links.

Oh well that's your prerogative, I'm not out to change your mind just give you some background.

[SassyLady]

I take it you didn't read the links.

Oh well that's your prerogative, I'm not out to change your mind just give you some background.

And, as I said in my post, just giving another perspective...not out to change your mind either.

[Pagan]

And, as I said in my post, just giving another perspective...not out to change your mind either.

No worries but I'm pretty solid in my opinions coming from working with HP for 'bout two decades. Granted not at the Executive Board level but with their Engineer's.

Anyway damn girl those legs in your Avatar "are "distracting and I'm sure that's intentional :laugh:

[SassyLady]

I take it you didn't read the links.

Oh well that's your prerogative, I'm not out to change your mind just give you some background.

I read your link for the "former employees" of HP (or I should say the "Stop Carly" site. I wonder how many of those posts were from Boxer supporters and whether they even worked for HP. What was the vetting process for posting there?

And you are the one that is always giving people a hard time for believing everything they read and hear.

You want to believe Carly is evil so you'll find anything and everything you can to support that belief. And, that's OK. That's human nature.

[SassyLady]

No worries but I'm pretty solid in my opinions coming from working with HP for 'bout two decades. Granted not at the Executive Board level but with their Engineer's.

Anyway damn girl those legs in your Avatar "are "distracting and I'm sure that's intentional :laugh:

I went to school with, and have worked with, current and former employees.

And, thank you for the avatar compliment. :2up:

Intentional??? :coffee:

[Pagan]

I read your link for the "former employees" of HP (or I should say the "Stop Carly" site. I wonder how many of those posts were from Boxer supporters and whether they even worked for HP. What was the vetting process for posting there?

And you are the one that is always giving people a hard time for believing everything they read and hear.

You want to believe Carly is evil so you'll find anything and everything you can to support that belief. And, that's OK. That's human nature.

No, as I said it's based on two decades of working with HP's Engineers.

BTW read the other link I posted from Entrepreneur


I went to school with, and have worked with, current and former employees.

And, thank you for the avatar compliment. :2up:

Intentional??? :coffee:

Yes, Intentional as in throwing out a distraction :cool:

For the record, I've always appreciated a fine set of legs :salute:

[Palin Rider]

I read your link for the "former employees" of HP (or I should say the "Stop Carly" site. I wonder how many of those posts were from Boxer supporters and whether they even worked for HP.
Now that I think about it, HP's California offices probably have a disproportionately high number of Boxer supporters. :laugh:

[SassyLady]

No, as I said it's based on two decades of working with HP's Engineers.

BTW read the other link I posted from Entrepreneur



Yes, Intentional as in throwing out a distraction :cool:

For the record, I've always appreciated a fine set of legs :salute:

:beer:

[LuvRPgrl]

I've been to California. It's quite beautiful, at least where I was at (Silicon Valley, San Mateo, San Francisco...). But I wouldn't move there if someone picked up all the expenses and bought us a home. It's a liberal shithole where the atmosphere and people make it so that the "beauty" in the area is useless due to the assholes who live there.

Actually thats not very accurate as long as you stay out of LA and SF, SD is much more conservative and sane, ;and a major military center.

[LuvRPgrl]

Jim If Memory serves me Gabs says she lives in the LA area, check that out, NYC only with a RAD attitude, LOL, as I said I am being unfair labeling all of Cali on what I saw as I understand there are beautiful areas but I can tell you LA is NOT a beautiful place, but ya know Jim that's what makes the world go round different strokes for different folks, personally I think living in the country deer in my yard room for my kids to grow is where to be

YEa, and Ca. has that, in fact, Ca. has everything anyone can want.
Warm beach coastline, rocky rough coastolines, forests, mountains, high desert, low desert, cities, farming, ranching, It is easily the most diverse state in the union

[LuvRPgrl]

As a fellow capitalist, I'm not opposed to layoffs, as long as they're done for the correct reason. Problem is, 99.9% of them are not.

The usual scenario (in public companies, at least) is that investors start to panic at the sign of any hiccup in the quarterly forecast growth rate. To keep her job, the CEO makes a show of dramatic cost cutting as a sign of quick and strong action. This kind of fly-swatting with a sledgehammer predictably ends up harming the company, not helping it. It doesn't "keep the rest of the people working," and in fact often leads to more waves of layoffs.

THIS is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

If you dont like the reasons a company or ceo lay off people, then dont work or invest in that company,,see how easy that is:laugh::laugh:

[Palin Rider]

THIS is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

If you dont like the reasons a company or ceo lay off people, then dont work or invest in that company,,see how easy that is:laugh::laugh:

Yes, it's very stupid: and it's also true. As you've demonstrated, the investing public is full of idiots.

[fj1200]

As a fellow capitalist, I'm not opposed to layoffs, as long as they're done for the correct reason.

And what would be that correct reason?

[Palin Rider]

And what would be that correct reason?

Simple. If the value that an employee brings to the company is less than what it costs the company to pay him/her.

[SassyLady]

Some people think it is wrong to lay off people if a company is experiencing hard times ... that a layoff should have nothing to do with the bottom line of the company as a whole ... only what that individual brings to the bottom line.

However, if I were a farmer and weather just took out my whole crop for this season .... and there was nothing for the employee to "work" on in order to justify their value, how would the above theory work.

Sometimes things happen to a business environment that an individual employee has no control over and management has to make a decision to save the core of the business and that could mean layoffs ... no matter how much individual worth a person has to that company.

Doing the right thing for the whole can, and often will, hurt individuals.

[Thunderknuckles]

The radio and TV talking heads can mesmerize other parts of the country with their rhetoric and hate speech, but we the people of California are not buying into it.


How anyone can say California is a voice of reason is beyond me. Look at our budget deficit alone and you can see we are missing a few screws.

[red states rule]

How anyone can say California is a voice of reason is beyond me. Look at our budget deficit alone and you can see we are missing a few screws.

and they keep electing liberals who will continue to tax the hell out them as the spending continues to go on and on

If that is the governemnt the libs in CA want - fine. No Federal bailouts to save their asses when the money runs out

[Thunderknuckles]

and they keep electing liberals who will continue to tax the hell out them as the spending continues to go on and on

If that is the governemnt the libs in CA want - fine. No Federal bailouts to save their asses when the money runs out
Agreed. It's a problem with the electorate in this state. They keep voting for every damn spending bill put before them despite the budget crisis. No one seems to have the ability to ask themselves "how will we pay for this". I've seen a number of decent proposals hit the ballot but have had to vote No on them simply because we can't afford them.

Fix the deficit and unemployment issue first, then come back to me with a spending bill.

[SassyLady]

Agreed. It's a problem with the electorate in this state. They keep voting for every damn spending bill put before them despite the budget crisis. No one seems to have the ability to ask themselves "how will we pay for this". I've seen a number of decent proposals hit the ballot but have had to vote No on them simply because we can't afford them.

Fix the deficit and unemployment issue first, then come back to me with a spending bill.

They think higher taxes on the wealthy will pay for it....so they keep electing people who say they will not cut special interest spending.

Unions in CA are the most powerful forces we have ... everyone is trying to protect their personal interests instead of thinking ahead to what is happening to the entire CA economy.

[Palin Rider]

Some people think it is wrong to lay off people if a company is experiencing hard times ... that a layoff should have nothing to do with the bottom line of the company as a whole ... only what that individual brings to the bottom line.

However, if I were a farmer and weather just took out my whole crop for this season .... and there was nothing for the employee to "work" on in order to justify their value, how would the above theory work.

It works perfectly. Your farmhand can't add value because there is no longer any work for them.

[Missileman]

When the major Republican candidates are ex-CEOs with zero political background - and who were blatantly trying to buy their elections - the people didn't take kindly to it.

Thank goodness for small favors.

'Cause politicians with no business background are doing such a wonderful job.

[Mr. P]

Who is John Galt?

[SassyLady]

Who is John Galt?

Character from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

[Mr. P]

Character from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
True, but MUCH more than just a name or character.

[SassyLady]

True, but MUCH more than just a name or character.

True....and those who have read the book truly understand why....for those who haven't....John Galt is just a name.

I could go so far as to say ... I am a John Galt.

[fj1200]

Simple. If the value that an employee brings to the company is less than what it costs the company to pay him/her.

Now you just have to show that HP, eBay, and 99.9% of all companies broke that rule.

[Palin Rider]

Now you just have to show that HP, eBay, and 99.9% of all companies broke that rule.

Most public companies have definitely broken that rule, and many have done so several times. Often it's for the reason I gave above. In addition, it actually takes time and effort to do a layoff correctly. Do you honestly think every CFO does a perfect job?

You don't appear to have much, if any, business experience, but I've seen way too many layoffs firsthand that were very bad for bottom lines.

[fj1200]

Most public companies have definitely broken that rule, and many have done so several times. Often it's for the reason I gave above. In addition, it actually takes time and effort to do a layoff correctly. Do you honestly think every CFO does a perfect job?

You don't appear to have much, if any, business experience, but I've seen way too many layoffs firsthand that were very bad for bottom lines.

Plenty, now if you just understood capitalism. Layoffs happen for many reasons, some good some not, but your blanket statement is a bit ridiculous.

[Palin Rider]

Plenty, now if you just understood capitalism. Layoffs happen for many reasons, some good some not, but your blanket statement is a bit ridiculous.

Okay, Mr. Trump, give me a "good" reason for a layoff that has nothing to do with how much an employee contributes to the company's value.

[Missileman]

Most public companies have definitely broken that rule, and many have done so several times.

How about posting some specific examples. No offense, but your "say-so" doesn't meet even my loosest standard of evidence.

[Palin Rider]

How about posting some specific examples. No offense, but your "say-so" doesn't meet even my loosest standard of evidence.

The BOD at a now-defunct company explicitly ordered its management to lay off at least one person from every department. (Never mind that some "departments" had only 2 or 3 people.)

Specific enough for you?

[Missileman]

The BOD at a now-defunct company explicitly ordered its management to lay off at least one person from every department. (Never mind that some "departments" had only 2 or 3 people.)

Specific enough for you?

1. What was the companies name?
2. What year did the layoffs take place?
3. How exactly did any of these layoffs violate the rule you cited?

[Thunderknuckles]

The BOD at a now-defunct company explicitly ordered its management to lay off at least one person from every department. (Never mind that some "departments" had only 2 or 3 people.)

Specific enough for you?
As a hiring manager and former employee for a company whose name I shall not mention I have seen this myself. I was required to "pick one" from my team to layoff. The company whose name I shall not mention recently aquired our original company and I was none to impressed with their ethics as a whole, so I nominated myself as the one to lay off. That caught them a little by surprise. Although they tried to convince me to stay and choose someone else, I hit the road.

[namvet]

As always, California remains the sane voice of reason


http://kfmb.images.worldnow.com/images/13468118_BG1.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

Simple. If the value that an employee brings to the company is less than what it costs the company to pay him/her.

You know, it works basically like this.

If most of the companies are laying off for reasons you dont approve of, or are not beneficial to the bottom line for the company, then

that leaves an opening, opportunity, vacum, for someone else to start a competing company that will operate at a more efficient level because it doesnt lay off people for bad reasons, and it doesnt hurt its bottom line by laying off productive employees.

[fj1200]

Okay, Mr. Trump, give me a "good" reason for a layoff that has nothing to do with how much an employee contributes to the company's value.

Sure, acquiring company now has two redundant divisions. They don't need two now do they so they eliminate one no matter how much value the layoff-ees contribute to the company.

Outsourcing, the company can now focus on their core business no matter the value provided by the layoff-ees.


The BOD at a now-defunct company explicitly ordered its management to lay off at least one person from every department. (Never mind that some "departments" had only 2 or 3 people.)

Specific enough for you?

Alright, you've shown 00.1%, just 99.8% more to go. ;)

[Binky]

As long as CA is bombarded with illegals and the state gov't embraces them with free this and free that at tax payers expense, that state will always be buried under surmountable debt. If they would pass the laws as Arizona did, they'd see a lot of scampering going on with illegals leaving lightening up the monetary load for the rest of the state. But I don't see that happening, so I guess one day we'll see and hear of CA sinking in the Pacific from the weight of it's vast amount of debt......

[Thunderknuckles]

As long as CA is bombarded with illegals and the state gov't embraces them with free this and free that at tax payers expense, that state will always be buried under surmountable debt. If they would pass the laws as Arizona did, they'd see a lot of scampering going on with illegals leaving lightening up the monetary load for the rest of the state. But I don't see that happening, so I guess one day we'll see and hear of CA sinking in the Pacific from the weight of it's vast amount of debt......
In my opinion illegal immigration is the lesser of two problems the state faces. The other larger problem being the electorate in this state as I mentioned earlier. Folks in California just don't think straight. We complain to no end about our state's debt but throw a spending bill at us and we vote in favor of it. It makes no sense. I have to share one of my favorite California-stupid moments in voting:

California is in love with the idea of high speed rail systems. Our latest attempt to realize the dream happened in 2008 when Prop 1A hit the ballot. The prop was for the building of a high speed rail system from LA to San Francisco. At the time this train was expected to cost taxpayers 10 billion (almost 20 billion after debt servicing). Now, keep in mind that our debt at the time was roughly 60 billion and our continuing budget deficit reached 16 billion. Despite this, we voted yes on this 20 billion dollar boondoggle. Almost 3 years later, the train has yet to be built and as of 2010 is expected to cost the state 45 billion. Worse yet, the total cost of this train, if ever built, is expected to reach 80 billion by 2030.

It takes a special kind of stupid to vote for something like this, no matter how noble the goal, when your state is facing financial collapse.

This is just one example of how Californians are responsible for destroying their own state while complaining every inch of the way about it.

Absolutely Ricockuluos.

[LuvRPgrl]

In my opinion illegal immigration is the lesser of two problems the state faces. The other larger problem being the electorate in this state as I mentioned earlier. Folks in California just don't think straight. .. .... It takes a special kind of stupid to vote for something like this, no matter how noble the goal, when your state is facing financial collapse.

This is just one example of how Californians are responsible for destroying their own state while complaining every inch of the way about it.

Absolutely Ricockuluos.

Illegal immigration and programs that give them, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS, are two seperate issues.

Economically, the state did fine for many decades while illegals were pouring over the border.

% wise, and in sheer numbers, the vast majority of liberals in Ca. come from 2 regions, LA and SF.

Millions of the poor in those areas are uneducated and ignorant. They vote based on clips on tv, and what the liberal media force feed them. They have been raised, as their kids are, to believe big business is evil and big gov't is their savior.

They have been taught to believe that republicans are evil monsters who want to enslave them, revoke womans sufferage, and bring back child labor.

They teach them conservatives want to see them starve, denied education and the ability to vote. WE ARE EVIL MONSTERS,

even though we support choice in education, which will benefit them immensely,
For the most part, we oppose abortion, which was fought for by planned parenthood as one of the tools to eliminate the black race

[Pagan]

Illegal immigration and programs that give them, ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF CITIZENS, are two seperate issues.

Economically, the state did fine for many decades while illegals were pouring over the border.

% wise, and in sheer numbers, the vast majority of liberals in Ca. come from 2 regions, LA and SF.

Millions of the poor in those areas are uneducated and ignorant. They vote based on clips on tv, and what the liberal media force feed them. They have been raised, as their kids are, to believe big business is evil and big gov't is their savior.

They have been taught to believe that republicans are evil monsters who want to enslave them, revoke womans sufferage, and bring back child labor.

They teach them conservatives want to see them starve, denied education and the ability to vote. WE ARE EVIL MONSTERS,

even though we support choice in education, which will benefit them immensely,
For the most part, we oppose abortion, which was fought for by planned parenthood as one of the tools to eliminate the black race

What they fail to understand is

1. Bi-lingual education without any emphasis on learning English
2. Dependence on Government for the basics like housing, health, etc.

What does this all equate to?

Slavery

Since they are not self sufficient and unable to function without the scraps thrown down to them from the table of those in power.

[Binky]

In my opinion illegal immigration is the lesser of two problems the state faces. The other larger problem being the electorate in this state as I mentioned earlier. Folks in California just don't think straight. We complain to no end about our state's debt but throw a spending bill at us and we vote in favor of it. It makes no sense. I have to share one of my favorite California-stupid moments in voting:

California is in love with the idea of high speed rail systems. Our latest attempt to realize the dream happened in 2008 when Prop 1A hit the ballot. The prop was for the building of a high speed rail system from LA to San Francisco. At the time this train was expected to cost taxpayers 10 billion (almost 20 billion after debt servicing). Now, keep in mind that our debt at the time was roughly 60 billion and our continuing budget deficit reached 16 billion. Despite this, we voted yes on this 20 billion dollar boondoggle. Almost 3 years later, the train has yet to be built and as of 2010 is expected to cost the state 45 billion. Worse yet, the total cost of this train, if ever built, is expected to reach 80 billion by 2030.

It takes a special kind of stupid to vote for something like this, no matter how noble the goal, when your state is facing financial collapse.

This is just one example of how Californians are responsible for destroying their own state while complaining every inch of the way about it.

Absolutely Ricockuluos.

Thanks for enlightening me on that. I didn't know a thing about that proposed rail system. However, doesn't the train that runs along the coastline towards the north go all the way to San Fran.? We rode it, but at the moment I can't remember where we got off. As I recall we went about halfway to San Fran....

[Thunderknuckles]

Thanks for enlightening me on that. I didn't know a thing about that proposed rail system. However, doesn't the train that runs along the coastline towards the north go all the way to San Fran.? We rode it, but at the moment I can't remember where we got off. As I recall we went about halfway to San Fran....

The Amtrak train that runs on the coast does not go directly into San Fran. It hits Oakland which is just on the other side of the bay from San Fran, so close enough :)

[Binky]

The Amtrak train that runs on the coast does not go directly into San Fran. It hits Oakland which is just on the other side of the bay from San Fran, so close enough :)

If it's close enough then why in the heck do they need to go the expense, time and trouble of building another one that really isn't needed? I'm smellin' some stinky poo again.....:eek:

[LuvRPgrl]

If it's close enough then why in the heck do they need to go the expense, time and trouble of building another one that really isn't needed? I'm smellin' some stinky poo again.....:eek:

Because its a real piss ant train ride, too many stops, blockages and takes forever.
The main problem is they share the tracks with commercial trains, and Amtrak actually doesnt own the trak, they "borrow" it from the commercial train owners, and if there is a conflict, which there often is, the Amtrak train has to defer to the commercial trains.

Almost every time, you wind up sitting on an unscheduled stop waiting for the commercial train to get out of your way

Playing devils advocate, the construction is not expected to start until 2011, once voted and approved in 2008, its impossible to start construction immediately

As for the costs, we are suppose to get matching federal funding, it will create some jobs,

AND, it will reduce or eliminate ;costs of other transportation projects that will no longer be needed,



In my opinion illegal immigration is the lesser of two problems the state faces. The other larger problem being the electorate in this state as I mentioned earlier. Folks in California just don't think straight. We complain to no end about our state's debt but throw a spending bill at us and we vote in favor of it. It makes no sense. I have to share one of my favorite California-stupid moments in voting:

California is in love with the idea of high speed rail systems. Our latest attempt to realize the dream happened in 2008 when Prop 1A hit the ballot. The prop was for the building of a high speed rail system from LA to San Francisco. At the time this train was expected to cost taxpayers 10 billion (almost 20 billion after debt servicing). Now, keep in mind that our debt at the time was roughly 60 billion and our continuing budget deficit reached 16 billion. Despite this, we voted yes on this 20 billion dollar boondoggle. Almost 3 years later, the train has yet to be built and as of 2010 is expected to cost the state 45 billion. Worse yet, the total cost of this train, if ever built, is expected to reach 80 billion by 2030.

It takes a special kind of stupid to vote for something like this, no matter how noble the goal, when your state is facing financial collapse.

This is just one example of how Californians are responsible for destroying their own state while complaining every inch of the way about it.

Absolutely Ricockuluos.

[SassyLady]

If it goes in, will you ever use it?

[fj1200]

Playing devils advocate, the construction is not expected to start until 2011, once voted and approved in 2008, its impossible to start construction immediately

As for the costs, we are suppose to get matching federal funding, it will create some jobs,

AND, it will reduce or eliminate ;costs of other transportation projects that will no longer be needed,

Playing devils advocate, cost per mile of track is astronomically high and even with federal funding you are basically voting for a transportation project that will require ongoing subsidy from the state budget long after federal dollars are no longer flowing.

Those jobs created would be created far cheaper by the private sector if the toxic regulatory environment were lightened and private enterprise was encouraged instead of taken for granted.

AND, a government budget that cuts out other projects that are no longer needed. :laugh:

Sorry, the :laugh: was uncalled for; my highly cynical view of government leaked out. :redface:

[LuvRPgrl]

If it goes in, will you ever use it?

With those legs, if its in, I guarantee you I will be using it.:cool:


Playing devils advocate, cost per mile of track is astronomically high and even with federal funding you are basically voting for a transportation project that will require ongoing subsidy from the state budget long after federal dollars are no longer flowing.

Those jobs created would be created far cheaper by the private sector if the toxic regulatory environment were lightened and private enterprise was encouraged instead of taken for granted.

AND, a government budget that cuts out other projects that are no longer needed. :laugh:

Sorry, the :laugh: was uncalled for; my highly cynical view of government leaked out. :redface:

No need to apologize, my view of govt is probably more cynical than yours.
I am not saying it is a good project, or we should have voted it in, I'm just presenting information that I found on the project.

And, the website CLAIMS it will not need any subsidy (unlike Amtrak) for continued operation once built.
Of course, I trust and believe that information as much as I trust Clinton had no relations with......

again, Im only posting the information I found.
Personally, depending on cost, it may prove to be quite beneficial to me, as I have extended family in Pittsburg, Ca, which is near Oakland, and like I said before, Amtrak sucks.

[SassyLady]

With those legs, if its in, I guarantee you I will be using it.:cool:

Man.....why does everyone always talk about the legs .... doesn't anyone notice the shoes ... I love the shoes!!! :coffee:

[LuvRPgrl]

Man.....why does everyone always talk about the legs .... doesn't anyone notice the shoes ... I love the shoes!!! :coffee:

Ha, I noticed the shoes on second take....

and they are red hot,,,,but those legs, well, they take you right to heaven !

[fj1200]

Man.....why does everyone always talk about the legs .... doesn't anyone notice the shoes ... I love the shoes!!! :coffee:

But the shoes are only there for the leg right? Personally I'm waiting for my favorite avatar shot to come back in the rotation. :salute:

[Binky]

Because its a real piss ant train ride, too many stops, blockages and takes forever.
The main problem is they share the tracks with commercial trains, and Amtrak actually doesnt own the trak, they "borrow" it from the commercial train owners, and if there is a conflict, which there often is, the Amtrak train has to defer to the commercial trains.

Almost every time, you wind up sitting on an unscheduled stop waiting for the commercial train to get out of your way


We rode it about six years ago, but we never encountered anything like that. And we certainly didn't have to sit on an unscheduled stop to wait for the train to get out of the way. Maybe we just hit it on a good day....


Man.....why does everyone always talk about the legs .... doesn't anyone notice the shoes ... I love the shoes!!! :coffee:


:laugh2::laugh2: I love them too, but my back is already aching just thinking of wearing them.... Ugh....:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

We rode it about six years ago, but we never encountered anything like that. And we certainly didn't have to sit on an unscheduled stop to wait for the train to get out of the way. Maybe we just hit it on a good day....

Yea, I think you hit it on a good day, as we tried it quite a few times and never did we have an uneventful journey. We usually wait til last day and buy discounted air tix, or if they arent available, then we drive.

[SassyLady]

But the shoes are only there for the leg right? Personally I'm waiting for my favorite avatar shot to come back in the rotation. :salute:

The one I'm using for my profile? Is that your favorite? Or is it one of these?

[fj1200]

The one I'm using for my profile?

It wasn't but now that I see it... :salute: :salute:


Is that your favorite? Or is it one of these?

It's NOT at least 2 of those. :laugh:




Does your husband drive a Subaru?

[logroller]

I fail to see how insulting others serves any purpose; save destroying any hope for a strong country. Throughout these posts I notice an overwhelming majority of rhetoric that only attacks, never supports.(save support for an attack) :poke:
This is bad; bad for everybody, left right centrist -- it's just bad practice. We shouldn't insult or advocate anyone's beliefs -- its their right to believe what they want-- respect it.
If your belief structure is "my team good, your team bad":lame2:, what sort of solution do you advocate -- civil war? I assure you, if we fail to work towards a stronger nation, e.g. less focus on party loyalty, we might as well learn Chinese -- market communism is a sure cure for a divisive populus.
For all our sakes, check your loyalty to your cause and support something We, all, can acheive. After all, our's is a government of the people, for the people and by the people :salute:-- Not your people or my people.:slap:

[NightTrain]

After all, our's is a government of the people, for the people and by the people :salute:-- Not your people or my people.:slap:


http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss293/NightTrain70/i_shall_play_you_the_song_of_my_people_-_hrnk1.jpg

[SassyLady]

It wasn't but now that I see it... :salute: :salute:



It's NOT at least 2 of those. :laugh:




Does your husband drive a Subaru?

Nope .... he drives a '96 Mercedes E320 and I drive a '04 Yukon XL. He also has a '04 Harley Softtail.....why do you ask about a subaru? :laugh:

[fj1200]

Nope .... he drives a '96 Mercedes E320 and I drive a '04 Yukon XL. He also has a '04 Harley Softtail.....why do you ask about a subaru? :laugh:

Motorcycle man, nice. Subaru? Just a crazy connection in my head. Some rightie on a Subaru board with a similar name to yours, CA too I think, just without the Mrs. part. nvm.

[LuvRPgrl]

Nope .... he drives a '96 Mercedes E320 and I drive a '04 Yukon XL. He also has a '04 Harley Softtail.....why do you ask about a subaru? :laugh:

Chippies get my vote!!!!

96 E320,,,pity


I fail to see how insulting others serves any purpose; save destroying any hope for a strong country. Throughout these posts I notice an overwhelming majority of rhetoric that only attacks, never supports.(save support for an attack) :poke:
This is bad; bad for everybody, left right centrist -- it's just bad practice. We shouldn't insult or advocate anyone's beliefs -- its their right to believe what they want-- respect it.
If your belief structure is "my team good, your team bad":lame2:, what sort of solution do you advocate -- civil war? I assure you, if we fail to work towards a stronger nation, e.g. less focus on party loyalty, we might as well learn Chinese -- market communism is a sure cure for a divisive populus.
For all our sakes, check your loyalty to your cause and support something We, all, can acheive. After all, our's is a government of the people, for the people and by the people :salute:-- Not your people or my people.:slap:

WOW...
first, if you check the "thanks" people get, and the rep scores, much more supporting of each other, than insulting goes on.

Plus, are you differentiating between insults, and attacking anothers pov?

I THINK YOU NEED TO GO READ SOME HISTORY ON THE FOUNDING OF THIS COUNTRY AND SEE HOW UPROAROUS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE WITH EACH OTHERS BELIEFS. But, if Im right, you are a product of our current educational system and they didnt really make you guys do any research, reading or learning about much of anything.

I have a feeling you are fairly young, and although I admire the spirit behind your post, yours is very indicitive of how the liberal educational system is failing us and causing me great concern about the future of our country,,,,go reread the Gettysburg Address, its dreadful that the fucking youth in our society are so damn ignorant and stupid. Try getting the quote right next time before posting, and if you arent sure what the quote is, then go look it up

We shouldn't insult or advocate anyone's beliefs -- its their right to believe what they want-- respect it.
This kind of crap is,,,,,well, crap. Uh, DUDE, go hit the bong, and dont try to tell me I dont have the right to insult someones belief. Yea, they have the right to their belief, and I HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSULT AND SHOW HOW STUPID MOST LIBERALIST THINKING IS.


Abraham Lincoln is one of the politicians who seriously really, really did SERVE his country, and DIED for it, unlikel todays politicians who use the country to serve them, so give him the respect to get his quotes right.

[SassyLady]

Motorcycle man, nice. Subaru? Just a crazy connection in my head. Some rightie on a Subaru board with a similar name to yours, CA too I think, just without the Mrs. part. nvm.

Ummm, OK. I couldn't tell you anything about Subarus.....so it's not me! The Benz is the first, and only, foreign car I've ever owned.

[logroller]

WOW...
first, if you check the "thanks" people get, and the rep scores, much more supporting of each other, than insulting goes on.

Plus, are you differentiating between insults, and attacking anothers pov?

I THINK YOU NEED TO GO READ SOME HISTORY ON THE FOUNDING OF THIS COUNTRY AND SEE HOW UPROAROUS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE WITH EACH OTHERS BELIEFS. But, if Im right, you are a product of our current educational system and they didnt really make you guys do any research, reading or learning about much of anything.

I have a feeling you are fairly young, and although I admire the spirit behind your post, yours is very indicitive of how the liberal educational system is failing us and causing me great concern about the future of our country,,,,go reread the Gettysburg Address, its dreadful that the fucking youth in our society are so damn ignorant and stupid. Try getting the quote right next time before posting, and if you arent sure what the quote is, then go look it up

We shouldn't insult or advocate anyone's beliefs -- its their right to believe what they want-- respect it.
This kind of crap is,,,,,well, crap. Uh, DUDE, go hit the bong, and dont try to tell me I dont have the right to insult someones belief. Yea, they have the right to their belief, and I HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSULT AND SHOW HOW STUPID MOST LIBERALIST THINKING IS.


Abraham Lincoln is one of the politicians who seriously really, really did SERVE his country, and DIED for it, unlikel todays politicians who use the country to serve them, so give him the respect to get his quotes right.

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I am 33, a husband and father, a registered republican and believe in minimal interference from gov't in the personal lives of it's citizens. These qualities, in my pov, are more supportive of a politically conservative view. Moderate I may be, but conservatism is at the core of my being.

Respecting age, beware of being condescending. I doubt calling multitudes of people "ignorant and stupid" will do much for your "rep score" in the broader context of society, so why employ it here. The youth will, eventually, inherit this country from the current generations. When they do, I hope we will have demonstrated the values which are the foundation of this country. eg "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" These core values have been met with both respect and contempt in many aspects of our society and I, for one, am taking responsibility for their promulgation of mutual respect and cooperation towards a greater good. Not because the news says so, or my friends or my church or my political party, but because I will do so.

Will I make mistakes? Sure. I hope to learn from those mistakes and, as I get older, I will hopefully make less and less. So to this end, I yield to my elders for support and guidance. But to imply I am ignorant and stupid -- that's not attacking my point of view, that's an insult, and you are the ignorant and stupid one if you continue to deride others whose only fault is not having been exposed to your beliefs!

So in my critique of insults, which I formed from reading a handful of blog responses (not necessarily yours), I meant only to express caution towards alienating those who be willing to accept and share your pov, but instead are inflicted with raucous behavior.

Furthermore, I didn't say you didn't have the right to insult, I said you "shouldn't", not because others don't agree with you, they do, or because some of the views different than your's damage our society, they certainly do; I meant only to suggest you might have better luck educating others if you try explaining your point of view, rather than denouncing theirs. Admittedly that is a liberal way of thinking, but I'm quite sure the "uproarous" discussions among the framers and founders employed more liberal than conservative methods in pursuit of consensus. That being said, most of them were well versed in politics, being aware of the issues and so forth, which only reinforces my point that public forums, such as this one, exist to openly share, dabate and expand ideas, not to deride participants or rally like-minded support.

So far as liberalism, it was the foundation for the formation of our republic and the overthrow of tyrannanical British rule. What I believe you referred to as "most liberalist thinking", is more taken to the rhetoric of conservative media regarding social liberalism and the promotion of a welfare state ( to which I am opposed). Alternatively, classical liberalism gave rise to constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, fair trade, and the separation of church and state; all good things in my judgement. So call attention to the issues please, don't just spew political epithets.

Respective of Lincoln's address at Gettysburg, I didn't mean to quote him, nor did I.(Read carefully, no quotes) That was a paraphrase and the spirit of the phrase was retained.

Despite the heat of discussion, I appreciate our forum and hope we can work through any petty disagreements and act together to form a more perfect union. Let's talk about how.

[LuvRPgrl]

WOW ! I stand corrected, flyswatted by someone half my age.

Ok, I was gonna respond, but I found it quite difficult as your response is,,,,uhhh, hmmm, whats the word.....

a bunch of nonsensical dribble.

OK NOW, THAT'S MY BELIEF AND YOU SHOULDNT ATTACK IT. I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY BELIEF.

But seriously dude, do you go back and reread your stuff? Not for typos or spelling, but for trying to make heads or toes of what you are saying? Maybe try condensing it a bit.

One example: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are NOT VALUES
OK, two examples: "These core values have been met with both respect and contempt in many aspects of our society and I, for one, am taking responsibility for their promulgation of mutual respect and cooperation towards a greater good"
I cant even begin to figure out what that means,,,and I do know what "promulgation" means, and it is the term that stumps me as to how that sentence makes any sense. Try replacing "promulgation" with other words that have the same meaning and see if the sentence makes sense to you.

Merry Christmas and Happy Birthday JESUS !!!!!!!! YEA, YOU GO MAN !!!
(I think He did a lot of "promulgating". :)))

But seriously, take care dude


Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I am 33, a husband and father, a registered republican and believe in minimal interference from gov't in the personal lives of it's citizens. These qualities, in my pov, are more supportive of a politically conservative view. Moderate I may be, but conservatism is at the core of my being.

Respecting age, beware of being condescending. I doubt calling multitudes of people "ignorant and stupid" will do much for your "rep score" in the broader context of society, so why employ it here. The youth will, eventually, inherit this country from the current generations. When they do, I hope we will have demonstrated the values which are the foundation of this country. eg "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" These core values have been met with both respect and contempt in many aspects of our society and I, for one, am taking responsibility for their promulgation of mutual respect and cooperation towards a greater good. Not because the news says so, or my friends or my church or my political party, but because I will do so.

Will I make mistakes? Sure. I hope to learn from those mistakes and, as I get older, I will hopefully make less and less. So to this end, I yield to my elders for support and guidance. But to imply I am ignorant and stupid -- that's not attacking my point of view, that's an insult, and you are the ignorant and stupid one if you continue to deride others whose only fault is not having been exposed to your beliefs!

So in my critique of insults, which I formed from reading a handful of blog responses (not necessarily yours), I meant only to express caution towards alienating those who be willing to accept and share your pov, but instead are inflicted with raucous behavior.

Furthermore, I didn't say you didn't have the right to insult, I said you "shouldn't", not because others don't agree with you, they do, or because some of the views different than your's damage our society, they certainly do; I meant only to suggest you might have better luck educating others if you try explaining your point of view, rather than denouncing theirs. Admittedly that is a liberal way of thinking, but I'm quite sure the "uproarous" discussions among the framers and founders employed more liberal than conservative methods in pursuit of consensus. That being said, most of them were well versed in politics, being aware of the issues and so forth, which only reinforces my point that public forums, such as this one, exist to openly share, dabate and expand ideas, not to deride participants or rally like-minded support.

So far as liberalism, it was the foundation for the formation of our republic and the overthrow of tyrannanical British rule. What I believe you referred to as "most liberalist thinking", is more taken to the rhetoric of conservative media regarding social liberalism and the promotion of a welfare state ( to which I am opposed). Alternatively, classical liberalism gave rise to constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, fair trade, and the separation of church and state; all good things in my judgement. So call attention to the issues please, don't just spew political epithets.

Respective of Lincoln's address at Gettysburg, I didn't mean to quote him, nor did I.(Read carefully, no quotes) That was a paraphrase and the spirit of the phrase was retained.

Despite the heat of discussion, I appreciate our forum and hope we can work through any petty disagreements and act together to form a more perfect union. Let's talk about how.

[logroller]

Some people think it is wrong to lay off people if a company is experiencing hard times ... that a layoff should have nothing to do with the bottom line of the company as a whole ... only what that individual brings to the bottom line.

Doing the right thing for the whole can, and often will, hurt individuals.

Who are these "Some people" you speak of? Probably those who are on the bubble.

Companies layoff all the time, I know I did when I owned a business. Fired 'em too, just because I didn't like their work ethic or attitude in general. CA businesses have a harder time at this I've been told, though I didn't have any problems (eg wrongful termination etc) I think bad employees just like to complain, but good employees concerns should be elevated.
God knows I've heard some sob stories about how tough they have it, or how little they make compared to what I earn. Every end of quarter, I would pull one or two guys aside and show them my books with all the expenses I incur just to operate; I had no secrets. Hell, I offered to give more responsibility for job completion under budget and offered bonuses. One in ten accepted, most shut the fuck up and the remainder doesn't make it ninety days -- problem solved!. You have to "nip it in the bud" as they say.

In consideration of the greatest good for the greatest number, utilitarianism, it sounds good on paper, but not when it means the few become indentured to the masses. As this continues to be the plague of government, made worse by a population unwilling to accept the personal responsibilities inherent with individual rights. It's like investing in a market and then crying for bailout money when the market crashes. People need to learn to manage the risks associated with their rights; taking responsibility for a loss is of more value to me (and society I would agrue) than spending of profits is supportive of economy. That's my take on utilitarianism. equal rights? only if there's equal responsibility.

[SassyLady]

Who are these "Some people" you speak of? Probably those who are on the bubble.

Companies layoff all the time, I know I did when I owned a business. Fired 'em too, just because I didn't like their work ethic or attitude in general. CA businesses have a harder time at this I've been told, though I didn't have any problems (eg wrongful termination etc) I think bad employees just like to complain, but good employees concerns should be elevated.
God knows I've heard some sob stories about how tough they have it, or how little they make compared to what I earn. Every end of quarter, I would pull one or two guys aside and show them my books with all the expenses I incur just to operate; I had no secrets. Hell, I offered to give more responsibility for job completion under budget and offered bonuses. One in ten accepted, most shut the fuck up and the remainder doesn't make it ninety days -- problem solved!. You have to "nip it in the bud" as they say.

In consideration of the greatest good for the greatest number, utilitarianism, it sounds good on paper, but not when it means the few become indentured to the masses. As this continues to be the plague of government, made worse by a population unwilling to accept the personal responsibilities inherent with individual rights. It's like investing in a market and then crying for bailout money when the market crashes. People need to learn to manage the risks associated with their rights; taking responsibility for a loss is of more value to me (and society I would agrue) than spending of profits is supportive of economy. That's my take on utilitarianism. equal rights? only if there's equal responsibility.

I agree with you.....and the "some people" I was referring to is a poster on this thread.

[logroller]

WOW ! I stand corrected, flyswatted by someone half my age.

Ok, I was gonna respond, but I found it quite difficult as your response is,,,,uhhh, hmmm, whats the word.....

a bunch of nonsensical dribble.

OK NOW, THAT'S MY BELIEF AND YOU SHOULDNT ATTACK IT. I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY BELIEF.

But seriously dude, do you go back and reread your stuff? Not for typos or spelling, but for trying to make heads or toes of what you are saying? Maybe try condensing it a bit.

One example: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are NOT VALUES
OK, two examples: "These core values have been met with both respect and contempt in many aspects of our society and I, for one, am taking responsibility for their promulgation of mutual respect and cooperation towards a greater good"
I cant even begin to figure out what that means,,,and I do know what "promulgation" means, and it is the term that stumps me as to how that sentence makes any sense. Try replacing "promulgation" with other words that have the same meaning and see if the sentence makes sense to you.


But seriously, take care dude

Your belief leans closer to fact; it was dribble. ( I still like 'promulgation', it just needs better context -- I'll keep working on that ;)

Yea, they're rights not values. I meant to imply my values respect those rights and I publically announce my responsibility for their protection; but I failed to logical connect the two. Pass me some humble pie:)

Not that excuses help my cause, but understand what makes sense in my mind at 2am translates poorly to the written word; (Cold fingers don't help with typos either) I hope you'll grant me some leeway while still correcting my course. After all, "pursuit of happiness", to me, implies I must choose my own path prudently; accepting the guidance of those with integrity, as there are far too many mindless zombies in this country (California has a lot them) who merely follow the latest trends without any serious consideration; I pray I can avoid these pitfalls.

Thanks for the response; I'm intent on improving the world I live in and need all the help I can get. Peace be with you.

[NightTrain]

Nice Mark Twain quote there, Logroller... I like that one.

[Palin Rider]

I agree with you.....and the "some people" I was referring to is a poster on this thread.

If it was me, you got the wrong somebody.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your belief leans closer to fact; it was dribble. ( I still like 'promulgation', it just needs better context -- I'll keep working on that ;)

Yea, they're rights not values. I meant to imply my values respect those rights and I publically announce my responsibility for their protection; but I failed to logical connect the two. Pass me some humble pie:)

Not that excuses help my cause, but understand what makes sense in my mind at 2am translates poorly to the written word; (Cold fingers don't help with typos either) I hope you'll grant me some leeway while still correcting my course. After all, "pursuit of happiness", to me, implies I must choose my own path prudently; accepting the guidance of those with integrity, as there are far too many mindless zombies in this country (California has a lot them) who merely follow the latest trends without any serious consideration; I pray I can avoid these pitfalls.

Thanks for the response; I'm intent on improving the world I live in and need all the help I can get. Peace be with you.

To be honest, this is one of the most refreshing responses I have ever seen.
I appreciate that, and I do believe you when you say where your heart is.

[LuvRPgrl]

If it was me, you got the wrong somebody.

For some REALLY ODD reason, seriously, everytime I read your posts I get this feeling you're winking at me, very odd....

[Palin Rider]

For some REALLY ODD reason, seriously, everytime I read your posts I get this feeling you're winking at me, very odd....

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[logroller]

I never really paid much attention to the avatar pic for Palinrider, until now. Staring at this, I can't help but imagine this as the face of someone passing gas. Press photogs catch some ackward looks and this certainly is one.

Which reminds me of a joke.

A young man has been dating a woman for while and the time has come to meet her parents. He's quite fond of her and is nervous about making a good first impression. Upon reaching the door of the parents house, butterflies soon give rise to GI distress. He does his best to hold off but after sitting at the table for a few minutes he releases some of this pressure. The lady of the house takes notice of the smell and chastizes the family dog laying beneath the table.

Feeling relieved, on multiple levels, the man continues about his dinner, but the pressure rises and he releases again. A similar response ensues.

"Spot -- OUT!" scolds the mother.

As the meal comes to an end, pressures again build-up and feeling more brazen, he figures he can get away with just one more, only sound accompanies his flatulence.

The mother screams "SPOT -- Get outta here before that guy shits on you!":laugh:

[Little-Acorn]

On Nov. 2, 2010, Californians passed a ballot initiative lowering the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget, down to 1/2. They were fooled by a provision in the initiative, saying that if legislators failed to pass a budget by the required deadline (as they have failed year after year), the legislators would lose their pay until the budget was passed.

What wasn't pointed out, was that every year, the legislators could simply cobble up a one-page "budget" saying we are going to build ten copies of Disneyland out in the desert, and nothing else. Vote on it, pass it, it goes to the governor who will of course veto it. And the requirement is fulfilled: The legislature passed a "budget" on time, so they don't lose any pay. Meantime, the state still doesn't have a budget.

But that ballot initiative has, as I said, the main provision, lowering the required majority to 50% plus 1. Now the liberal Democrats infesting the legislature will be able to hike spending to stratospheric heights. And the minority Republicans will no longer be able to stop them, as they have stopped them in the past. And the new/old Governor Moonbeam can be counted on to sign every one of those spending programs.


BTW, the deadline for the legislature to pass a budget, is June 15 of each year.

Fast forward to June 16, 2011.

Yesterday the California state legislature passed a budget, which even their fellow Dems say wasn't balanced.

Today the governor vetoed it.

But the legislature won't lose any pay, since they passed a "budget" by the deadline.

(sigh)

Now comes the huge increases in spending programs...........

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/california-budget-veto-bill-lockyer.html

[LuvRPgrl]

BTW, the deadline for the legislature to pass a budget, is June 15 of each year.

Fast forward to June 16, 2011.

Yesterday the California state legislature passed a budget, which even their fellow Dems say wasn't balanced.

Today the governor vetoed it.

But the legislature won't lose any pay, since they passed a "budget" by the deadline.

(sigh)

Now comes the huge increases in spending programs...........

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/california-budget-veto-bill-lockyer.html

Thats pretty funny. Dresslers boss says the bill is not good enough, yet Dressler says the assembly has done a good job so far.....even though they are late and over budget. I know contractors who get fired for that all the time.

[LuvRPgrl]

I never really paid much attention to the avatar pic for Palinrider, until now. Staring at this, I can't help but imagine this as the face of someone passing gas. Press photogs catch some ackward looks and this certainly is one.

Which reminds me of a joke.

A young man has been dating a woman for while and the time has come to meet her parents. He's quite fond of her and is nervous about making a good first impression. Upon reaching the door of the parents house, butterflies soon give rise to GI distress. He does his best to hold off but after sitting at the table for a few minutes he releases some of this pressure. The lady of the house takes notice of the smell and chastizes the family dog laying beneath the table.

Feeling relieved, on multiple levels, the man continues about his dinner, but the pressure rises and he releases again. A similar response ensues.

"Spot -- OUT!" scolds the mother.

As the meal comes to an end, pressures again build-up and feeling more brazen, he figures he can get away with just one more, only sound accompanies his flatulence.

The mother screams "SPOT -- Get outta here before that guy shits on you!":laugh:

Thats pretty funny. Reminds me of one.

A guy comes over to go on a first date. His date is upstairs getting ready to come down.
The guy and the girls parents are in the living room waiting for her.

Suddenly she appears coming down the stairs, but one of her boobs pops out of her dress.

To save embarrassment, and distract the parents from seeing it, the guy yells, LOOK ! and points out the front window. Everybody turns to look and there are two dogs fucking.

[avatar4321]

When has California ever been associated with sanity or reason in the recent past?