It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council’s agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.
Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.
By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.
These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities’ application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen’s recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.
In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor’s center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor’s center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.
Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.
Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Marie Ogryziak’s project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.
Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.
The councilmember said:
“I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment.”
Mr. Saylor responded:
“So you deny the project by not doing either.”
What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.
But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.
The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.
The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
During the campaign I was excoriated on this Blog when I argued that a vote for Souza was better for issues like the protection of Measure J than a vote for Rob Roy. That logic was based on the fact that Souza’s words and actions during the campaign showed he had learned from his past votes, and was moving to exactly the place DPD has described above. So far Souza’s words and actions since the election have been consistent with his campaign rhetoric. In addition, he continues to clearly reitterate in personal conversations his pledge to place Measure J on the ballot “as is.”
I am not always going to agree with Souza, but I do feel that from his “power position,” he listens to all sides of an issue, and does his level best to make the best decision for Davis. If that continues, I don’t see how we could ask for more.
During the campaign I was excoriated on this Blog when I argued that a vote for Souza was better for issues like the protection of Measure J than a vote for Rob Roy. That logic was based on the fact that Souza’s words and actions during the campaign showed he had learned from his past votes, and was moving to exactly the place DPD has described above. So far Souza’s words and actions since the election have been consistent with his campaign rhetoric. In addition, he continues to clearly reitterate in personal conversations his pledge to place Measure J on the ballot “as is.”
I am not always going to agree with Souza, but I do feel that from his “power position,” he listens to all sides of an issue, and does his level best to make the best decision for Davis. If that continues, I don’t see how we could ask for more.
During the campaign I was excoriated on this Blog when I argued that a vote for Souza was better for issues like the protection of Measure J than a vote for Rob Roy. That logic was based on the fact that Souza’s words and actions during the campaign showed he had learned from his past votes, and was moving to exactly the place DPD has described above. So far Souza’s words and actions since the election have been consistent with his campaign rhetoric. In addition, he continues to clearly reitterate in personal conversations his pledge to place Measure J on the ballot “as is.”
I am not always going to agree with Souza, but I do feel that from his “power position,” he listens to all sides of an issue, and does his level best to make the best decision for Davis. If that continues, I don’t see how we could ask for more.
During the campaign I was excoriated on this Blog when I argued that a vote for Souza was better for issues like the protection of Measure J than a vote for Rob Roy. That logic was based on the fact that Souza’s words and actions during the campaign showed he had learned from his past votes, and was moving to exactly the place DPD has described above. So far Souza’s words and actions since the election have been consistent with his campaign rhetoric. In addition, he continues to clearly reitterate in personal conversations his pledge to place Measure J on the ballot “as is.”
I am not always going to agree with Souza, but I do feel that from his “power position,” he listens to all sides of an issue, and does his level best to make the best decision for Davis. If that continues, I don’t see how we could ask for more.
Matt –
I am very pleased with council member Souza too. I sincerely hope he gets back to being more supportive of good policy issues as he has shown with the votes DPD has outlined.
We’ve been let down before, but I’m willing to give him a chance if he is voting the right way to keep our city safe, green and smart as he said during his campaign.
I can’t blame DPD for having questioned this – given his strong support for Covell Village and big box – but I appreciate that Souza is willing to listen and do the right thing by voting the right way on issues that our going to have a serious impact on our city.
Matt –
I am very pleased with council member Souza too. I sincerely hope he gets back to being more supportive of good policy issues as he has shown with the votes DPD has outlined.
We’ve been let down before, but I’m willing to give him a chance if he is voting the right way to keep our city safe, green and smart as he said during his campaign.
I can’t blame DPD for having questioned this – given his strong support for Covell Village and big box – but I appreciate that Souza is willing to listen and do the right thing by voting the right way on issues that our going to have a serious impact on our city.
Matt –
I am very pleased with council member Souza too. I sincerely hope he gets back to being more supportive of good policy issues as he has shown with the votes DPD has outlined.
We’ve been let down before, but I’m willing to give him a chance if he is voting the right way to keep our city safe, green and smart as he said during his campaign.
I can’t blame DPD for having questioned this – given his strong support for Covell Village and big box – but I appreciate that Souza is willing to listen and do the right thing by voting the right way on issues that our going to have a serious impact on our city.
Matt –
I am very pleased with council member Souza too. I sincerely hope he gets back to being more supportive of good policy issues as he has shown with the votes DPD has outlined.
We’ve been let down before, but I’m willing to give him a chance if he is voting the right way to keep our city safe, green and smart as he said during his campaign.
I can’t blame DPD for having questioned this – given his strong support for Covell Village and big box – but I appreciate that Souza is willing to listen and do the right thing by voting the right way on issues that our going to have a serious impact on our city.
I think Lamar’s presence on the council has changed the dynamic on the council for the better. It’s clear to me that Lamar — love him or hate him — has used his people skills and worked “across the aisle” to help facilitate more favorable outcomes, which has helped influence Souza’s better positions. It also hasn’t hurt that Mayor Asmmundson seated Lamar (instead of Souza) next to her. Usually the “inside seats” on the dais are reserved for the majority allies.
I think Lamar’s presence on the council has changed the dynamic on the council for the better. It’s clear to me that Lamar — love him or hate him — has used his people skills and worked “across the aisle” to help facilitate more favorable outcomes, which has helped influence Souza’s better positions. It also hasn’t hurt that Mayor Asmmundson seated Lamar (instead of Souza) next to her. Usually the “inside seats” on the dais are reserved for the majority allies.
I think Lamar’s presence on the council has changed the dynamic on the council for the better. It’s clear to me that Lamar — love him or hate him — has used his people skills and worked “across the aisle” to help facilitate more favorable outcomes, which has helped influence Souza’s better positions. It also hasn’t hurt that Mayor Asmmundson seated Lamar (instead of Souza) next to her. Usually the “inside seats” on the dais are reserved for the majority allies.
I think Lamar’s presence on the council has changed the dynamic on the council for the better. It’s clear to me that Lamar — love him or hate him — has used his people skills and worked “across the aisle” to help facilitate more favorable outcomes, which has helped influence Souza’s better positions. It also hasn’t hurt that Mayor Asmmundson seated Lamar (instead of Souza) next to her. Usually the “inside seats” on the dais are reserved for the majority allies.
“Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor’s center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor’s center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.”
Because of the consultant’s report — which implied a restaurant in the H-B was a bad idea* for a number of reasons — this outcome surprised me. My suprise, in retrospect, is a reflection of my own naïveté. I took the consultant’s conclusions at face value, while a majority of the council did not.
The day before the vote, Sue told me, “I don’t buy the consultant’s report.” Having watched the discussion on TV, I sense that Lamar and Stephen equally dismissed it.
They may be right. (I hope they are.) But if it is easy enough to dismiss the findings of a paid consultant, it really makes me wonder why the city uses taxpayer money to fund these studies in the first place?
———-
* On the HRMC — despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.
Its nice to see Steve get some good press.
“Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor’s center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor’s center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.”
Because of the consultant’s report — which implied a restaurant in the H-B was a bad idea* for a number of reasons — this outcome surprised me. My suprise, in retrospect, is a reflection of my own naïveté. I took the consultant’s conclusions at face value, while a majority of the council did not.
The day before the vote, Sue told me, “I don’t buy the consultant’s report.” Having watched the discussion on TV, I sense that Lamar and Stephen equally dismissed it.
They may be right. (I hope they are.) But if it is easy enough to dismiss the findings of a paid consultant, it really makes me wonder why the city uses taxpayer money to fund these studies in the first place?
———-
* On the HRMC — despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.
Its nice to see Steve get some good press.
“Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor’s center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor’s center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.”
Because of the consultant’s report — which implied a restaurant in the H-B was a bad idea* for a number of reasons — this outcome surprised me. My suprise, in retrospect, is a reflection of my own naïveté. I took the consultant’s conclusions at face value, while a majority of the council did not.
The day before the vote, Sue told me, “I don’t buy the consultant’s report.” Having watched the discussion on TV, I sense that Lamar and Stephen equally dismissed it.
They may be right. (I hope they are.) But if it is easy enough to dismiss the findings of a paid consultant, it really makes me wonder why the city uses taxpayer money to fund these studies in the first place?
———-
* On the HRMC — despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.
Its nice to see Steve get some good press.
“Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor’s center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor’s center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.”
Because of the consultant’s report — which implied a restaurant in the H-B was a bad idea* for a number of reasons — this outcome surprised me. My suprise, in retrospect, is a reflection of my own naïveté. I took the consultant’s conclusions at face value, while a majority of the council did not.
The day before the vote, Sue told me, “I don’t buy the consultant’s report.” Having watched the discussion on TV, I sense that Lamar and Stephen equally dismissed it.
They may be right. (I hope they are.) But if it is easy enough to dismiss the findings of a paid consultant, it really makes me wonder why the city uses taxpayer money to fund these studies in the first place?
———-
* On the HRMC — despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.
Its nice to see Steve get some good press.
Is a Power Center like a Power Bottom? How does that work?
Is a Power Center like a Power Bottom? How does that work?
Is a Power Center like a Power Bottom? How does that work?
Is a Power Center like a Power Bottom? How does that work?
“…despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.”
In these rough and unpredictable economic times, projects like this should be indefinitely tabled.
“…despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.”
In these rough and unpredictable economic times, projects like this should be indefinitely tabled.
“…despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.”
In these rough and unpredictable economic times, projects like this should be indefinitely tabled.
“…despite my strong desire, held for a long time, to see the Hunt-Boyer used as a restaurant/bar — I voted as part of a unanimous HRMC in favor of staff’s recommendation, based on the findings in the consultant’s report, which strongly implied that a restaurant, while feasible, would have nearly insurmountable cost, ADA and structural hurdles that made it impractical.”
In these rough and unpredictable economic times, projects like this should be indefinitely tabled.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
I voted for the people who would irrate the zero growth folks the most. Not a single candidate looked good enough to vote for on merit.
I voted for the people who would irrate the zero growth folks the most. Not a single candidate looked good enough to vote for on merit.
I voted for the people who would irrate the zero growth folks the most. Not a single candidate looked good enough to vote for on merit.
I voted for the people who would irrate the zero growth folks the most. Not a single candidate looked good enough to vote for on merit.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
I wish we had more moderate candidates to choose from! As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right? Davis is 16% Republican (well that is almost 1/5).
No, Souza doesn’t count as a moderate in my eyes, even if he is the swing vote on the current council. All five members are liberals.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
I wish we had more moderate candidates to choose from! As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right? Davis is 16% Republican (well that is almost 1/5).
No, Souza doesn’t count as a moderate in my eyes, even if he is the swing vote on the current council. All five members are liberals.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
I wish we had more moderate candidates to choose from! As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right? Davis is 16% Republican (well that is almost 1/5).
No, Souza doesn’t count as a moderate in my eyes, even if he is the swing vote on the current council. All five members are liberals.
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
I wish we had more moderate candidates to choose from! As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right? Davis is 16% Republican (well that is almost 1/5).
No, Souza doesn’t count as a moderate in my eyes, even if he is the swing vote on the current council. All five members are liberals.
yeah, I can see where you are coming from. I think the no growth attitude is rediculous. I voted against covell villiage though not because I was against the idea of senior housing, but because I thought it would cost the city 2 much money and the city couldn’t afford it.
Pred old Timer, what does “pred old timer mean?” is it Pretty old timer? I’m a little slow.
yeah, I can see where you are coming from. I think the no growth attitude is rediculous. I voted against covell villiage though not because I was against the idea of senior housing, but because I thought it would cost the city 2 much money and the city couldn’t afford it.
Pred old Timer, what does “pred old timer mean?” is it Pretty old timer? I’m a little slow.
yeah, I can see where you are coming from. I think the no growth attitude is rediculous. I voted against covell villiage though not because I was against the idea of senior housing, but because I thought it would cost the city 2 much money and the city couldn’t afford it.
Pred old Timer, what does “pred old timer mean?” is it Pretty old timer? I’m a little slow.
yeah, I can see where you are coming from. I think the no growth attitude is rediculous. I voted against covell villiage though not because I was against the idea of senior housing, but because I thought it would cost the city 2 much money and the city couldn’t afford it.
Pred old Timer, what does “pred old timer mean?” is it Pretty old timer? I’m a little slow.
Bush’s Fist said…
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
Bush’s Fist said…
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
Bush’s Fist said…
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
Bush’s Fist said…
I’m sorry but this last city council election was a contest between far left liberal clowns and hyper-far left liberal clowns.
A clown is a clown.
I’d vote for Mickey Mouse instead.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
“As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right?”
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
“As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right?”
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
“As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right?”
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
“As a moderate Republican, I get depressed trying to make a choice from the people running for city council. Why can’t we have just one person represent the right?”
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
Don’t get cocky. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republican party had all of the power, and the public tossed them out pretty quickly. If this Obama retard doesn’t perform well (and all indications are he won’t) and Pelosi/Reid don’t perform, the pendulum can just as easily swing back.
Furthermore, Asmundson/Saylor are hardly conservative.
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
Don’t get cocky. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republican party had all of the power, and the public tossed them out pretty quickly. If this Obama retard doesn’t perform well (and all indications are he won’t) and Pelosi/Reid don’t perform, the pendulum can just as easily swing back.
Furthermore, Asmundson/Saylor are hardly conservative.
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
Don’t get cocky. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republican party had all of the power, and the public tossed them out pretty quickly. If this Obama retard doesn’t perform well (and all indications are he won’t) and Pelosi/Reid don’t perform, the pendulum can just as easily swing back.
Furthermore, Asmundson/Saylor are hardly conservative.
Outside of the Baptist Belt and the Mormon Mountain West, the Republican Party is dying on the vine of Bush-Limbaughism. Why would anyone of merit in Davis choose to run under that tarnished brand? Better to be conservative Democrats like Asmundson and Saylor.
Don’t get cocky. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republican party had all of the power, and the public tossed them out pretty quickly. If this Obama retard doesn’t perform well (and all indications are he won’t) and Pelosi/Reid don’t perform, the pendulum can just as easily swing back.
Furthermore, Asmundson/Saylor are hardly conservative.
Bush’s Fist said…
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Do us all a favor and change you pseudonym to Bert Lahr
Bush’s Fist said…
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Do us all a favor and change you pseudonym to Bert Lahr
Bush’s Fist said…
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Do us all a favor and change you pseudonym to Bert Lahr
Bush’s Fist said…
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym. Am I to assume you don’t have the courage of your convictions?
You can assume whatevery you want. Anonymous pseudonym’s are more fun than real names.
Do us all a favor and change you pseudonym to Bert Lahr
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym.
I don’t speak for Fister but as a Republican in Davis, I hardly tell anyone this in person because Davis is not all that tolerant of other points of view. People automatically think you are evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc. I don’t blame anyone for not advertising that they are a Republican in Davis.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym.
I don’t speak for Fister but as a Republican in Davis, I hardly tell anyone this in person because Davis is not all that tolerant of other points of view. People automatically think you are evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc. I don’t blame anyone for not advertising that they are a Republican in Davis.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym.
I don’t speak for Fister but as a Republican in Davis, I hardly tell anyone this in person because Davis is not all that tolerant of other points of view. People automatically think you are evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc. I don’t blame anyone for not advertising that they are a Republican in Davis.
Fister, why do you hide your hyperbole behind an anonymous pseudonym.
I don’t speak for Fister but as a Republican in Davis, I hardly tell anyone this in person because Davis is not all that tolerant of other points of view. People automatically think you are evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc. I don’t blame anyone for not advertising that they are a Republican in Davis.
Rich – I liked your idea of using Hunt/Boyer area as a restaurant / bar. It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…
Rich – I liked your idea of using Hunt/Boyer area as a restaurant / bar. It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…
Rich – I liked your idea of using Hunt/Boyer area as a restaurant / bar. It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…
Rich – I liked your idea of using Hunt/Boyer area as a restaurant / bar. It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…
Anonymous 11:10 you want a Republican to vote for? You should have voted for Saylor. His record is that of a Democrat in Name Only (DINO).
Anonymous 11:10 you want a Republican to vote for? You should have voted for Saylor. His record is that of a Democrat in Name Only (DINO).
Anonymous 11:10 you want a Republican to vote for? You should have voted for Saylor. His record is that of a Democrat in Name Only (DINO).
Anonymous 11:10 you want a Republican to vote for? You should have voted for Saylor. His record is that of a Democrat in Name Only (DINO).
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
Where is the WOW factor ? !!!!!!!!!
Where is the WOW factor ? !!!!!!!!!
Where is the WOW factor ? !!!!!!!!!
Where is the WOW factor ? !!!!!!!!!
The real test will come only in the final vote. By moving to pursue the “compromise” of equal weight environmental analysis of the options, Councilmember Souza has merely postponed the day when he has to make real decisions.
But there is a cost to this postponement. Lewis is unlikely to embark on a business park or sell the property to someone who will abide by the current business park zoning until they are turned down for their housing proposal.
And by initiating a request for proposal for a restaurant at the Hunt-Boyer that is limited to the two month pit of the economic depression, he has virtually doomed a restaurant and supported the gigantic subsidy of the DBA and underuse of the key property.
Hopefully, these compromises indicate a true shift in position, and not just political posturing. If they represent a true shift in position, then Souza is indeed the power center of the council.
We can be hopeful, but the proof will be in the pudding.
The real test will come only in the final vote. By moving to pursue the “compromise” of equal weight environmental analysis of the options, Councilmember Souza has merely postponed the day when he has to make real decisions.
But there is a cost to this postponement. Lewis is unlikely to embark on a business park or sell the property to someone who will abide by the current business park zoning until they are turned down for their housing proposal.
And by initiating a request for proposal for a restaurant at the Hunt-Boyer that is limited to the two month pit of the economic depression, he has virtually doomed a restaurant and supported the gigantic subsidy of the DBA and underuse of the key property.
Hopefully, these compromises indicate a true shift in position, and not just political posturing. If they represent a true shift in position, then Souza is indeed the power center of the council.
We can be hopeful, but the proof will be in the pudding.
The real test will come only in the final vote. By moving to pursue the “compromise” of equal weight environmental analysis of the options, Councilmember Souza has merely postponed the day when he has to make real decisions.
But there is a cost to this postponement. Lewis is unlikely to embark on a business park or sell the property to someone who will abide by the current business park zoning until they are turned down for their housing proposal.
And by initiating a request for proposal for a restaurant at the Hunt-Boyer that is limited to the two month pit of the economic depression, he has virtually doomed a restaurant and supported the gigantic subsidy of the DBA and underuse of the key property.
Hopefully, these compromises indicate a true shift in position, and not just political posturing. If they represent a true shift in position, then Souza is indeed the power center of the council.
We can be hopeful, but the proof will be in the pudding.
The real test will come only in the final vote. By moving to pursue the “compromise” of equal weight environmental analysis of the options, Councilmember Souza has merely postponed the day when he has to make real decisions.
But there is a cost to this postponement. Lewis is unlikely to embark on a business park or sell the property to someone who will abide by the current business park zoning until they are turned down for their housing proposal.
And by initiating a request for proposal for a restaurant at the Hunt-Boyer that is limited to the two month pit of the economic depression, he has virtually doomed a restaurant and supported the gigantic subsidy of the DBA and underuse of the key property.
Hopefully, these compromises indicate a true shift in position, and not just political posturing. If they represent a true shift in position, then Souza is indeed the power center of the council.
We can be hopeful, but the proof will be in the pudding.
Bush’s Fist said…
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
I read your rants in the Amicus Brief thread earlier this week. Perhaps if you based your opinions on Prop 8 more on Constitutional Law and less on Religious Doctrine you would understand the frustrations felt by those who oppose Prop 8.
Bush’s Fist said…
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
I read your rants in the Amicus Brief thread earlier this week. Perhaps if you based your opinions on Prop 8 more on Constitutional Law and less on Religious Doctrine you would understand the frustrations felt by those who oppose Prop 8.
Bush’s Fist said…
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
I read your rants in the Amicus Brief thread earlier this week. Perhaps if you based your opinions on Prop 8 more on Constitutional Law and less on Religious Doctrine you would understand the frustrations felt by those who oppose Prop 8.
Bush’s Fist said…
Kudos to anonymous 12:28!
yes, look at how they treat people who vote in favor of Prop 8. People like Mike Harrington have come onto this blog and personally attacked proposition 8 supporters as “hating bigots.” Proposition 8 supporters are now targeting those people who gave $ to prop 8 and posting their information on the internet, targeting them. Quite frankly, I do not feel I could ever support proposition 8 in Davis and feel physically safe. That is not hyperbole or an exaggeration either. I have felt the urge to put a pro-8 sticker on my car but I will not because I just know some rabid anti 8 person will key or destroy my car. I just know it. Gut feeling. Just recently, I heard that professors at Sac State University were targeted by a student who couldn’t accept his donations to support prop 8.
Large segments Davis and good portions of CA are real tolerant until you don’t do what they want you to at the ballot box.
So why should conservatives not hide behind a cloak of anonymitity.
I also wanted to thank DPD that although I have had heated args with him, he hasn’t attacked me personally or deleted all my pro-conservative posts.
I read your rants in the Amicus Brief thread earlier this week. Perhaps if you based your opinions on Prop 8 more on Constitutional Law and less on Religious Doctrine you would understand the frustrations felt by those who oppose Prop 8.
“It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…”
It’d just be another kitsch “improvement” putting the sad old downtown to more shame. Talk about clowns? They’re in charge of and staff the Planning Dept. From the Chuck Roe Building, to The Lofts, to the prefab abominations along H Street north of 8th…the list goes on. Clowns designing more for a carnival fun house than a city for grownups. Downtown is looking more and more like a cartoon.
To conclude, for now: What they’d do to the Hunt mansion is rip the historic guts out, put in cheap sheetrock walls, like in Bistro 33. Oh, and one more thing: watch what Sinesa does to the Varsity, it’ll be a prefab, computer-modeled joke.
“It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…”
It’d just be another kitsch “improvement” putting the sad old downtown to more shame. Talk about clowns? They’re in charge of and staff the Planning Dept. From the Chuck Roe Building, to The Lofts, to the prefab abominations along H Street north of 8th…the list goes on. Clowns designing more for a carnival fun house than a city for grownups. Downtown is looking more and more like a cartoon.
To conclude, for now: What they’d do to the Hunt mansion is rip the historic guts out, put in cheap sheetrock walls, like in Bistro 33. Oh, and one more thing: watch what Sinesa does to the Varsity, it’ll be a prefab, computer-modeled joke.
“It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…”
It’d just be another kitsch “improvement” putting the sad old downtown to more shame. Talk about clowns? They’re in charge of and staff the Planning Dept. From the Chuck Roe Building, to The Lofts, to the prefab abominations along H Street north of 8th…the list goes on. Clowns designing more for a carnival fun house than a city for grownups. Downtown is looking more and more like a cartoon.
To conclude, for now: What they’d do to the Hunt mansion is rip the historic guts out, put in cheap sheetrock walls, like in Bistro 33. Oh, and one more thing: watch what Sinesa does to the Varsity, it’ll be a prefab, computer-modeled joke.
“It would be kinda cool actually and add to the ambiance downtown. Especially if there was music added to it…”
It’d just be another kitsch “improvement” putting the sad old downtown to more shame. Talk about clowns? They’re in charge of and staff the Planning Dept. From the Chuck Roe Building, to The Lofts, to the prefab abominations along H Street north of 8th…the list goes on. Clowns designing more for a carnival fun house than a city for grownups. Downtown is looking more and more like a cartoon.
To conclude, for now: What they’d do to the Hunt mansion is rip the historic guts out, put in cheap sheetrock walls, like in Bistro 33. Oh, and one more thing: watch what Sinesa does to the Varsity, it’ll be a prefab, computer-modeled joke.
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
I don’t see Souza’s sitting on the fence as somehow a new “swing vote”, or an attempt to “carry out a campaign pledge”. Sitting on the fence is sitting on the fence. It takes very little courage to do so, and is seen as “safer” than picking which grassy field to step in, bc there may be some awfully big cow pies underfoot on either side, if you get my drift!
Souza was criticized in the election campaign for his Mafia-like tactics, and he is trying to redeem his image – by appearing to be “thoughtful” in his decisionmaking. Big deal! I’m not impressed. This is the same guy who proposed developers make houses emit 20% less carbon, as if such a goal were within reason or even possible.
I would suggest folks watch Souza for a while, before jumping to the conclusion his fence-sitting is somehow a new beginning. Let’s wait and see!
Kept hitting wrong key – late at night and its time to say goodnight!!! My apologies –
Kept hitting wrong key – late at night and its time to say goodnight!!! My apologies –
Kept hitting wrong key – late at night and its time to say goodnight!!! My apologies –
Kept hitting wrong key – late at night and its time to say goodnight!!! My apologies –
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
If you don’t like it….LEAVE!!!!!! Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
If you don’t like it….LEAVE!!!!!! Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
If you don’t like it….LEAVE!!!!!! Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
If you don’t like it….LEAVE!!!!!! Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.
Anonymous:
I have all sorts of thoughts on that point you raise. Personally I despise the love it or leave mantra, I think it’s been used and abused. But I do think Republicans in Davis need to recognize where they are. I also do not think people like Saylor and Asmundson are so liberal, I think on a lot of national issues they appear to be more liberal than they are, but if they were in San Luis Obispo, they’d probably be moderate Republicans. Maybe not. Hard to know. No real future in politics for Republicans here, so it distorts things.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
I have a lot of good Republican friends who I respect, but to some extent you are held responsible to the lowest common denominator, just as I think you probably hold Davisites to their lowest common denominator.
Anonymous:
I have all sorts of thoughts on that point you raise. Personally I despise the love it or leave mantra, I think it’s been used and abused. But I do think Republicans in Davis need to recognize where they are. I also do not think people like Saylor and Asmundson are so liberal, I think on a lot of national issues they appear to be more liberal than they are, but if they were in San Luis Obispo, they’d probably be moderate Republicans. Maybe not. Hard to know. No real future in politics for Republicans here, so it distorts things.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
I have a lot of good Republican friends who I respect, but to some extent you are held responsible to the lowest common denominator, just as I think you probably hold Davisites to their lowest common denominator.
Anonymous:
I have all sorts of thoughts on that point you raise. Personally I despise the love it or leave mantra, I think it’s been used and abused. But I do think Republicans in Davis need to recognize where they are. I also do not think people like Saylor and Asmundson are so liberal, I think on a lot of national issues they appear to be more liberal than they are, but if they were in San Luis Obispo, they’d probably be moderate Republicans. Maybe not. Hard to know. No real future in politics for Republicans here, so it distorts things.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
I have a lot of good Republican friends who I respect, but to some extent you are held responsible to the lowest common denominator, just as I think you probably hold Davisites to their lowest common denominator.
Anonymous:
I have all sorts of thoughts on that point you raise. Personally I despise the love it or leave mantra, I think it’s been used and abused. But I do think Republicans in Davis need to recognize where they are. I also do not think people like Saylor and Asmundson are so liberal, I think on a lot of national issues they appear to be more liberal than they are, but if they were in San Luis Obispo, they’d probably be moderate Republicans. Maybe not. Hard to know. No real future in politics for Republicans here, so it distorts things.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
I have a lot of good Republican friends who I respect, but to some extent you are held responsible to the lowest common denominator, just as I think you probably hold Davisites to their lowest common denominator.
“Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.”
That’s not even possible. The cummins diesel is a 6-cylinder. BTW, I rather have more republicans in Davis than “democrats” like you.
“Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.”
That’s not even possible. The cummins diesel is a 6-cylinder. BTW, I rather have more republicans in Davis than “democrats” like you.
“Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.”
That’s not even possible. The cummins diesel is a 6-cylinder. BTW, I rather have more republicans in Davis than “democrats” like you.
“Go burn v8 cummins diesel elsewhere.”
That’s not even possible. The cummins diesel is a 6-cylinder. BTW, I rather have more republicans in Davis than “democrats” like you.
Almost all of the “compromise” votes for which Souza was the swing vote were of a temporizing, place-holding nature rather than a action vote; I’ll withhold any conclusions on Councilman Souza until the action vote. A potential revived interest in running for County Supervisor in the future along with increased lobbying by hislocal developer interest friends when the economic climate improves will be the true test Councilman Souza’s “conversion”.
Almost all of the “compromise” votes for which Souza was the swing vote were of a temporizing, place-holding nature rather than a action vote; I’ll withhold any conclusions on Councilman Souza until the action vote. A potential revived interest in running for County Supervisor in the future along with increased lobbying by hislocal developer interest friends when the economic climate improves will be the true test Councilman Souza’s “conversion”.
Almost all of the “compromise” votes for which Souza was the swing vote were of a temporizing, place-holding nature rather than a action vote; I’ll withhold any conclusions on Councilman Souza until the action vote. A potential revived interest in running for County Supervisor in the future along with increased lobbying by hislocal developer interest friends when the economic climate improves will be the true test Councilman Souza’s “conversion”.
Almost all of the “compromise” votes for which Souza was the swing vote were of a temporizing, place-holding nature rather than a action vote; I’ll withhold any conclusions on Councilman Souza until the action vote. A potential revived interest in running for County Supervisor in the future along with increased lobbying by hislocal developer interest friends when the economic climate improves will be the true test Councilman Souza’s “conversion”.
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
Way to be inclusive…
P.S. I came here to go to UCD. I love the town with the exception of a small group of extreme liberals who see absolutely no point of view other than their own.
Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception?
Um no. 1. It’s a big party, there’s going to be a lot of differences in opinion, just like the democratic party. 2. Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.
To everyone who says that Republicans in Davis need to “know their place,” would you be using that language if this was an ethnic group or religious group trying to have some representation in our local government?
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
Way to be inclusive…
P.S. I came here to go to UCD. I love the town with the exception of a small group of extreme liberals who see absolutely no point of view other than their own.
Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception?
Um no. 1. It’s a big party, there’s going to be a lot of differences in opinion, just like the democratic party. 2. Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.
To everyone who says that Republicans in Davis need to “know their place,” would you be using that language if this was an ethnic group or religious group trying to have some representation in our local government?
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
Way to be inclusive…
P.S. I came here to go to UCD. I love the town with the exception of a small group of extreme liberals who see absolutely no point of view other than their own.
Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception?
Um no. 1. It’s a big party, there’s going to be a lot of differences in opinion, just like the democratic party. 2. Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.
To everyone who says that Republicans in Davis need to “know their place,” would you be using that language if this was an ethnic group or religious group trying to have some representation in our local government?
To the 16% republicans in Davis.
If you don’t like it, get the heck out of Davis. I’m sick of all these republicans coming to Davis for a better way of life (made better by the liberal hippies), but then complaining about it.
Way to be inclusive…
P.S. I came here to go to UCD. I love the town with the exception of a small group of extreme liberals who see absolutely no point of view other than their own.
Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception?
Um no. 1. It’s a big party, there’s going to be a lot of differences in opinion, just like the democratic party. 2. Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.
To everyone who says that Republicans in Davis need to “know their place,” would you be using that language if this was an ethnic group or religious group trying to have some representation in our local government?
I think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom. What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?
I think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom. What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?
I think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom. What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?
I think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom. What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?
Sorry first sentence should read: “Republicans don’t need to know their place…”
This lack of sleep is catching up with me.
Sorry first sentence should read: “Republicans don’t need to know their place…”
This lack of sleep is catching up with me.
Sorry first sentence should read: “Republicans don’t need to know their place…”
This lack of sleep is catching up with me.
Sorry first sentence should read: “Republicans don’t need to know their place…”
This lack of sleep is catching up with me.
It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
I just want one city council member that represents me as a Republican on issues like what properties to develop or not develop, budget problems, new park or school taxes, what roads to fix, etc. What wars Bush started or bad things John McCain said about Barack Obama HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Besides city council is supposed to be nonpartisan so I guess what I really want is someone more center-right.
It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
I just want one city council member that represents me as a Republican on issues like what properties to develop or not develop, budget problems, new park or school taxes, what roads to fix, etc. What wars Bush started or bad things John McCain said about Barack Obama HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Besides city council is supposed to be nonpartisan so I guess what I really want is someone more center-right.
It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
I just want one city council member that represents me as a Republican on issues like what properties to develop or not develop, budget problems, new park or school taxes, what roads to fix, etc. What wars Bush started or bad things John McCain said about Barack Obama HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Besides city council is supposed to be nonpartisan so I guess what I really want is someone more center-right.
It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
I just want one city council member that represents me as a Republican on issues like what properties to develop or not develop, budget problems, new park or school taxes, what roads to fix, etc. What wars Bush started or bad things John McCain said about Barack Obama HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Besides city council is supposed to be nonpartisan so I guess what I really want is someone more center-right.
You’re right Barack Obama and McCain have nothing to do with that, but simple mathematical principles makes it less likely to occur, although it has happened. But I suggest you find someone to run rather than sitting back and waiting.
You’re right Barack Obama and McCain have nothing to do with that, but simple mathematical principles makes it less likely to occur, although it has happened. But I suggest you find someone to run rather than sitting back and waiting.
You’re right Barack Obama and McCain have nothing to do with that, but simple mathematical principles makes it less likely to occur, although it has happened. But I suggest you find someone to run rather than sitting back and waiting.
You’re right Barack Obama and McCain have nothing to do with that, but simple mathematical principles makes it less likely to occur, although it has happened. But I suggest you find someone to run rather than sitting back and waiting.
Republican ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ”
City of Davis ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT “
Davis Enterprise ” LOVE IT OR READ IT “
Rich Rifkin ” LOVE IT IF THE ENTERPRISE FIRED HIM “
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME “
Republican ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ”
City of Davis ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT “
Davis Enterprise ” LOVE IT OR READ IT “
Rich Rifkin ” LOVE IT IF THE ENTERPRISE FIRED HIM “
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME “
Republican ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ”
City of Davis ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT “
Davis Enterprise ” LOVE IT OR READ IT “
Rich Rifkin ” LOVE IT IF THE ENTERPRISE FIRED HIM “
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME “
Republican ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ”
City of Davis ” LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT “
Davis Enterprise ” LOVE IT OR READ IT “
Rich Rifkin ” LOVE IT IF THE ENTERPRISE FIRED HIM “
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME “
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME ”
Clever and yet she still reads it….
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME ”
Clever and yet she still reads it….
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME ”
Clever and yet she still reads it….
Davis Vanguard ” LOVE IT NOT EVEN IF HE PAID ME ”
Clever and yet she still reads it….
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough ,but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough ,but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough ,but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough ,but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough, but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that perception. They should complain about their own perception to the democrats.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough, but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that perception. They should complain about their own perception to the democrats.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough, but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that perception. They should complain about their own perception to the democrats.
To the person above who complained that being a Republican in Davis means people think you are: “evil, racist, elitist, a war-monger, etc.” Don’t you think you should complain to your party about that perception? I mean to some extent that’s what the Republican party has become. Not to mention anti-science and anti-intellectual as embodied by people like Bush and Palin.
Fair enough, but that logic cuts both ways. Democrats are often seen as unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, communists, socialist wackos, anti-religion, pro-promiscuity, anti-family, and the like. Maybe democrats should complain to Obama, Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and others about that perception. They should complain about their own perception to the democrats.
think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
Excuse me, but Barack Odumba didn’t exactly run a totally positive campaign. There was plenty of venom to go around from him.
Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid and others made a point of spewing venom at their political opposition every step of the way.
” What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?”
What you call reporting, I call spin. A now famous example is where the NY times refused to print McCain’s rebuttal to Odumbas editorial on grounds McCain did not agree with Odumba on foreign policy.
think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
Excuse me, but Barack Odumba didn’t exactly run a totally positive campaign. There was plenty of venom to go around from him.
Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid and others made a point of spewing venom at their political opposition every step of the way.
” What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?”
What you call reporting, I call spin. A now famous example is where the NY times refused to print McCain’s rebuttal to Odumbas editorial on grounds McCain did not agree with Odumba on foreign policy.
think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
Excuse me, but Barack Odumba didn’t exactly run a totally positive campaign. There was plenty of venom to go around from him.
Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid and others made a point of spewing venom at their political opposition every step of the way.
” What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?”
What you call reporting, I call spin. A now famous example is where the NY times refused to print McCain’s rebuttal to Odumbas editorial on grounds McCain did not agree with Odumba on foreign policy.
think Republicans need to know their place, but they might want to understand where the animosity comes from.
“Part of the perception is because of the liberal media spreading their bias, and people buying it.”
No, part of the problem is that Republican lips are moving and somehow they don’t expect the media and blogs to call them on their stuff. It’s hard to avoid when it’s the standard bearers like the President, Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees who are the ones spewing the venom.
Excuse me, but Barack Odumba didn’t exactly run a totally positive campaign. There was plenty of venom to go around from him.
Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid and others made a point of spewing venom at their political opposition every step of the way.
” What are you expecting the press to do, not report it?”
What you call reporting, I call spin. A now famous example is where the NY times refused to print McCain’s rebuttal to Odumbas editorial on grounds McCain did not agree with Odumba on foreign policy.
To Bush’s fist ;
“What you call reporting, I call spin. “
What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism …
To Bush’s fist ;
“What you call reporting, I call spin. “
What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism …
To Bush’s fist ;
“What you call reporting, I call spin. “
What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism …
To Bush’s fist ;
“What you call reporting, I call spin. “
What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism …
Working as a project director for large organizations implementing change, I came to recognize a pattern of stakeholders “thirds”; where 1/3 supported, 1/3 didn’t care and 1/3 would never support it. This pattern repeats itself in our political debates.
Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this novel, the political classes are cleverly divided into three: Looters, Moochers and Producers. I think this pretty much sums up the Democrats and Republicans these days: Democrats are primarily the Looters and Moochers and Republicans are primarily the Producers. The difference this election was/is that more Producers defected to vote against their kind out of anger and fear about the economy.
Davis is filled with Looters (public-sector employees or those that directly benefit from the soft money of government, or otherwise feed off the producers [like trial lawyers] and elites that have so much money that they have forgotten what it takes to be a producer); and Moochers (students and other low-income residents that need help from the government in order to survive). Davis has very little private-sector industry, hence fewer Producers/Republicans.
In Atlas Shrugged, the Looters and Moochers destroyed society because, in their lust for power and control, they failed to recognize that healthy Producers are necessary for them to continue their looting and mooching ways. The Producers checked out and left them to fend for themselves. This was very bad for the Moochers and Looters.
Working as a project director for large organizations implementing change, I came to recognize a pattern of stakeholders “thirds”; where 1/3 supported, 1/3 didn’t care and 1/3 would never support it. This pattern repeats itself in our political debates.
Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this novel, the political classes are cleverly divided into three: Looters, Moochers and Producers. I think this pretty much sums up the Democrats and Republicans these days: Democrats are primarily the Looters and Moochers and Republicans are primarily the Producers. The difference this election was/is that more Producers defected to vote against their kind out of anger and fear about the economy.
Davis is filled with Looters (public-sector employees or those that directly benefit from the soft money of government, or otherwise feed off the producers [like trial lawyers] and elites that have so much money that they have forgotten what it takes to be a producer); and Moochers (students and other low-income residents that need help from the government in order to survive). Davis has very little private-sector industry, hence fewer Producers/Republicans.
In Atlas Shrugged, the Looters and Moochers destroyed society because, in their lust for power and control, they failed to recognize that healthy Producers are necessary for them to continue their looting and mooching ways. The Producers checked out and left them to fend for themselves. This was very bad for the Moochers and Looters.
Working as a project director for large organizations implementing change, I came to recognize a pattern of stakeholders “thirds”; where 1/3 supported, 1/3 didn’t care and 1/3 would never support it. This pattern repeats itself in our political debates.
Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this novel, the political classes are cleverly divided into three: Looters, Moochers and Producers. I think this pretty much sums up the Democrats and Republicans these days: Democrats are primarily the Looters and Moochers and Republicans are primarily the Producers. The difference this election was/is that more Producers defected to vote against their kind out of anger and fear about the economy.
Davis is filled with Looters (public-sector employees or those that directly benefit from the soft money of government, or otherwise feed off the producers [like trial lawyers] and elites that have so much money that they have forgotten what it takes to be a producer); and Moochers (students and other low-income residents that need help from the government in order to survive). Davis has very little private-sector industry, hence fewer Producers/Republicans.
In Atlas Shrugged, the Looters and Moochers destroyed society because, in their lust for power and control, they failed to recognize that healthy Producers are necessary for them to continue their looting and mooching ways. The Producers checked out and left them to fend for themselves. This was very bad for the Moochers and Looters.
Working as a project director for large organizations implementing change, I came to recognize a pattern of stakeholders “thirds”; where 1/3 supported, 1/3 didn’t care and 1/3 would never support it. This pattern repeats itself in our political debates.
Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this novel, the political classes are cleverly divided into three: Looters, Moochers and Producers. I think this pretty much sums up the Democrats and Republicans these days: Democrats are primarily the Looters and Moochers and Republicans are primarily the Producers. The difference this election was/is that more Producers defected to vote against their kind out of anger and fear about the economy.
Davis is filled with Looters (public-sector employees or those that directly benefit from the soft money of government, or otherwise feed off the producers [like trial lawyers] and elites that have so much money that they have forgotten what it takes to be a producer); and Moochers (students and other low-income residents that need help from the government in order to survive). Davis has very little private-sector industry, hence fewer Producers/Republicans.
In Atlas Shrugged, the Looters and Moochers destroyed society because, in their lust for power and control, they failed to recognize that healthy Producers are necessary for them to continue their looting and mooching ways. The Producers checked out and left them to fend for themselves. This was very bad for the Moochers and Looters.
“What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism … “
Blogs are not newspapers. They are equivalent perhaps to an op-ed in a newspaper. Across the board, this blog is no different than others. In fact, it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.
“What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism … “
Blogs are not newspapers. They are equivalent perhaps to an op-ed in a newspaper. Across the board, this blog is no different than others. In fact, it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.
“What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism … “
Blogs are not newspapers. They are equivalent perhaps to an op-ed in a newspaper. Across the board, this blog is no different than others. In fact, it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.
“What do think this BLOG is all about ?
It sure isn’t journalism … “
Blogs are not newspapers. They are equivalent perhaps to an op-ed in a newspaper. Across the board, this blog is no different than others. In fact, it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.
“it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.”
Except when he signs off on his stories as Doug Paul Davis “reporting”.
When you sign off as “reporting”, you lose the luxury of opinion and are now subject to the expectations from a credible journalist (aka reporter). DPD blurs this line and loses credibility in my book, not that it matters.
BTW, nobody else is responsible for or should receive credit/disdain for Souza’s decisions except himself.
“it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.”
Except when he signs off on his stories as Doug Paul Davis “reporting”.
When you sign off as “reporting”, you lose the luxury of opinion and are now subject to the expectations from a credible journalist (aka reporter). DPD blurs this line and loses credibility in my book, not that it matters.
BTW, nobody else is responsible for or should receive credit/disdain for Souza’s decisions except himself.
“it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.”
Except when he signs off on his stories as Doug Paul Davis “reporting”.
When you sign off as “reporting”, you lose the luxury of opinion and are now subject to the expectations from a credible journalist (aka reporter). DPD blurs this line and loses credibility in my book, not that it matters.
BTW, nobody else is responsible for or should receive credit/disdain for Souza’s decisions except himself.
“it may actually be a bit better than many because David actually does original research rather than simply stealing content from elsewhere and posting it with his opinion.”
Except when he signs off on his stories as Doug Paul Davis “reporting”.
When you sign off as “reporting”, you lose the luxury of opinion and are now subject to the expectations from a credible journalist (aka reporter). DPD blurs this line and loses credibility in my book, not that it matters.
BTW, nobody else is responsible for or should receive credit/disdain for Souza’s decisions except himself.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot anti-military minus the veteran’s day lipservice.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot anti-military minus the veteran’s day lipservice.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot anti-military minus the veteran’s day lipservice.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot anti-military minus the veteran’s day lipservice.
To: "Other Side of the Tracks"
Apparently you have just returned from an eight year deep space mission . . . here is a news flash for you . . . the "moochers and looters" of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron)have just driven the world economy off the cliff . . . so much for your "Republican Producer Theory"!
To: "Other Side of the Tracks"
Apparently you have just returned from an eight year deep space mission . . . here is a news flash for you . . . the "moochers and looters" of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron)have just driven the world economy off the cliff . . . so much for your "Republican Producer Theory"!
To: "Other Side of the Tracks"
Apparently you have just returned from an eight year deep space mission . . . here is a news flash for you . . . the "moochers and looters" of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron)have just driven the world economy off the cliff . . . so much for your "Republican Producer Theory"!
To: "Other Side of the Tracks"
Apparently you have just returned from an eight year deep space mission . . . here is a news flash for you . . . the "moochers and looters" of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron)have just driven the world economy off the cliff . . . so much for your "Republican Producer Theory"!
To: Farwester
I have been here all the time paying attention to reality and, unlike you, resisting the temptation for sucking Liberal ideology Kool-Aid and Democrat political talking points through a straw all day. It really does benefit a person to stop parroting, think a little more deeply on these subjects then to get all emotional and blame a few bad players.
"Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron) have just driven the world economy off the cliff."
I don’t know what Halliburton and Blackwater have to do with the current financial crisis. Maybe you can explain that. Neither did the tired old Liberal anti-capitalist campaign icon of the crook-run Enron Corp. Wall Street Bankers long ago became extreme looters, not producers. The Bush administration contributed to the mortgage-related financial mess that tanked the economy by supporting and not combating looter legislation and looter political collusion (CRA, Fanny, Freddie and too-low T-rates) so all the moocher people could buy houses they could not afford.
The US has the second-highest corporate tax rate of all industrialized nations. Out total REAL individual tax rates (including all Fed, state, local taxes and fees levied by government) is well over 50% for the average person (except for moochers). Yet, the looters and moochers want more increased taxes and control over the producers. We have already reached a point where disincentives of high taxation, unions, copious government meddling and trail lawyer harassment has weakened and reduced the number of producers. So, your Party’s solution to the economic downturn is more of the same? It is like progressively sucking more milk from the teat of a cow that you keep ever more tightly penned up while you periodically shoot it.
We are become a media-inflamed, hyper-anxious nation of over-reactionaries. We over steered in response to 9/11, and it appears that we are doing the same with respect to this economic downturn. Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise and are the primary reason we can sit at our computers and type on this blog. It is a dangerous war that will likely do us much more damage than any other that our military participated in.
My original point was that Davis can afford to have 80% looters and moochers because the university substitutes the need for producers. Otherwise Republicans would be better served on the City Council. Do you disagree with this point?
To: Farwester
I have been here all the time paying attention to reality and, unlike you, resisting the temptation for sucking Liberal ideology Kool-Aid and Democrat political talking points through a straw all day. It really does benefit a person to stop parroting, think a little more deeply on these subjects then to get all emotional and blame a few bad players.
"Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron) have just driven the world economy off the cliff."
I don’t know what Halliburton and Blackwater have to do with the current financial crisis. Maybe you can explain that. Neither did the tired old Liberal anti-capitalist campaign icon of the crook-run Enron Corp. Wall Street Bankers long ago became extreme looters, not producers. The Bush administration contributed to the mortgage-related financial mess that tanked the economy by supporting and not combating looter legislation and looter political collusion (CRA, Fanny, Freddie and too-low T-rates) so all the moocher people could buy houses they could not afford.
The US has the second-highest corporate tax rate of all industrialized nations. Out total REAL individual tax rates (including all Fed, state, local taxes and fees levied by government) is well over 50% for the average person (except for moochers). Yet, the looters and moochers want more increased taxes and control over the producers. We have already reached a point where disincentives of high taxation, unions, copious government meddling and trail lawyer harassment has weakened and reduced the number of producers. So, your Party’s solution to the economic downturn is more of the same? It is like progressively sucking more milk from the teat of a cow that you keep ever more tightly penned up while you periodically shoot it.
We are become a media-inflamed, hyper-anxious nation of over-reactionaries. We over steered in response to 9/11, and it appears that we are doing the same with respect to this economic downturn. Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise and are the primary reason we can sit at our computers and type on this blog. It is a dangerous war that will likely do us much more damage than any other that our military participated in.
My original point was that Davis can afford to have 80% looters and moochers because the university substitutes the need for producers. Otherwise Republicans would be better served on the City Council. Do you disagree with this point?
To: Farwester
I have been here all the time paying attention to reality and, unlike you, resisting the temptation for sucking Liberal ideology Kool-Aid and Democrat political talking points through a straw all day. It really does benefit a person to stop parroting, think a little more deeply on these subjects then to get all emotional and blame a few bad players.
"Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron) have just driven the world economy off the cliff."
I don’t know what Halliburton and Blackwater have to do with the current financial crisis. Maybe you can explain that. Neither did the tired old Liberal anti-capitalist campaign icon of the crook-run Enron Corp. Wall Street Bankers long ago became extreme looters, not producers. The Bush administration contributed to the mortgage-related financial mess that tanked the economy by supporting and not combating looter legislation and looter political collusion (CRA, Fanny, Freddie and too-low T-rates) so all the moocher people could buy houses they could not afford.
The US has the second-highest corporate tax rate of all industrialized nations. Out total REAL individual tax rates (including all Fed, state, local taxes and fees levied by government) is well over 50% for the average person (except for moochers). Yet, the looters and moochers want more increased taxes and control over the producers. We have already reached a point where disincentives of high taxation, unions, copious government meddling and trail lawyer harassment has weakened and reduced the number of producers. So, your Party’s solution to the economic downturn is more of the same? It is like progressively sucking more milk from the teat of a cow that you keep ever more tightly penned up while you periodically shoot it.
We are become a media-inflamed, hyper-anxious nation of over-reactionaries. We over steered in response to 9/11, and it appears that we are doing the same with respect to this economic downturn. Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise and are the primary reason we can sit at our computers and type on this blog. It is a dangerous war that will likely do us much more damage than any other that our military participated in.
My original point was that Davis can afford to have 80% looters and moochers because the university substitutes the need for producers. Otherwise Republicans would be better served on the City Council. Do you disagree with this point?
To: Farwester
I have been here all the time paying attention to reality and, unlike you, resisting the temptation for sucking Liberal ideology Kool-Aid and Democrat political talking points through a straw all day. It really does benefit a person to stop parroting, think a little more deeply on these subjects then to get all emotional and blame a few bad players.
"Pennsylvania Ave. (AKA Bush & Co.), Wall Street Bankers, Halliburton, Blackwater (and lets not forget Enron) have just driven the world economy off the cliff."
I don’t know what Halliburton and Blackwater have to do with the current financial crisis. Maybe you can explain that. Neither did the tired old Liberal anti-capitalist campaign icon of the crook-run Enron Corp. Wall Street Bankers long ago became extreme looters, not producers. The Bush administration contributed to the mortgage-related financial mess that tanked the economy by supporting and not combating looter legislation and looter political collusion (CRA, Fanny, Freddie and too-low T-rates) so all the moocher people could buy houses they could not afford.
The US has the second-highest corporate tax rate of all industrialized nations. Out total REAL individual tax rates (including all Fed, state, local taxes and fees levied by government) is well over 50% for the average person (except for moochers). Yet, the looters and moochers want more increased taxes and control over the producers. We have already reached a point where disincentives of high taxation, unions, copious government meddling and trail lawyer harassment has weakened and reduced the number of producers. So, your Party’s solution to the economic downturn is more of the same? It is like progressively sucking more milk from the teat of a cow that you keep ever more tightly penned up while you periodically shoot it.
We are become a media-inflamed, hyper-anxious nation of over-reactionaries. We over steered in response to 9/11, and it appears that we are doing the same with respect to this economic downturn. Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise and are the primary reason we can sit at our computers and type on this blog. It is a dangerous war that will likely do us much more damage than any other that our military participated in.
My original point was that Davis can afford to have 80% looters and moochers because the university substitutes the need for producers. Otherwise Republicans would be better served on the City Council. Do you disagree with this point?
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.
I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy. The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.
I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy. The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.
I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy. The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.
I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy. The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.
To: Other Side of the Tracks (AKA “The Producer”)
My suggestion is for you to move up the hill into the 4th Congressional district and bastion of “Producerdom”. There you will find happiness and contentment amongst the Doolittle’s and the McClintock’s and your fellow dittoheads, and where you can dream of pillaging and plundering at will and your “free” market ideals can dance like sugarplum fairies in your head. Come on, grow up, this utopia doesn’t and can’t exist as long as there are “looters”, “crooks”, and “Republicans” among us. I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
And next time you leave your cave and walk on public sidewalks and drive on public roads, think about all the benefits you have derived as a result of taxes . . . heck you probably went to publicly funded schools and may have even attended a publicly funded college. There you might have learned something from one of those “moocher” instructors that helped you become a “producer”. But like they say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think”.
Are you born a “producer”? How slippery is that slope and at what point does one become a “moocher”? After 8 years of another Republican regime, I think we know what a “looter” is!
To: Other Side of the Tracks (AKA “The Producer”)
My suggestion is for you to move up the hill into the 4th Congressional district and bastion of “Producerdom”. There you will find happiness and contentment amongst the Doolittle’s and the McClintock’s and your fellow dittoheads, and where you can dream of pillaging and plundering at will and your “free” market ideals can dance like sugarplum fairies in your head. Come on, grow up, this utopia doesn’t and can’t exist as long as there are “looters”, “crooks”, and “Republicans” among us. I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
And next time you leave your cave and walk on public sidewalks and drive on public roads, think about all the benefits you have derived as a result of taxes . . . heck you probably went to publicly funded schools and may have even attended a publicly funded college. There you might have learned something from one of those “moocher” instructors that helped you become a “producer”. But like they say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think”.
Are you born a “producer”? How slippery is that slope and at what point does one become a “moocher”? After 8 years of another Republican regime, I think we know what a “looter” is!
To: Other Side of the Tracks (AKA “The Producer”)
My suggestion is for you to move up the hill into the 4th Congressional district and bastion of “Producerdom”. There you will find happiness and contentment amongst the Doolittle’s and the McClintock’s and your fellow dittoheads, and where you can dream of pillaging and plundering at will and your “free” market ideals can dance like sugarplum fairies in your head. Come on, grow up, this utopia doesn’t and can’t exist as long as there are “looters”, “crooks”, and “Republicans” among us. I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
And next time you leave your cave and walk on public sidewalks and drive on public roads, think about all the benefits you have derived as a result of taxes . . . heck you probably went to publicly funded schools and may have even attended a publicly funded college. There you might have learned something from one of those “moocher” instructors that helped you become a “producer”. But like they say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think”.
Are you born a “producer”? How slippery is that slope and at what point does one become a “moocher”? After 8 years of another Republican regime, I think we know what a “looter” is!
To: Other Side of the Tracks (AKA “The Producer”)
My suggestion is for you to move up the hill into the 4th Congressional district and bastion of “Producerdom”. There you will find happiness and contentment amongst the Doolittle’s and the McClintock’s and your fellow dittoheads, and where you can dream of pillaging and plundering at will and your “free” market ideals can dance like sugarplum fairies in your head. Come on, grow up, this utopia doesn’t and can’t exist as long as there are “looters”, “crooks”, and “Republicans” among us. I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
And next time you leave your cave and walk on public sidewalks and drive on public roads, think about all the benefits you have derived as a result of taxes . . . heck you probably went to publicly funded schools and may have even attended a publicly funded college. There you might have learned something from one of those “moocher” instructors that helped you become a “producer”. But like they say, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think”.
Are you born a “producer”? How slippery is that slope and at what point does one become a “moocher”? After 8 years of another Republican regime, I think we know what a “looter” is!
“I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.”
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war… no different than the basis for every other war the US has been involved in following WWI, and the reason most wars are fought today. A large part of the population has been brainwashed to believe that private corporations are evil and that the people are better served by government taking control. That same mechanism is at work in Russia today as the state uses the financial collapse to reign in all the “evil” oligarchs and takes over their private business assets. Sound familiar?
“I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy.”
True, but most people today don’t understand real capitalism and certainly don’t understand how far from free-market principles we have drifted. The financial meltdown was the direct result of government over-meddling in the mortgage markets. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act (Feb strong-arming banks to make home loans to poor people), then the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, and finally government-supported Freddy and Fanny buying up all the worthless mortgages on the secondary market so more junk mortgages could be sold. Enterprising individuals simply took advantage of the government sponsored gravy train and the implicit government mandate to do business… and we blame greed? Now the government is bailing out the mess it caused, and again – preventing the free-market from stabilizing to its natural equilibrium.
“The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.”
The distance between free-market principles and government interference had steadily increased even in the Reagan administration and reached new heights with the Clinton administration. Highly regulated and restrictive business has been the norm under the Bush administration even after having removed some of the most onerous policies and programs. The blame of capitalism and Republicans is a red herring because all these firms that collapsed had been regulated. What about Sarbanse-Oxley? How did that most intrusive of form of government oversight into the finances of private companies help prevent the problem?
The debate is narrow if you believe regulation of US business has been inadequate, because it is likely that you just want a little more. The truth is American business has been over-regulated and over-restricted, and this is one of the primary reasons private industry has failed to compete effectively in the global economy. We would be better off ridding ourselves of most regulations that restrict the development and growth of business.
Obama has stepped into the perfect storm. Like Peter Schiff, who correctly predicted this economic situation and who blames government and not capitalism, I think the worst is yet to come because the government keeps meddling in the free-market, and the media and Democrat Party has succeeded in flaming a larger percentage of the population to blame capitalism. Most people don’t understand the economic dynamics at work here, and think they are generally supportive of free-market principles while they argue for more government control and regulation. This, plus continued government meddling in the free markets, will guarantee a larger collapse to follow.
My original point was that Davis is primarily Democrat because a large percentage of the population is insulated from the financial impact of having too few producers.
“I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.”
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war… no different than the basis for every other war the US has been involved in following WWI, and the reason most wars are fought today. A large part of the population has been brainwashed to believe that private corporations are evil and that the people are better served by government taking control. That same mechanism is at work in Russia today as the state uses the financial collapse to reign in all the “evil” oligarchs and takes over their private business assets. Sound familiar?
“I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy.”
True, but most people today don’t understand real capitalism and certainly don’t understand how far from free-market principles we have drifted. The financial meltdown was the direct result of government over-meddling in the mortgage markets. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act (Feb strong-arming banks to make home loans to poor people), then the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, and finally government-supported Freddy and Fanny buying up all the worthless mortgages on the secondary market so more junk mortgages could be sold. Enterprising individuals simply took advantage of the government sponsored gravy train and the implicit government mandate to do business… and we blame greed? Now the government is bailing out the mess it caused, and again – preventing the free-market from stabilizing to its natural equilibrium.
“The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.”
The distance between free-market principles and government interference had steadily increased even in the Reagan administration and reached new heights with the Clinton administration. Highly regulated and restrictive business has been the norm under the Bush administration even after having removed some of the most onerous policies and programs. The blame of capitalism and Republicans is a red herring because all these firms that collapsed had been regulated. What about Sarbanse-Oxley? How did that most intrusive of form of government oversight into the finances of private companies help prevent the problem?
The debate is narrow if you believe regulation of US business has been inadequate, because it is likely that you just want a little more. The truth is American business has been over-regulated and over-restricted, and this is one of the primary reasons private industry has failed to compete effectively in the global economy. We would be better off ridding ourselves of most regulations that restrict the development and growth of business.
Obama has stepped into the perfect storm. Like Peter Schiff, who correctly predicted this economic situation and who blames government and not capitalism, I think the worst is yet to come because the government keeps meddling in the free-market, and the media and Democrat Party has succeeded in flaming a larger percentage of the population to blame capitalism. Most people don’t understand the economic dynamics at work here, and think they are generally supportive of free-market principles while they argue for more government control and regulation. This, plus continued government meddling in the free markets, will guarantee a larger collapse to follow.
My original point was that Davis is primarily Democrat because a large percentage of the population is insulated from the financial impact of having too few producers.
“I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.”
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war… no different than the basis for every other war the US has been involved in following WWI, and the reason most wars are fought today. A large part of the population has been brainwashed to believe that private corporations are evil and that the people are better served by government taking control. That same mechanism is at work in Russia today as the state uses the financial collapse to reign in all the “evil” oligarchs and takes over their private business assets. Sound familiar?
“I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy.”
True, but most people today don’t understand real capitalism and certainly don’t understand how far from free-market principles we have drifted. The financial meltdown was the direct result of government over-meddling in the mortgage markets. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act (Feb strong-arming banks to make home loans to poor people), then the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, and finally government-supported Freddy and Fanny buying up all the worthless mortgages on the secondary market so more junk mortgages could be sold. Enterprising individuals simply took advantage of the government sponsored gravy train and the implicit government mandate to do business… and we blame greed? Now the government is bailing out the mess it caused, and again – preventing the free-market from stabilizing to its natural equilibrium.
“The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.”
The distance between free-market principles and government interference had steadily increased even in the Reagan administration and reached new heights with the Clinton administration. Highly regulated and restrictive business has been the norm under the Bush administration even after having removed some of the most onerous policies and programs. The blame of capitalism and Republicans is a red herring because all these firms that collapsed had been regulated. What about Sarbanse-Oxley? How did that most intrusive of form of government oversight into the finances of private companies help prevent the problem?
The debate is narrow if you believe regulation of US business has been inadequate, because it is likely that you just want a little more. The truth is American business has been over-regulated and over-restricted, and this is one of the primary reasons private industry has failed to compete effectively in the global economy. We would be better off ridding ourselves of most regulations that restrict the development and growth of business.
Obama has stepped into the perfect storm. Like Peter Schiff, who correctly predicted this economic situation and who blames government and not capitalism, I think the worst is yet to come because the government keeps meddling in the free-market, and the media and Democrat Party has succeeded in flaming a larger percentage of the population to blame capitalism. Most people don’t understand the economic dynamics at work here, and think they are generally supportive of free-market principles while they argue for more government control and regulation. This, plus continued government meddling in the free markets, will guarantee a larger collapse to follow.
My original point was that Davis is primarily Democrat because a large percentage of the population is insulated from the financial impact of having too few producers.
“I think that’s a careless mixed metaphor–deriving the literal “war” meaning armed conflict to at best a rhetorical war is on weak logical grounds.”
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war… no different than the basis for every other war the US has been involved in following WWI, and the reason most wars are fought today. A large part of the population has been brainwashed to believe that private corporations are evil and that the people are better served by government taking control. That same mechanism is at work in Russia today as the state uses the financial collapse to reign in all the “evil” oligarchs and takes over their private business assets. Sound familiar?
“I think most people would argue that this country has always espoused basic free market principles and yet has never been a pure free market and has always had a mixed economy.”
True, but most people today don’t understand real capitalism and certainly don’t understand how far from free-market principles we have drifted. The financial meltdown was the direct result of government over-meddling in the mortgage markets. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act (Feb strong-arming banks to make home loans to poor people), then the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, and finally government-supported Freddy and Fanny buying up all the worthless mortgages on the secondary market so more junk mortgages could be sold. Enterprising individuals simply took advantage of the government sponsored gravy train and the implicit government mandate to do business… and we blame greed? Now the government is bailing out the mess it caused, and again – preventing the free-market from stabilizing to its natural equilibrium.
“The debate in this country is how much government regulation and interference to allow into the market. It’s actually a fairly narrow debate–the distance between the two sides in this country is fairly close.”
The distance between free-market principles and government interference had steadily increased even in the Reagan administration and reached new heights with the Clinton administration. Highly regulated and restrictive business has been the norm under the Bush administration even after having removed some of the most onerous policies and programs. The blame of capitalism and Republicans is a red herring because all these firms that collapsed had been regulated. What about Sarbanse-Oxley? How did that most intrusive of form of government oversight into the finances of private companies help prevent the problem?
The debate is narrow if you believe regulation of US business has been inadequate, because it is likely that you just want a little more. The truth is American business has been over-regulated and over-restricted, and this is one of the primary reasons private industry has failed to compete effectively in the global economy. We would be better off ridding ourselves of most regulations that restrict the development and growth of business.
Obama has stepped into the perfect storm. Like Peter Schiff, who correctly predicted this economic situation and who blames government and not capitalism, I think the worst is yet to come because the government keeps meddling in the free-market, and the media and Democrat Party has succeeded in flaming a larger percentage of the population to blame capitalism. Most people don’t understand the economic dynamics at work here, and think they are generally supportive of free-market principles while they argue for more government control and regulation. This, plus continued government meddling in the free markets, will guarantee a larger collapse to follow.
My original point was that Davis is primarily Democrat because a large percentage of the population is insulated from the financial impact of having too few producers.
“
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war…”
The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.
“
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war…”
The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.
“
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war…”
The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.
“
The war on capitalism is not just a rhetorical war; it is an ideological war…”
The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.
“The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.”
I think this is splitting hairs, but fine, it still does not invalidate my using term to describe the Left’s war on capitalism.
The following is the definition of the word “war” in Wikipedia: “War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power.
“The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.”
I think this is splitting hairs, but fine, it still does not invalidate my using term to describe the Left’s war on capitalism.
The following is the definition of the word “war” in Wikipedia: “War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power.
“The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.”
I think this is splitting hairs, but fine, it still does not invalidate my using term to describe the Left’s war on capitalism.
The following is the definition of the word “war” in Wikipedia: “War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power.
“The problem is that the left’s objection to war is to armed military conflict not to rhetorical or as you suggest ideological wars.”
I think this is splitting hairs, but fine, it still does not invalidate my using term to describe the Left’s war on capitalism.
The following is the definition of the word “war” in Wikipedia: “War is the state of prearranged conflict that creates an environment conducive to combined hostile efforts between two engaging parties in order to facilitate the transfer of power.
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s a fundamental difference.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war. I’m sorry but from the standpoint of your statement it’s not nitpicking to suggest that you have used language to imply a contradiction where none really exists.
That said, I also disagree that liberals have waged war on free market principles and I suggest that whatever differences are fairly narrow, certainly much narrower than one sees in other Democratic countries.
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s a fundamental difference.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war. I’m sorry but from the standpoint of your statement it’s not nitpicking to suggest that you have used language to imply a contradiction where none really exists.
That said, I also disagree that liberals have waged war on free market principles and I suggest that whatever differences are fairly narrow, certainly much narrower than one sees in other Democratic countries.
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s a fundamental difference.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war. I’m sorry but from the standpoint of your statement it’s not nitpicking to suggest that you have used language to imply a contradiction where none really exists.
That said, I also disagree that liberals have waged war on free market principles and I suggest that whatever differences are fairly narrow, certainly much narrower than one sees in other Democratic countries.
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s a fundamental difference.
“Liberals make the case that war is not the answer, yet they are going to war against free-market principles that have fueled this country’s amazing rise”
What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war. I’m sorry but from the standpoint of your statement it’s not nitpicking to suggest that you have used language to imply a contradiction where none really exists.
That said, I also disagree that liberals have waged war on free market principles and I suggest that whatever differences are fairly narrow, certainly much narrower than one sees in other Democratic countries.
Farwester:
I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
Producers produce a product or service to sell for the purpose of making a profit.
Trial lawyers are not considered producers because they generally make their profit from devaluing other products or services. They, in fact, loot existing producers.
Any person employed by the government is by definition a moocher because the funding for their pay comes from the taxes and fees paid by producers, and they are a looter too if they set policy to extract taxes and fees from the producers.
Labor union employees are moochers, and their union bosses are looters, when they work for non-producers or when their collective bargaining for pay is disconnected from the profitability of the company.
Employees that work for producers able to expand and contract their company workforce based on profitablity are themselves producers.
Government and government employees generally do not produce in a market sense because there is no legal incentive for profitability. However, there is no argument that good government can contribute to healthy and robust production. For example, good roads, good science and good schools. However, government has no real revenue source other than what it takes by looting the producers.
The problem today is that too many people see corporations as somehow looting the people or their government. This is ass-backwards. Government is a monopoly, with no incentive to compete and little legal incentive to make a profit.
Farwester:
I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
Producers produce a product or service to sell for the purpose of making a profit.
Trial lawyers are not considered producers because they generally make their profit from devaluing other products or services. They, in fact, loot existing producers.
Any person employed by the government is by definition a moocher because the funding for their pay comes from the taxes and fees paid by producers, and they are a looter too if they set policy to extract taxes and fees from the producers.
Labor union employees are moochers, and their union bosses are looters, when they work for non-producers or when their collective bargaining for pay is disconnected from the profitability of the company.
Employees that work for producers able to expand and contract their company workforce based on profitablity are themselves producers.
Government and government employees generally do not produce in a market sense because there is no legal incentive for profitability. However, there is no argument that good government can contribute to healthy and robust production. For example, good roads, good science and good schools. However, government has no real revenue source other than what it takes by looting the producers.
The problem today is that too many people see corporations as somehow looting the people or their government. This is ass-backwards. Government is a monopoly, with no incentive to compete and little legal incentive to make a profit.
Farwester:
I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
Producers produce a product or service to sell for the purpose of making a profit.
Trial lawyers are not considered producers because they generally make their profit from devaluing other products or services. They, in fact, loot existing producers.
Any person employed by the government is by definition a moocher because the funding for their pay comes from the taxes and fees paid by producers, and they are a looter too if they set policy to extract taxes and fees from the producers.
Labor union employees are moochers, and their union bosses are looters, when they work for non-producers or when their collective bargaining for pay is disconnected from the profitability of the company.
Employees that work for producers able to expand and contract their company workforce based on profitablity are themselves producers.
Government and government employees generally do not produce in a market sense because there is no legal incentive for profitability. However, there is no argument that good government can contribute to healthy and robust production. For example, good roads, good science and good schools. However, government has no real revenue source other than what it takes by looting the producers.
The problem today is that too many people see corporations as somehow looting the people or their government. This is ass-backwards. Government is a monopoly, with no incentive to compete and little legal incentive to make a profit.
Farwester:
I’d also like to know what defines a “producer” . . . does one have to create something tangible or do intangibles count?
Producers produce a product or service to sell for the purpose of making a profit.
Trial lawyers are not considered producers because they generally make their profit from devaluing other products or services. They, in fact, loot existing producers.
Any person employed by the government is by definition a moocher because the funding for their pay comes from the taxes and fees paid by producers, and they are a looter too if they set policy to extract taxes and fees from the producers.
Labor union employees are moochers, and their union bosses are looters, when they work for non-producers or when their collective bargaining for pay is disconnected from the profitability of the company.
Employees that work for producers able to expand and contract their company workforce based on profitablity are themselves producers.
Government and government employees generally do not produce in a market sense because there is no legal incentive for profitability. However, there is no argument that good government can contribute to healthy and robust production. For example, good roads, good science and good schools. However, government has no real revenue source other than what it takes by looting the producers.
The problem today is that too many people see corporations as somehow looting the people or their government. This is ass-backwards. Government is a monopoly, with no incentive to compete and little legal incentive to make a profit.
“What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war.”
So, liberals did not object to the “cold war”? I thought that an embargo can be recognized as an act of war, so do liberals not object to this? What about technical and industrial espionage or spy wars? How about the war on poverty… I expect that is a war that liberals are perpetually fond of since we can never seem to win it despite spending trillions.
Liberals honor and accept the stroke of a pen in waging battle, but distance themselves from the stroke of a sword. I submit that the pen can be mightier than the sword, so I reject the attempt of liberals to decry armed conflict, while waging other, when both have the same goal… an ideological power shift.
Already today, U.S. corporations and individuals have had to cut back on tax payments and charitable giving that feed the hungry. This trend continuing will result in far more deaths than the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I suggest that liberals do consider the conflict with capitalism as a war; because I suspect there are many who will be willing to take up arms should this ideological shift occur and too many go hungry as a result.
“What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war.”
So, liberals did not object to the “cold war”? I thought that an embargo can be recognized as an act of war, so do liberals not object to this? What about technical and industrial espionage or spy wars? How about the war on poverty… I expect that is a war that liberals are perpetually fond of since we can never seem to win it despite spending trillions.
Liberals honor and accept the stroke of a pen in waging battle, but distance themselves from the stroke of a sword. I submit that the pen can be mightier than the sword, so I reject the attempt of liberals to decry armed conflict, while waging other, when both have the same goal… an ideological power shift.
Already today, U.S. corporations and individuals have had to cut back on tax payments and charitable giving that feed the hungry. This trend continuing will result in far more deaths than the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I suggest that liberals do consider the conflict with capitalism as a war; because I suspect there are many who will be willing to take up arms should this ideological shift occur and too many go hungry as a result.
“What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war.”
So, liberals did not object to the “cold war”? I thought that an embargo can be recognized as an act of war, so do liberals not object to this? What about technical and industrial espionage or spy wars? How about the war on poverty… I expect that is a war that liberals are perpetually fond of since we can never seem to win it despite spending trillions.
Liberals honor and accept the stroke of a pen in waging battle, but distance themselves from the stroke of a sword. I submit that the pen can be mightier than the sword, so I reject the attempt of liberals to decry armed conflict, while waging other, when both have the same goal… an ideological power shift.
Already today, U.S. corporations and individuals have had to cut back on tax payments and charitable giving that feed the hungry. This trend continuing will result in far more deaths than the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I suggest that liberals do consider the conflict with capitalism as a war; because I suspect there are many who will be willing to take up arms should this ideological shift occur and too many go hungry as a result.
“What liberals object to is armed military conflict (under less than justified circumstances) not other forms that may be colloquially referred to as war.”
So, liberals did not object to the “cold war”? I thought that an embargo can be recognized as an act of war, so do liberals not object to this? What about technical and industrial espionage or spy wars? How about the war on poverty… I expect that is a war that liberals are perpetually fond of since we can never seem to win it despite spending trillions.
Liberals honor and accept the stroke of a pen in waging battle, but distance themselves from the stroke of a sword. I submit that the pen can be mightier than the sword, so I reject the attempt of liberals to decry armed conflict, while waging other, when both have the same goal… an ideological power shift.
Already today, U.S. corporations and individuals have had to cut back on tax payments and charitable giving that feed the hungry. This trend continuing will result in far more deaths than the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I suggest that liberals do consider the conflict with capitalism as a war; because I suspect there are many who will be willing to take up arms should this ideological shift occur and too many go hungry as a result.