Jump to content
Harvey, if this is so significant, how about a link to a story about all these "silenced" stumblers. I've seen the stories about the growing in CA, but not any data to suggest anyone has been killed by growers. At lease not a significant number, like shootings at our schools or theaters.
" But to answer your final statement in the previous post--if the Dems put up Clinton or Sanders or Biden or Warren they will not have a chance in '16. The Dems will not vote for the Republican candidate---they will just stay home and not vote."
I'm confused, who doesn't have a chance, these DEM's or any REP that runs against them? DEM voters will turn out to support their candidate, if only to protect against whichever REP is nominated. Mostly out of fear of REP leadership.
I disagree that DanS is extreme, but more in line with the DEM platform.
I agree that what we need is a fiscally conservative moderate, but those candidates usually have liberal views on social issues that eliminate them from support from the social conservatives.
It's unfortunate that a conservative candidate wont run and say something like " I personally disagree with abortion, but respect a woman's right to choose, and will let a higher power judge those that make choices i do not agree with, while preventing government from restricting everyone's right to chose the path they feel is right"
Fiscally conservative, socially moderate, or even liberal, is what's needed. But the primary system does not allow for those type of candidates to succeed. We need a national open primary system, and reforms to our financing of elections before "we the people" will ever get control of our government back.
Dan, you did get a present, healthcare reform, stock market at record highs, unemployment low, wars ended, equal marriage rights for all, and hopefully an agreement with Iran to not build nukes. Obama has been effective despite the GOP resistance.
My point was that we already have programs to help people climb the economic ladder, but many republican's fight these as entitlements.
Also, much respect to his, and all our mom's, but saying that his mom could run the Dept of Treasury and balance the budget is a crazy, and shows he has no chance to change Washington. (or be elected)
During his speech, Carson spoke of wanting to create a mechanism for people who are in poverty to move up the economic ladder.
omg,He endorses entitlements, and welfare, and is against war. Are we sure he is republican, and not Hillary's mirror.
"If my mother were secretary of the treasury, we would not be in a deficit situation," Carson said.
and he wants his mommy to help run things.
I wonder how Eric's opinion would change if his kids were enrolled in our schools, and he was not speaking as a second homeowner. Guess what, I don't want to pay taxes for services in California, that's why I don't own property in places where i don't live.
Cheers? This will be the same election we have seen in the past. Trump will be muzzled by the party, as will Bernie. Clinton/Bush will be our choice of two of the same.
Wake up Tom.
Eric, as a second homeowner of a rental property, you are free to remove yourself from this system by selling this rental unit instead of complaining about how money is being stolen from you. Your complaints ring hollow.
Profit and control would be why a private company would want to take away the right to assess public easements. my compairison to gun right might not be the best, but taking a public asset, like roadway easement access, and giving it away to a private company because we the public are too cheap to pay for the improvments the roadway needs it not a good idea IMO. I do not hold faith that any for profit company can take into consideration everyone's right to access, when confronted with the motivation of profit vs public good. this goes all the way back to budgeting in government, if we were not spending billions on our useless war efforts, the tovernment would have the funds to improve these public works to serve the taxpayers, instead we toss billions into the cesspool of the middle east, and make poor americans sit in traffic while the rich rush by in their $30/lane private road.
And when a private company takes the public right to free travel away you would have no problem? Pay to move freely works great for the rich, and traps the poor into places where the rich don't want to have them. Why don't we let a private company take away all your guns? Then you can pay to exercise your 2nd amendment rights, and the crazies won't have access, and the government won't control all the guns.
Last login: Sunday, August 23, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.