Comments by JohnLocke
Previous | Page 2 of 159 | Next
Posted on May 30 at 9:46 a.m.
BTW, if one actually reads my initial post, one will see that I first asked WHO planted the tree in violation of policy. THEN I commented that IF it was City employees, then they should replace it on their own time, since they would have been the ones violating City policy. I.e. government should pay for its own mistakes. DrDan, as is his wont, immediately leaped to the unwarranted conclusion that I was blaming the City.
Posted on May 30 at 9:42 a.m.
@nockamixon: thanks for the info. I'm curious, though, since this article didn't mention that the tree was planted by a "rogue do-gooder" and I didn't see the previous article you mentioned, how would I do my homework on this one?
And for those who need education in the meaning of anarchy, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy. The definitions are on a spectrum from Left to Right, but do have in common a distrust of government; some definitions indicate a belief in NO government. One can pretty much write one's own definition, which kinda makes it a useless term, but my definition of an anarchist is one who wants no government - that's not me.
Posted on May 30 at 9:33 a.m.
"incorrect in asserting the US financial industry is already regulated"? Do your homework. I agree that ending Glass-Steagall was a huge mistake, as was eliminating the short-sale uptick rule, as was the policy of many Presidents to encourage home ownership by everyone whether or not they could afford it, as is current tax policy that encourages corporations to park their earnings outside the US. Given E Warren's statement that "The truth is that we could end those cuts and put a stop to sequestration right now if we just made big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires pay their fair share", I would have to consider her a polemicist and class warrior, similar to our President. I have not read the specifics of her proposal to add regulation to the financial industry, so cannot comment on it. I do believe that in general the US is overregulated and that the regulatory process is often conducted by people either incapable of understanding what they are regulating or people dedicated to driving a political agenda. Hence my ongoing distrust of big gov, which does not make me an anarchist. And your "comment that in essence you a sort of anarchist and hate all big government" is a perfect example of personalizing the discussion instead of focusing on issues. "Playing gotcha" is merely a comment on your obvious posting tactics.
Posted on May 30 at 9:21 a.m.
Williams is a tool for any union. After all, his mentor was Taxin Jackson.
Posted on May 29 at 4:11 p.m.
A little harsh on the Republicans, Ken. There are some reasonable ones (not many, or not visible), but they don't get much press - not nearly enough fire and brimstone to satisfy the media. I'd love to see a viable Centrist party. Fat chance.
So in the meanwhile, great. New blood. Vote against Taxin' Jackson, Pelosi-parrot Capps, Opportunist Das, East Coast Helene, Salud "the Pope" Carbajal, Sheriff Bill "only the bad guys get to carry guns", and all the other members of the local Demafia next chance you get. I sure will.
On Mental Health Services Deemed Disconnected and Dysfunctional
Posted on May 29 at 4:05 p.m.
DrDan, why not focus on debating issues instead of personalities for a change? The financial industry IS regulated. Mostly by people who are unable to understand what the financial industry is doing (e.g. derivatives) until too late. What is your point?
As to "too big to fail", I specifically addressed that in my last post to you.
Instead of trying to play "gotcha", why not read and think about content. Bye, now.
Posted on May 29 at 4:01 p.m.
@howgreen: apparently you missed my point. Yes, I know the 5.56 is not the same as the .223. My point was that there are many cartridges more powerful than the 5.56 so that my original thought about limiting access to that ammo was misplaced. So other than listing practically every kind of commonly used ammo, what was the point in your extensive post?
Posted on May 29 at 3:57 p.m.
So who planted the tree without doing their homework? City employees? Then they should replace it on their own time.
Posted on May 29 at 8:51 a.m.
I thought that was the Eagles?
Previous Month
Posted on May 30 at 1:41 p.m.
Repealing Prop 13 would just give the legislature carte blanche to run wild with spending just like they did pre Prop 13. The problem with Prop 13 as it now stands is that it goes well beyond the initial intent of preventing the State from essentially ejecting people from their homes because of wild increases in spending and therefore property taxes.
Rather than repeal Prop 13, simply eliminate its application to business property and eliminate the provision that allows subsequent generations to inherit Mommy and Daddy's home AND their tax basis. Do like every other state that makes special provisions for retirees - reset the house to market rates when the owner dies; the inheritee can then keep the house if s/he can pay market rate taxes. The alternative is what we have now - after 30 years of Prop 13, there is an entrenched set of taxpayers paying way less than market rates.
On Williams Defends Controversial Bill