DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on November 11, 2010, 01:04:23 PM
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/obama-lawyers-back-military-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-gay-ban-at-high-court.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/obama-lawyers-back-military-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-gay-ban-at-high-court.html)
-
Just not ready to live without an armed forces yet.
-
Being as dozens of countries have gays serving openly in the military, it must be possible to have gays in the military and still have a working military.
The Administration is trying to please the military (by stalling for time) and the Congress (who would prefer that the ban be eliminated by an actual law rather than an opinion that might be overturned).
You can't please everyone, ever, but they are trying to do the right thing in the right manner.
-
That is really queer.
-
Being as dozens of countries have gays serving openly in the military, it must be possible to have gays in the military and still have a working military.
The Administration is trying to please the military (by stalling for time) and the Congress (who would prefer that the ban be eliminated by an actual law rather than an opinion that might be overturned).
You can't please everyone, ever, but they are trying to do the right thing in the right manner.
Do any of these Dozens need an armed force as large as ours?
Most of our allies are keeping smaller armed forces than they would need if they were not relying on our allience, and for the same reason we need a larger one.
If recruiting and retention drops 20% there will not be nearly enough willing Gay soldiers to make up the difference even if every GBT person the right age in the nation is recruited.
President Obama is looking down the barrell of this threat, of being the Commander in Cheif who presided over the collapse of The US armed forces.
-
I really doubt that there are any sizable numbers of people that would refuse to enlist because of a ban on gays. After all, gays are not banned NOW: they are just banned from telling anyone about it, which really means telling anti-gays about it. So people who have poorly functioning "gaydar" are thrown out, and others remain.
This might mean that the Marines might have some trouble. If they could let the Marines keep DADT, that could solve the entire problem.Not that I consider this likely. It is unclear whether Marines are even necessary: there is probably nothing they can do that a specialized Army group could not do, after all.
Originally, they were fighting sailors who traveled on boats for specialized coastal attacks. Now everyone gets airlifted, no matter what service, other than the Navy and Coast Guard.
Israel has no ban on gays, by the way.
It is pretty much inevitable that restrictions against DTDT and gays will be lifted, even if you guys do not like it. I am not gay, nor do I have any interest in the military, nor do I know anyone who does.
But it's going to happen, sooner or later. Just like marijuana will be legal, eventually. As those who are opposed dies off, they are replaced by more tolerant people. This is what happened with segregation, womens' rights and a host of other changes in society. Attitudes change, then the laws are changed.
As with segregation, the resistance increases most just before the opposition finally collapses in ruins. This happens in every society.
-
I think that a Twenty percent decrease in recruiting and retention is a conservative estimate , I wouldn't be surprised at worse.
If making Homosexuals recruitable opened the population availible by a full two percent, I would be surprised, I would bet on less.
Supposeing that you are right about 60% of the Armed Forces , that is not what I am talking about, loosing twenty percent is too much to sustain.
The Marines don't have any phobias, they induce them.
-
The Marines attract guys with a variety of sick and hostile attitudes. To be fair, they channel them in what is a useful way, or as useful as possible way. My Uncle Jay was the only Marine that I know who was not some sort of sick dickhead, and he was drafted into the Marines WWI. I suppose non-dickhead Marines exist, but I have not met any. By dickhead, I mean egotistical bully. I am not saying that they are not useful in a time of war. Like Pit Bulls and Dobermans, they have their uses.
After they get out, they improve after 15 years or so. Ex-Marines eventually become tolerable.
Gays can enlist NOW and everyone knows it. I am pretty sure we could get by with 20% fewer wars, being as we have robots and all sorts of efficiency-creating equipment. But really, attitudes have changed greatly in the last few years.
-
Why shouldn't I think that 20% smaller Armed forces would result in 80% more war?
It is not like reduceing the number of firemen would reduce the incidence of housefires is it?
-
This country starts wars. Firefighters do not start fires.
Do you think that Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq were planning to invade the US?
-
I think DADT will eventually go away.
I think the survey the DOD is conducting currently, needs to be completed and used as a road map for doing away with DADT.
-
I can go along with that. Planning for all contingencies is probably a wise path.
-
This country starts wars. Firefighters do not start fires.
Do you think that Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq were planning to invade the US?
This is clearly missing the point.
Soldiers do not start wars .
-
Do you think that Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq were planning to invade the US?
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-posthumously-promotes-sailor-killed-in-air-hijacking-1.116053 (http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-posthumously-promotes-sailor-killed-in-air-hijacking-1.116053)
Yes.
Ask me to remember for you all of the incidents in which a person was unjustly killed just for being an American?
Afganistan did indeed send an expedition to attack our homeland, in their estimation successfully.
Granada was a mess , our soldiers saved the Americans that were threatened and left Granada better off.
Etc. etc... it is easy enough to ignore the reasons , but the reasons wouldn't matter if we didn't have a strong military to answer challenges.
-
I think DADT will eventually go away.
I think the survey the DOD is conducting currently, needs to be completed and used as a road map for doing away with DADT.
Will the new policy damage the fighting ability of the armed forces?
If it does will anyone be willing to give up his career and say so?
We should learn from the fiasco that is the integration of Women into Naval combat units , now even into submarines. Up to a third of the women sent on a long cruse come back molested or harrassed or willingly pregnant, but are shipcaptains willing to say that there is a problem?
No they are not, it is worth their careers to stand against these directives , so they exibit a "can do" attitude at all levels of command and paper over the tragedy and reduction of capability.
If haveing Homosexuals integrated causes small problems we will never hear of it , if it causes large problems we will never hear of it, if it causes enourmous problems , something elese will be blamed.
-
Being as dozens of countries have gays serving openly in the military, it must be possible to have gays in the military and still have a working military.
Could you point out one of these and how their effectiveness is just as good as American standards ?
-
The UK, Israel and Russia all have openly gay personnel in their military.
The fact is most of NATO except for Greece and perhaps Turkey have gays in the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service)
-
Ok and these Armys are not looseing anything?
Isreal is a nearly 100% drafted force , and is very effective indeed. If we loose as much Recruiting and retention as I beleive we will ,we can solve the problem the same way that Isreal did.
Would changeing from an all volenteer force to a drafted one be a loss or not?
-
http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf (http://www.filmforum.org/films/yossi/israelstudyafs.pdf)
As the number of countries that permit gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the armed
forces has grown over the past two decades, it has become increasingly important to determine
whether official decisions to include homosexual service members in the military lead to changes
in organizational performance. Although most NATO countries as well as a handful of other
nations allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve, there has been little empirical analysis of whether
the decision to lift a gay ban influences armed forces’ ability to pursue their missions.
Theoretical studies have addressed this topic but there has been no in-depth empirical work on the
actual consequences of a decision to lift a gay ban.1
Israel is a case in point. A few scholars conducted careful studies in the immediate
aftermath of Israel’s 1993 decision to abolish restrictions on gay and lesbian soldiers. However,
the long-term impact of the new policy was not yet apparent and even the most thorough of these
early analyses is only eight pages long.2
This essay mostly agrees with you , but it serves my point in this way , that no one is even trying to get a measure of the loss involved.
-
Would changeing from an all volenteer force to a drafted one be a loss or not?
Depends on whether you were drafted or not.
Israel is a small country and compulsory service is required of both males and females i believe for a two year period.
The US is a larger country and i believe a lottery type system would suffice.
But let me ask you this question in return, would you rather go into a firestorm like Fallujah with a gay soldier having your back or a muslim american? Whose loyalty would you be less likely to suspect?
-
for the record....I oppose "don't ask don't tell" & I oppose homos in the military period.
it's not practical and could end up costing more money
If I were a soldier I would not want to be in showers with someone
looking at me "with wood".....do we want female and male soldiers
showering together?...Ummm why dont we do that?
Because of what can happen.
And that same thing applies if homos are in the showers with other men.
BTW...I know that can happen now...but why make it even worse?
Reality is what it is....
Why do we have separate bathrooms for male and females
because it doesn't work to mix in that close of proximity the sexes attracted to each other
so now we have the homo agenda forcing their way to openly have
homos in the showers...in the bedrooms with people they are attracted to.
If you are in a foxhole with two other guys...and those two guys are lovers
bullets are flying.....
do you really want two gay lovers looking out for each other in the heat of the battle?
i want two teammates with me....not two lovers
Sexual relationships on the battle ground have no place....it's insane.
The homo agenda will stop at nothing at forcing it upon us....not even national security
-
cu the don`t ask policy has proven gays has seved in the military for a very long time and the lover scenerio has never been brought up as an excuse get rid of a soldier.
in fact the large percent of gay soldiers discharge have been by policy not ability or conduct.
but i do believe gays should serve as a separated division to ensure no blanket parties going on.
but the real fear is gays tend to become officers more than heteros,so eventually all soldiers will take orders from gays.
ex. more than half the gays I know was in the military and was an officer.
makes sense since the very reason san francisco gay culture is caused by the miltary base here.
-
cu the don`t ask policy has proven gays has seved in the military for a very long time
and the lover scenerio has never been brought up as an excuse get rid of a soldier.
I doubt that....
you put a bunch of homo men together and they are gonna do what they do
of course most soldiers never fight in a battle in a war
but i know I would not want to be in a platoon with several gay lovers
i dont want to have to worry about that shit under enemy fire
oh steve is gonna try and save bill because they are lovers.
or Jim had a lovers spat with Andy and they aren't speaking & the Taliban are coming over the walls
the hell with that.
"but i do believe gays should serve as a separated division to ensure no blanket parties going on"
yes I agreee Kimba thats the only way I could see doing it...and i dont think it is worth the trouble
-
There were gays in the military when i served in the early 70's. Never would have known it unless they told me.
-
there are a small percentage of homos in society so i would assume so
-
the absolute reason I doubt this would be a severe problem is that every single military leader in the U.S. who oppose gays in the military cannot and have not said gays should not serve because of ability or conduct.
you would think those 2 issues would be the forfront. you bring up conduct but have not brought any examples from gulf war,vietnam,korea,bosnia
all had gays serving in them and being discharged also.
totally target rich for conduct charges if any exist.
I`m not saying you should look for them, but I have serious doubt the military is turning a blind eye in favor of gays.
they of all people would be keeping score and making it public
you don`t want them serving, but so is the military.but is it a good idea to deny an ablebody & willing group of people.
-
But let me ask you this question in return, would you rather go into a firestorm like Fallujah with a gay soldier having your back or a muslim american? Whose loyalty would you be less likely to suspect?
I would suppose that the Gay soldier would have more problems when fighting in the territory of ultra conservative Muslims .
Muslim soldiers have two incidents of intended fratricide I know of.This is not a high rate.
Is this much like asking whether I would rather be burned or crushed?
-
interesting
if i remember right jewish soldiers are not allowed in these areas.
has that policy been removed.
I have friends in the military and they have seen these guys mistakenly sent to these region to immediatly get recalled very quickly.
-
I would suppose that the Gay soldier would have more problems when fighting in the territory of ultra conservative Muslims .
Why is that? For fear of harsher treatment if captured? Would that not be incentive to fight even harder?
A Muslim American soldier might not be near as fearful of harsher treatment and that might affect their will to perform above and beyond.
-
actually I have serious doubt the muslim american would get prefered treatment.
wtc had quite afew dead muslims .
I don`t recall any data on gay european soldiers getting any harsheir treatments. it`s not like gay soldiers will be allow to wear differeing outfits
remember if gaydar really existed rock hudson wouldn`t have a career
-
I doubt this would be a severe problem is that every single military leader in the U.S.
who oppose gays in the military cannot and have not said gays should not serve because
of ability or conduct.
yeah and maybe there hasn't been a problem because what we've had in place has worked
you bring up conduct but have
not brought any examples from gulf war,vietnam,korea,bosnia
see above answer
you don`t want them serving
it's not so much I dont want them serving
in fact I would just as soon see them on the front lines as anybody else
but i can not see a way how it makes any sense from an economic or practical sense
but is it a good idea to deny an ablebody & willing group of people.
depends....if it makes no economical or practical sense...
then yes I think it is a good idea to deny
the military is not a place for social experiments for political correctness
-
wtc had quite afew dead muslims
pointless
they were not the targets
so what?
-
Commander: Well, Top, the new policy is in effect. From now on it's "Don't Ask,
but You can Tell." It's up to us to try and make the new policy work.
First Sergeant: Should be no problem, sir. After all, I can't see where being gay
would affect anyone's duty performance.
Commander: That's the attitude! I'll leave it in your hands to make it work.
(One week later)
Airman Jones: Sir, I've got a problem.
First Sergeant: What's up, Jones?
Airman Jones: It's my roommate. He's Airman Thompson.
First Sergeant: So?
Airman Jones: Well, he's gay, Sir. He told me so.
First Sergeant: We briefed you on the new policy. Gay service people are no
different from anyone else. Airman Thompson does just as good a job as you do.
Airman Jones: Yes sir, but he keeps staring at me when I shower or change clothes
and stuff. It's really creeping me out.
First Sergeant: I can see how that might bother you. I'll have a talk with him.
(Later, that same day)
First Sergeant: Airman Thompson, we've got a problem.
Airman Thompson: Yes sir?
First Sergeant: Your roommate claims that you keep staring at him when he undresses.
He feels uncomfortable with this.
Airman Thompson: Oh, no sir! I'm not looking at him. He's not even my type.
First Sergeant: Okay. Just do me and your roommate a favor. When he undresses,
make sure you look in another direction. Give his privacy rights a little break, okay?
Airman Thompson: Sure sir! No problem.
(Five days later)
First Sergeant: We've got a problem, Jones. Your NCOIC says this is the 2nd time
you've been late for work this week. What's going on?
Airman Jones: I'm sorry sir, but I can't sleep at night. Now, every time I even reach
for my zipper, Airman Thompson stares at me and gives me a "wolf-whistle." I don't know
what I'm going to do. I'm about ready to smack him.
First Sergeant: No. No. You can't do that. I'll have another talk with him. Don't you
even think about harming him. Got it?
Airman Jones: <glumly> Yes, sir.
(Later)
First Sergeant: Thompson, your roommate claims you've been staring and whistling at him.
That's sexual harassment, and we won't tolerate it. Understand?
Airman Thompson: I haven't been looking or whistling! He's just lying because he doesn't
like homosexuals! Most people in the military don't like us, and they'll lie in a heartbeat!
First Sergeant: Look, you're not the only one that I'm having a problem with in implementing
this policy. How about if I move you into a room all by yourself?
Airman Thompson: Sure!
(Two weeks later)
Commander: First Sergeant, we've just received an Inspector General Complaint.
It claims that you've given all the homosexuals in the squadron a private room?
First Sergeant: Yes, sir. There were some serious problems developing between them
and their heterosexual roommates. I thought it best to get them split up before someone got hurt.
Commander: I understand, but we can't give them special privileges. We don't have enough
space to give everyone a single room, and you can't single out the homosexuals as getting a benefit
that isn't available to the others. Now, fix it!
First Sergeant: Yes, sir.
(One week later)
Airman Pizaz: Airman Tippy is my girlfriend.
First Sergeant: That's nice. What can I do for you.
Airman Pizaz: Well, she wants to room with me.
First Sergeant: (spitting coffee) You know we can't room a male and female together
in the barracks.
Airman Pizaz: Why not? You roomed Airman Thompson and Airman Eckers together.
First Sergeant: So?
Airman Pizaz: Come on, Shirt! Everyone knows they're going together. If Thompson gets
to room with his boyfriend, how come I can't room with my girlfriend?
First Sergeant: Well.....I guess that makes sense. Okay, I'll approve it.
(Two weeks later)
Commander: (Storming into office, blowing steam out of his ears) What in the Hell are
you doing, First Sergeant?
First Sergeant: Sir?
Commander: (Face turning blue) The Wing has just received a slew of Congressional
Complaints about you from concerned parents! It appears as if you are allowing their young
sons and daughters to shack up in my barracks. Is that true?
First Sergeant: Well, yes Sir....but.....
Commander: (Having a kiniption) No buts!!!!!!! Not in my Air Force!!!!!! People don't shack
up in Military Barracks!! Is that clear???
First Sergeant: Yes Sir.
Commander: (Jumping up and down) Fix this, now!!!
First Sergeant: (Thinking) How in the World do I fix this?
(After much thought)
I know! I'll room male homosexuals with female heterosexuals, and female homosexuals with
male heterosexuals!
(One week later)
Commander: (Blood pressure rising like a steam boiler) First Sergeant, what in the blazes
is going on in my squadron?
First Sergeant: Sir?
Commander: Every single male in the barracks now claims he's homosexual, and wants
to move in with a heterosexual female!
First Sergeant: Well, Sir, I guess the studies were wrong. Maybe it is possible for one
to change their sexual orientation.
-
yeah and maybe there hasn't been a problem because what we've had in place has worked
maybe not
remember it`s the military not gay organization thats bringing this on.
that means something noticable is going on in the military to get this situation.
it was brought up afew years ago that discharging a gay soldier tend to be abit costly since alot of them are more wiiling to take advance training than the average soldier.
-
"remember it`s the military not gay organization thats bringing this on"
Wrong....the military would prefer not to have to deal with such BS
It is politicians & lawsuits funded by pro-homo agendas & pro homo interest groups that bring this on.
-
The military is not a place for social experiments for political correctness
============================================
It seems like it was when the integrated the military. The LEAST segregated workplace in the US is the military, so it seems to have worked.
You dialogue is a comedy routine, not reality, by the way.
Ha, ha!
-
It seems like it was when the integrated the military.
That was not a social experiment and it is insulting, demeaning
and possibly racist to equate the homo agenda to the pain and
suffering associated with slavery.
The LEAST segregated workplace in the US is the military
I doubt that the US Military is any less segregated than the NFL
HUD, APPLE Computers, and a host of other work organizations.
You dialogue is a comedy routine, not reality, by the way.
It very well reflects the non-sense the military will have to put up with
if you and others that support forcing the homo agenda upon other
Americans is successful. Attempts by pro-homo agenda groups seeking
a society stamp of approval for un-natural reckless sex many times involving
human fecal matter really does not belong in the military or in national security
matters.
-
The more i think about it, the less comfortable i am with institutionalizing second class citizenship.
-
The more i think about it, the less comfortable i am with institutionalizing second class citizenship.
They (homos) are in fact "second class citizens" in some areas.
None of us would be here if not for heterosexuals. Nada...none.
Heterosexuals have in fact created mankind & human history....for that they have no equal.
Sure not all hetros have reproduced, but they are part of the group that has.
Natural reproduction has always and will always be through heterosexuals.
Societies all over the world throughout human history have placed the heterosexual relationship
between a man and woman that creates mankind in a very special place and rightfully so.
So in that regard homos can never "play the whole game"...they are unequal as a group.
They can live in peace, freedom, attain wealth, create/invent material things..etc
But homos unlike hetros as a group can not create a human being naturally.
They are not and can not be equal to the ideal.....never.
Although they seek to pretend otherwise thru forceful political legal agendas.
And even if they succeed in forcing their agenda on people thru ramroding gvt decrees...
They will never in reality be equal.
-
hmm
come to think about it, I know alot of gays who have (non-adopted) kids. so saying homosexual lifestyle does not produce kids may not be true.
I`ll not go into detail how this is , but lets just say the human population will not be too hampered by homosexuality.
actually I don`t any gay couple who adopts.
I don`t know about the equality part. but they sure do have the best looking & trendiest neighborhood(castro)
meaning san francisco has not been hurt by having gays here (money wise)
sanctuary city status is another matter
-
"hmm come to think about it, I know alot of gays who have (non-adopted) kids.
so saying homosexual lifestyle does not produce kids may not be true"
uh Kimba those would be known as bi-sexuals, & more specific those children were created
when that particular bi-sexual was having hetrosexual intercourse...unless some unnatural
medical procedure was used.....homosexual sex between two humans has never and will never
produce a human being.
-
The more i think about it, the less comfortable i am with institutionalizing second class citizenship.
They (homos) are in fact "second class citizens" in some areas.
None of us would be here if not for heterosexuals. Nada...none.
Heterosexuals have in fact created mankind & human history....for that they have no equal.
Sure not all hetros have reproduced, but they are part of the group that has.
Natural reproduction has always and will always be through heterosexuals.
Societies all over the world throughout human history have placed the heterosexual relationship
between a man and woman that creates mankind in a very special place and rightfully so.
So in that regard homos can never "play the whole game"...they are unequal as a group.
They can live in peace, freedom, attain wealth, create/invent material things..etc
But homos unlike hetros as a group can not create a human being naturally.
They are not and can not be equal to the ideal.....never.
Although they seek to pretend otherwise thru forceful political legal agendas.
And even if they succeed in forcing their agenda on people thru ramroding gvt decrees...
They will never in reality be equal.
Does the constitution mention anything about sexual preference in regards to US citizenship?
-
nope these are from formerly closeted gays .
infact quite afew outed gays in high position had families.
and some simply just arrainged a girl or guy to make this possible.
gay sex doesn`t produce children,but gays are not physically limited to gay sex.
remember the majority of gays were raised straight, so afew of would of had a hetero relationship.
I remember a highly decorated female admiral who came out of the closet ,whose also a grandma.
I believe she help developed fortran
-
kimba....I think we are on the same page....i think...lol
yes a bisexual can have hetrosexual sex and produce a child
yes a homo could have hetrosexual sex to produce a child
but only hetrosexual sex can produce a child naturally
a homo can have hetro sex to produce a human being
but a hetro can not have homo sex and produce a damn thing
hetro has and does create mankind
thus it has...at least in my mind and others an elevated status
-
They will never in reality be equal.
============================
They can be equal in civil rights, and THAT is the issue here.
No two people on Earth are exactly equal, though identical twins come far closer.
On a planet with more people than it can feed sustainably, not everyone needs to reproduce, and it is good that many do not.
-
to be honest I have to say that us humans are nowhere near the population to be unsustainable. literally barely a drop.but that`s in context if humanity is actively trying to sustain itself and doesn`t mind being around people.
seriously population growth is only an issue because for our wasteful ways.
I`ll ask this question what resource is dwindling because of demand of a growing population not tied to economics.
-
They can be equal in civil rights, and THAT is the issue here.
of course they can be....but at what costs?
thats the problem with Leftist
"oh boss dat sounds good....lets go with it"
unintended consquences be damned
Male Marines openly dating each other...great morale booster...yeah thats gonna be great!
"Sgt Joe...you gonna try to rescue Jim or Bill?...well I am sleeping with Bill so lets save him"
costs are always a factor in so called "civil rights".
If the openly flaming homos were to be welcomed into the military to make it
practical it would be very costly to have to build separate living quarters
separate bathrooms, separate battle groups, etc.....it is lunacy!
I am color blind, but it would be ridiculous (and expensive)to demand that everything come with
a color tag so I know what color it is....but that is a violation of my so called "civil rights".
But as a society we have decided the costs are too much to make that equal.
My brother is left-handed which makes him sometimes at disadvantage but we don't demand
everything be left hand friendly. That is a violation of his so called "civil rights". But as a society
we have decided the costs are too much to make that equal.
We claim to be a society that can not discriminate on the basis of creed, color, age, ect....but
car insurance companies regularly discriminate against teenagers based because of their age.
But we have decided as a society that because teens have so many wrecks that it's ok to
discriminate for age in this situation.
20 year olds are adults, they can vote, they can marry, they can be sent to war, but they
can not drink alcohol a legal substance, because we are denying their civil rights based on
age discrimination for a full fledged adult....because as a society we have decided it is prudent
to ok age discrimination in this situation.
the list goes on and on.....
we pick and choose as a society based on multiple reasons...economics, practical-ness, ect..
when to enforce a so called "civil right".
the best and most practical thing is to not allow homos to serve in the US Military at this time
keep your elitist forced coercion social experiments away from our national security.
-
So it is "elitist" to maintain that people of all sexual orientations be treated equally.
That is just stupid. Equal treatment cannot be elitist.
No one is asking for separate bathrooms. As I recall, that was a big deal in the anti-ERA campaign. But I notice that the local Wal*Mart has three bathrooms, one of which is a "family" facility for BOTH GENDERS.
No one complains.
If you can only save one Marine, you can still just save the one. I hardly think this would come up, because it's a stupid hypothetical question. Both Marines are equidistant from the rescue. It will take an absolutely equal effort to save both, but one is a boyfriend of a rescuer.
This is not gonna happen, it is just hypothetical hogwash.
Since dozens of countries have gays and lesbians in their militaries, it is not any sort of experiment: it is simply complying with fairness and good sense.
It is inevitable: there is nothing NOTHING you or I can do to prevent it.
-
So it is "elitist" to maintain that people of all sexual orientations be treated equally.
It is elitist to ignore reality in looney pursuit of political homo agendas.
Equal treatment cannot be elitist.
Yes it can...what if someone brought litigation against strip bars, cheerleading squads, ect
that forced them to hire fatass ugly chicks.....that would be "equal treatment" and it would be stupid!
You leftist wanna pretend everybody is equal and reality says they are not.
No one is asking for separate bathrooms.
Not yet Bozo because the problem you are trying to create does not exist yet.
But as soon as you get this asinine plan rammed down people that oppose it
there will be litigation brought for things like separate bathrooms
You think Muslims and others are gonna want to shower on ships in large
communal bathrooms with a bunch of homos?
There will be lawsuits...
It would be exactly like forcing women to shower with men.
It is insanity....but thats typical of liberalism...use force to enforce insanity.
As I recall, that was a big deal in the anti-ERA campaign.
But I notice that the local Wal*Mart has three bathrooms,
one of which is a "family" facility for BOTH GENDERS.
Exactly...make my point
Now Walmart has to have three bathrooms
One day we gonna have ten different bathrooms for all the freaks you want to give special rights to?
If you can only save one Marine, you can still just save the one.
Exactly...and you dont want "homo sex" to enter the thought process of who to save
You want to make the important decision free of bias from a personal sex relationship
I hardly think this would come up, because it's a stupid hypothetical question.
Both Marines are equidistant from the rescue. It will take an absolutely equal
effort to save both, but one is a boyfriend of a rescuer.
This is not gonna happen, it is just hypothetical hogwash.
You dumbass....the point isnt that this exact situation takes place (although it might)
the point is millions of decisions will be made...critical to our National Security
and we dont want sex and love lives to bias the decision maker's judgement
Since dozens of countries have gays and lesbians in their militaries
yeah and how do most of those stack up?
dozens of countries have pathetic shit militaries too
national security should be just that, not a leftist social experiment lab
it is not any sort of experiment: it is simply complying with fairness and good sense.
Oh bullshit
it is just more of the homo leftist riun our our country agenda
because it makes no sense whatsoever
and is very unfair to the vast majority of hetrosexuals in the military
It is inevitable: there is nothing NOTHING you or I can do to prevent it.
Moronic leftwing agendas to damage our country are inevitable....
we see how california is doing after 40 years of being the Left's testing lab
complerte and utter failure....bankrupt
accepting the deviant repulsive homo agenda is not inevitable
-
yeah and how do most of those stack up?
hmm
it is a intersting question, i really don`t know.
america like most (if not all) countries say thier the greatest.so I can`t really take anybodies word on this issue.
don`t the U.S. military get training from isreal , russia &various other countries.
-
Most of the training with other countries in the US military is with fellow NATO troops,and occasionally Korea and Taiwan. I don;t think joint maneuvers with Russia and Israel are common.
I note that the phony "Christian" is particularly insulting.
But insulting me will have no effect. Homophobic dominance is coming to an end. You are a phony and a troglodite, "Christians" and you will become extinct, and we'll all be better off.
I fail to see how the country has been spoiled in any way by family bathrooms in the Wal*Mart/ Actually, those who use them find then convenient, and others really do not care.
-
actually people should never complain about extra bathrooms. on this subject the more the merrier.
I got a bladder like a hummingbird those family bathrooms are a lifesaver.
I read a study that found that every single dept. store had thier display used as a toilet.
lets just say make sure you check that sofa is clean before you sit on it. it`s alot more common than you think.
-
actually people should never complain about extra bathrooms. on this subject the more the merrier.
hows that gonna work on warships with communal showers?
it is exactly like having men and women to shower together
why does this nuisance need to be forced on the vast majority of hetro soldiers
lets just say make sure you check that sofa is clean before you sit on it.
it`s alot more common than you think.
Gross Kimba!
I used to pee in sinks at concerts
drink for hours
Huge lines in the bathroom...hell I couldn't hold it.
Sink worked good.
I remember once I was peeing in one sink & some guy was puking in the sink right next to me
I remember yelling out in the bathroom "This is Rock-n-Roll Baby!"
I don't really miss those days....well sometimes....but mostly not.
;)
-
I gave up concerts also because of the long lines also.
if you think about it restroom is a impossible situation, the sheer volume simply can`t be handle without problems. porta potties always give me pause.
I can`t say about other folk but when i gotta do a wicked wiz I don`t care who looks. I had females storm the restrooms I`ve used and I just ignore them and keep on going. charity races can`t be brutal.
some females actually think we don`t need bathrooms because we can go to the bushes. despites it`s illegal to do in a public park.
-
I suppose that it would be quite easy to have heteros shower at odd hours and gays at even hours. It does not really take a genius to make this work.
We already have women and men serving together on ships. Why do ships require communal showers, anyway?
-
hold it.
this issue is already been done without any difficulties.
ex. health spas in san francisco.
i was member of a couple of them and gays didn`t bother anyone. so a battleship without a nude hottube,sauna,steam room shouldn`t be an problem at all.
as long as nobody gets drunk it shouldn`t be a problem.
las vegas hotel spas can get very scarey.brrrrrr!!!
she was at least 300lbs. vegas is not all fun
-
she was at least 300lbs. vegas is not all fun
===================================
One assumes that all that lard did not STAY in Vegas.
You have my condolences.
"Christians" seems to have a phobia against gays. The same may be true for much of the Marine Corps.
-
The integration of Females into the military is much less of a success ,in my estimation, than can be officially acnoledged.
They don't throw hand grenades far enough , they require difficult plumbing retrofit in old ships , when one of them gets captured in combat the nation goes bannanas and the rate of unplanned pregnancy is still pretty bad. Harrassment is indeed down, at the cost of constant disipline and effort.
In my opinioon effectiveness is harmed , but any commander who might say so won't because he would just get fired , he instead will put as much lipstick as he must on this pig and turns in the happy reports that congress wants him to turn in.
I don't think that four flavors of Barracks , foxholes , bathrooms and heads are going to be easy to incorporate even with a shift rotation scheme. I don't think that harrassment will be controlled without huge effort and harsh disapline I don't think that favoratism and bias problems in promotion and assignments will be easy to comb out , I think that recruiting will loose the legacy advantage it has with familys of traditional military service , I think that retention will decrease, I think that effectiveness of the armed services will be harmed a lot by the integration of Homosexuals.
I am mildly gratified to find that the President agrees with me , but he seems willing to kick the problem down the road and let it be adressed by the Republican that will replace him, I would rather he would say what he really thinks and I don't think he is.
-
what`s the plumbing changed? both use the toilet?
I`m pretty sure men would like the addition of partitions. us guys like that .
-
I know that I prefer partitions in toilets,as well as in showers.
Doesn't everyone?
The acceptance of gays in the military is inevitable.
-
One of the heads on my ship had four toilets faceing each other in pairs , as though they were seats for a poker game. Only the officers had heads with a door on it.
DD931 is retired now, more modern ships are more commodius.
Ships designed in the last twenty years have his and hers toilets , ships designed next decade may require four gendered shower spaces , berthing , and officers quarters.
I am a bit perplexed at the attitude that seems to minimise the power of sexual attraction and motive as a cause of problems, is there anyone who favors co-ed berthing and sexually integrated barracks that also considers abstenance to be an impractical birth controll method to teach in High school?
-
toilets facing each other?
gay ,straight & female ,I`m pretty sure that`s not a preferable design by the sailors. sounds to me another factor the military thinks soldiers should endure without complaint.
like k rations. tooks decades to figure out hunger will not make soldiers eat them.
-
toilets facing each other?
gay ,straight & female ,I`m pretty sure that`s not a preferable design by the sailors. sounds to me another factor the military thinks soldiers should endure without complaint.
=================================================
This suggests that the Navy men who were supervising the design of the ships were either not paying attention or just plain stupid. It's pretty clear that the designer of the ship was not thinking, either.
-
actually the military can only be partially blamed, alot of these designs are by private contractors who can`t get much on freedback
I mentioned k rations,did you know the policy was 1 can per soldier and since it not the policy to question orders. soldier were literally getting malnutritioned .
I`ve tried M.R.E.,lets just say military rations are still excellent weight loss food.
but it does taste better.
-
ships designed next decade may require four gendered shower spaces , berthing ,
and officers quarters.
Yes our focus should be on bullshit political correct agendas instead of focusing
on the enemy! Lets see build hetro and homo bathrooms-showers, have hetro male
shower time, then hetro female shower time, then male homo shower time, then homo
female shower time....oh and dont forget the cross-dressers may be next and we can
add new schedules for the next set of perversion the left wants to force on
it's victims. It is leftwing insanity. Savage is correct, it is a mental illness.
I am a bit perplexed at the attitude that seems to minimise the power of sexual
attraction and motive as a cause of problems,
It will be a huge "can of worms".
Lots of lawsuits.
I would sue as a hetro exposed to this kind of crap.
It violates my civil rights.
"But Sargent Bill is sleeping with John so I dont wanna go on battle patrol with them,
cant trust they got my back".
Like the military really needs to be dealing with this instead of dealing with enemies.
-
CU do you have any gay people working for you?
-
hmm
if thiers separate shower or schedule it`s doubtful gays are the ones requesting it.
as I said before gyms don`t seem to have this problem so why would the military have this hang up.
-
hmm
if thiers separate shower or schedule it`s doubtful gays are the ones requesting it.
as I said before gyms don`t seem to have this problem so why would the military have this hang up.
I have never been in a gym in which I was expected to ask or to tell.
-
CU do you have any gay people working for you?
I would assume so. We don't have that on the application.
-
toilets facing each other?
gay ,straight & female ,I`m pretty sure that`s not a preferable design by the sailors. sounds to me another factor the military thinks soldiers should endure without complaint.
=================================================
This suggests that the Navy men who were supervising the design of the ships were either not paying attention or just plain stupid. It's pretty clear that the designer of the ship was not thinking, either.
ON the USS Doran (my fathers ship) the enlisted head (there was only one) had a stainless steel trough in which water constantly flowed and the seats were side by side installed on the top of this trough. The ship is intended as a wepon first and a domicile second , more modern ships are more comfortable but they have an imperitive function to win fights no sunken ship is going to be comfortable .
Any necessacery accomodation to fighting power takes precidence to accomodations to crew comfort, this is because the looser in a fight at sea sinks and becomes useless at keeping its inhabiting crew alive.
The compromises we have already made fort the comfort and safety of Women on board are going to cost, perhaps too much. Compromises in anything made for reasons that have nothing to do with the fighting power of the ship should be a distant second prority.
-
hmm if thiers separate shower or schedule it`s doubtful gays are the ones requesting it.
XO suggested it not me.
However I doubt gays would request separate showers, they are not the ones being
forced to shower with people that are attracted to them from a different sexual
persuasion
as I said before gyms don`t seem to have this problem so why would the military
have this hang up.
I bet they do and also gyms do not place people in living quarters and no other choice
bathing quarters....and gyms are not dealing with national security.
-
actually the military can only be partially blamed, alot of these designs are by private contractors who can`t get much on freedback
I mentioned k rations,did you know the policy was 1 can per soldier and since it not the policy to question orders. soldier were literally getting malnutritioned .
I`ve tried M.R.E.,lets just say military rations are still excellent weight loss food.
but it does taste better.
It is just a matter of meeting the bare necessity adequately and squeezeing everything in where it can fit.
Three generations ago sailors were still sleeping alongside their cannons and in hammocks slung in the same space that they would later eat in with the hammocks folded.
As wepons and propulsion systems become more powerfull and automatic it is less necessacery to croud the decks with wepons and less needfull to have large crews to tend the propulsion and wepons. We are better equiped for giveing sailors privacy now but a civillian standard of privacy is still impossible.
-
I just said that any problems with showering would hardly present any unsurmountable problems, and suggested an easy solution.
We are entering the era of mechanized and robotic warfare. Fighter planes are pretty much obsolete: they go too fast, and other countries have no comparable planes to challenge them. New weapons, robotic drones are sure to make huge lumbering things like carriers obsolete.
The Navy has not been all that useful in defending this country, as we seem to be picking enemy countries that have no coastline of late. I am sure it makes the sailors happy to feel that they are defending us from invasion by sea, but they have not actually done that for the past 60 years.
Had the US never gotten involved in Vietnam, everyone concerned would be better off, except for those who make the arms and ammo. And 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians would be alive today. No one defended US free speech or representative government or anything else in Vietnam.
I am pretty sure that the same will turn out from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
-
The Navy has not been all that useful in defending this country, as we seem to be picking enemy
countries that have no coastline of late.
Thousands of sorties have been done in support of ground troops off warships.
The Navy is a huge part of being able to project power all over the world.
And I know that is something you don't like.
Had the US never gotten involved in Vietnam, everyone concerned would be better off,
except for those who make the arms and ammo. And 58,000 Americans and millions of
Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians would be alive today. No one defended US free
speech or representative government or anything else in Vietnam. I am pretty sure that .
the same will turn out from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
Ta Dah!
And the real truth really comes out.
Adding political correctness only makes the military focus on other things than war.
So by supporting the agenda the indirect result is a weakened US Military.
Which is the bottonline of what XO wants.
"Everyone would be better off" if the US Military didnt exist is XO's whacked logic
Except XO would not be living in freedom right now without the US Military dealing
with people that didnt want XO to have the freedom to spew garbage.
-
We are better equiped for giveing sailors privacy now but a civillian standard of privacy is still impossible.
don`t forget safer also. people complain alot but things are a whole lot safer today then in my time. lots of people get injured on the jobs,but today jobs actually make effort to prevent them. lets just say military don`t always take care of thier contract workers very well. common sense has a pretty good injury rate.
-
I just said that any problems with showering would hardly present any unsurmountable problems, and suggested an easy solution.
We are entering the era of mechanized and robotic warfare. Fighter planes are pretty much obsolete: they go too fast, and other countries have no comparable planes to challenge them. New weapons, robotic drones are sure to make huge lumbering things like carriers obsolete.
The Navy has not been all that useful in defending this country, as we seem to be picking enemy countries that have no coastline of late. I am sure it makes the sailors happy to feel that they are defending us from invasion by sea, but they have not actually done that for the past 60 years.
Had the US never gotten involved in Vietnam, everyone concerned would be better off, except for those who make the arms and ammo. And 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians would be alive today. No one defended US free speech or representative government or anything else in Vietnam.
I am pretty sure that the same will turn out from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well.
Sorry but the Navy is what I am best breifed on reguarding liveing conditions.
Washrooms are only one problem and anyone could solve such a problem in isolation , but it is representative of a plethera of problems that interrelate.
-
I am sure we have people in the Navy clever enough to deal with any problem that should arise.
The best use for a Navy these days seems to be preventing piracy and providing disaster relief. Navies are becoming more and more like cavalries: ornamental rather than truly useful.
-
don`t forget space travel
remember kirk is an admiral, I forgot how the navy translate well for space.
-
Navies are becoming more and more like cavalries: ornamental rather than truly useful.
US Navy carrier-based aircraft flew more than 7,000 sorties in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
provided valuable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance of the battlefield in support of ground
and sea assets. US Navy jets provided close-air support for the Marines and soldiers in Baghdad
and countless other places in Iraq. US Navy Sealift ships brought in military equipment to support ground
and air missions. Other Navy ships used their advanced radar systems to augment the shore-based Patriot
missile batteries, providing advanced warning of incoming Iraqi missiles. U.S. and United Kingdom ships
fired more than 800 Tomahawk missiles toward Saddam-regime targets. U.S. and British naval forces
also conducted a significant, comprehensive mine-clearing effort to ensure that waterways to the
Iraqi ports were open for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. The USNS Comfort
hospital ship in the Arabian Sea provided critical medical care for our wounded.
-
cavalries
didn`t the afghans use horses?
not really sure the cavalry is useless today.
-
remember kirk is an admiral, I forgot how the navy translate well for space.
==========================================
Kirk is a fantasy character in a sci-fi series.
When we have warp drive, perhaps a teensy portion of the Navy might make it into space.
In the days of unmanned kamikaze drones, Carriers and their support groups, as well as the planes they carry, become obsolete.
-
I am sure we have people in the Navy clever enough to deal with any problem that should arise.
Sure we do, and you would ignore their opinion about the best solution and force them to accept your solution.
-
remember kirk is an admiral, I forgot how the navy translate well for space.
==========================================
Kirk is a fantasy character in a sci-fi series.
When we have warp drive, perhaps a teensy portion of the Navy might make it into space.
In the days of unmanned kamikaze drones, Carriers and their support groups, as well as the planes they carry, become obsolete.
Manned Kamakazis didn't manage this why should unmanned?
Check out the vulcan phalanx Mk 15 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppI367_v5xY#)
every carrier has these.
-
the line between fiction and science is alittle blurry at times. quite abit of our tech is influence by it(cell phones) terms even(lightspeed,neutrinos)
kirk may not real but I`ll bet if space travel is possible the command section will have some familiar designs that would challenge function.
-
the line between fiction and science is alittle blurry at times. quite abit of our tech is influence by it(cell phones) terms even(lightspeed,neutrinos)
kirk may not real but I`ll bet if space travel is possible the command section will have some familiar designs that would challenge function.
Every crewman of the Enterprise had his own stateroom resembleing a hotel suite.
This is severely fiction, it will probly never become true.
On my ship the berthing compartment I slept in had thirty men on racks stacked four high.
This is an improvement on previous ships , and further improvement is expected , but individual space for crewmen will never be practical.
-
Manned Kamakazis didn't manage this why should unmanned?
==================================================
Are you saying that a carrier cannot be destroyed by an unmanned drone?
I really doubt this.
-
I`ve read in a ben bova book that in the futre many ships command center will look like the enterprise.
on a long range travel on ships, it may require more creative use for the limited space.
-
I`ve read in a ben bova book that in the futre many ships command center will look like the enterprise.
on a long range travel on ships, it may require more creative use for the limited space.
Check out the Phegasus class patroll boat , or one of the Swath experimental craft.
http://www.swath.com/history.htm (http://www.swath.com/history.htm)(http://www.swath.com/History/seashad.jpg)
Pegasus-class PHM hydrofoil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cJKwJHR03U#)[youtube]Pegasus-class PHM hydrofoil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cJKwJHR03U#)[/youtube]
Systems become more automatic and therefor require less personal attention and fewer personell. The smaller crews have more room and comfort on the ships, but haveing to subdevide the ship to accomodate sexual separations severely reverses this trend.
-
Manned Kamakazis didn't manage this why should unmanned?
==================================================
Are you saying that a carrier cannot be destroyed by an unmanned drone?
I really doubt this.
The HMS Sheffeild was struck by an air launched Exocet missle , which is a cruse missle much as you imagine an unmanned drone to be. The result was not a sinking but a fire serious to make the ship unserviceable. The Sheffield was a lot smaller than a Carrier. There was a Carrier there too and the Exocets were also fired in its direction , no hits.
I think you are misreading me , Carriers can be sunk by a viriety of wepons , always could be , but you seem to be saying that a carrier can not be defended, few targets are nearly as well defended as are aircraft carriers.
In WWII manned Kamakazi attacks were devastating but insuficient to blunt our attacks , I don't think that robot attackers and smart bombs are smarter than human pilots yet.
Ultra quiet Submarines are another serious threat to Aircraft carriers , but the best defense against subs are aircraft so carriers are again defensable.
When two carriers are off the coast of North Korea , we will have present more air power than North Korea has entirely and we can replace them in rotation to prevent fatigue. North Korea is ultimately most vunerable to strong air power, a carrier group can blind defenders and ruin their ability to return fire.
-
What I mean is that a 22 bazillion dollar carrier can be knocked out by maybe only a couple of million dollars worth of drones.
Ships can be made more defensible, but they are by nature slow. There are few boats made that can attain the speed an '89 Hyundai Excel.
I see an end to DADT, nonetheless. I read where they are letting women on the crew of submarines now.
Women are smaller and you can fit more of them into tight quarters as a result. Perhaps we could have some all-woman subs. Or even all gay dwarf subs.
-
I gotta checkup on this subject. I could of sworn drone are not that effective since it`s like next to impossible to make them radio hacker proof.
I remember 10 years ago that missle had super long wires attached to them to prevent radio problems.
I`m not sure a solution was made yet
-
It is probably not possible to make it 100% radio hacker proof, but there are all manner of ways to use different and varying frequencies.
-
don`t forget signal jams, I`m not sure that problem has been solved yet.
-
I am pretty sure that any info on vulnerability or lack of same would be classified. It would be advantageous to get Al Qaeda or whoever to waste their time trying to do the impossible.
-
Al Quieda had a little success for a while in intercepting the video signal from Preditor drones , they could actually see what we were watching in real time , I hope this has been fixed.
If the codes and frequiencys of a drone were completely understood by an enemy , the thing could be turned and captured or even used against its own launcher.
Drones are a lot more usefull against a poorly computer literate enemy than they would be against a major power that could support a major hacking and jamming effort.
Robots with AI are not sophisticated enough to use as a wepon yet , but this is going to happen .
-
I`m actually sorta connected with the pentagon, I just asked about the drones.(did I forget to mention i got ALOT of friends in the military)
I`m only allowed to say it`s better than before, but theres room for improvement
-
What I mean is that a 22 bazillion dollar carrier can be knocked out by maybe only a couple of million dollars worth of drones.
Your problem Xo is 2 fold
1: the drones have to get thru a "shipload" of defensive screens, starting with the Combat Air Patrol. The Carrier battle Group is also equiped with Frigates, Destroyers, and principly Cruisers, that can employ blankets of Surface to Air Missles, at ranges that can exceed over hundred miles. Anything that manages to get thru that wall of defense, has to deal with each ship's own Close in Weapon's Systems (CIWS), that can target and fire automatically at any incoming hostile
Meaning, the Bazillion Dollar Carrier is likely to be unscathed from a drone attack, much less a couple. A Carrier's real threat is a torpedo from a foreign attack sub. Much harder to find, even harder to evade, and far more damage from just 1 torpedo, than with a drone
2: your minimizing ot the Navy completely misses the point Cu4 and others have referenced....the ability to literally put a "U.S. air force within striking distance" of any location, within days. Presidents have consistently referenced that when hostilities break, out anywhere on the globe, the 1st military question asked, is not "Where are my stealth bombers?, but "Where are the carriers?" I believe its referred to as force projection, and can only be initially achieved via the Navy
-
I seriously question your knowledge of weapons systems. The military and the weapons builders are constantly putting out all sorts of puffery about how we must piss away trillions on what they have to sell.
Aircraft are becoming obsolete. That means that the planes on aircraft carriers are also becoming obsolete.
It is not "my problem". I am simply commenting on how we waste tons of money on toys for the military.
-
If robotic fighters and bombers become so well developed that manned aircraft cannot compete, won't aircraft carriers be good launching platforms for the robots?
An Aircraft carrier outfitted for drones would not be much diffrent than the aircraft carrier already is , but there would be room to carry many more robot aircraft than there was to carry manned aircraft.
-
I seriously question your knowledge of weapons systems. The military and the weapons builders are constantly putting out all sorts of puffery about how we must piss away trillions on what they have to sell. Aircraft are becoming obsolete. That means that the planes on aircraft carriers are also becoming obsolete.
You can question all you want. The above response of mine isn't opinion however. It is fact
It is not "my problem". I am simply commenting on how we waste tons of money on toys for the military.
Government in general, wastes a ton of $$$$. It's not confined to the military. I just read that right here in L.A., with the massive deficits the city is running, they're starting a new program, involving "Recycling Ambassadors". A 1 million dollar (that they don't have) new program where by these "Recycling Ambassadors" will travel the city, and "educate" its people on how they should better fill their recycling bins
Everyone remember that commercial not too long ago about a fictitious trash police? Well, in L.A. fiction is closing in on reality
-
It is conceivable that if the public separates its trash better, that it could easily save $1,000,000.
-
It's an absurd waste of tax dollars, in a city already running a deficit, paying these "ambassadors" 75K to go to people's homes to tell them "the green one is for recyclables, and the brown one is for yard trash". One of the few things L.A. already does well, is recycle, which includes the ability to separate their waste, into the proper bins
-
in my town recycling is pretty heavy also,but we got new types of crime from it. thiers these band of thieves who go into our recycling bin to steal our recycleable for money. the stupid thing is nobody really has a problem with these theft. except that these guys leave a mess that would make the homeowner charged for littering. also some of these guys are super stupid one guys stole a copper grave marker and try to sell it. despite it`s totally obvious it`s stolen.
-
forgot to mention I now have to wake up early in the morning to put out the trash instead the night before, so I can avoid those thieves. we finally got some laws to stop them,but I`ll wait and see if it works
-
It would be interesting to know how sirs knows the degree of precision to which millions of Angelinos recycle. Perhaps he has taken on the mission of garbage and recyclable inspector, rooting through his neighbors' refuse.
Here in Miami, three years ago, the local Latino Univision station ran a story about how all the recycled stuff was being temporarily mixed with regular trash and garbage due to a major amount of wind damage to the recycling facility. Most of my neighbors, 2 of 10 on my block, never use the blue recyclable drums, only the green garbage and yard waste drums, because what they got from this story years ago as that no one needs to recycle.
-
It would be interesting to know how sirs knows the degree of precision to which millions of Angelinos recycle.
News articles indicated such. Upwards of 65% of the "Angelinos" recycle. So, the city is going to spend an additional 1 BILLION tax dollars, they DON'T have, to send $75K garbage police to your homes, to try and make that 70%
-
Where do you get $1 billion. 8 ambassadors at 75k= 600k a year and the ROI is expected to be $4.5 million a year
-
Error....that should be 1 Million
-
I should also add, those "ambassadors" are merely the foot folk. There's a supervisor over them making around 85K, and IIRC an overall manager making upwards of 100K
-
uhm,
people might want to keep an eye on that program and make sure this is temporary
these projects has a habit of lasting very long time after the problem is solved
it`s one of the reason california is in such a budget grind.
85k a year is a very good encentive to makes things last
-
Unfortunately Kimba, it's a Government program, facilitated by folks who just think they know better. It won't go anywhere without some major outrage by the citizenry.
-
Even at 1 Million the city stands to be ahead of the game by $3.5 million. There is a lot of money in recycling. Especially now that it is single stream.
A tour of Denver's single-stream recycling plant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlslBUpS6c#)
-
I used to date someone whose does these recyling programs. if she`s any clue of the kind of people in charge of this project . Than that program is gonna have very slow progress. she totally did not understand the economic factor of recycling. she didn`t understand people would be more motivated to recycle if money was involved. her whole focus was the enviroment.
nice girl but alittle single-minded.caltrain is a incredible place to meet ladies.
-
Even at 1 Million the city stands to be ahead of the game by $3.5 million. There is a lot of money in recycling. Especially now that it is single stream.
It's 1 million they don't have to begin with, nor is it something "needed", when L.A. already does a good job of recycling
-
then take it up with your councilman. On paper, it looks like a decent investment and since it is paid for with fees from the pickup service anyway it has no effect on the general fund.
For extra credit you can research the differences between enterprise and general fund accounting.
-
On paper, no one should have been able to beat the Detroit Tigers 2 years ago.
In reality, it's bad, both fiscally, spending money they don't have, and in morals, sending tax payed trash police to tell you, what you should be doing better to recycle
-
In reality, it's bad, both fiscally, spending money they don't have, and in morals, sending tax payed trash police to tell you, what you should be doing better to recycle
If you had done your homework you would realize they aren't paid from tax funds, they are paid from service fees.
What is that old saying? "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they aren't entitled to their own facts."
-
If you had done your homework you would realize they aren't paid from tax funds, they are paid from service fees
whats the difference in a "service fee" and a tax?
can someone opt out of this so called "service fee"?
-
can someone opt out of this so called "service fee"?
The fee in LA covers water sewer power (based on usage) and trash pickup. If the house is vacant i would assume you could drop the service.
-
In reality, it's bad, both fiscally, spending money they don't have, and in morals, sending tax payed trash police to tell you, what you should be doing better to recycle
If you had done your homework you would realize they aren't paid from tax funds, they are paid from service fees.
Fees are the same as taxes.....good gravy. In fact, one of the proposistions that DID pass here in CA, made that clear. It's a NEW program Bt. It didn't exist before. It's an additional 1 million dollars citizens have to payout, that wasn't mandated prior. The NEW 75K Government employees didn't exist either, nor did the supervisor's position.
The only opinion here is that it's not a needed program, in any way shape or form, expect it does dovetail with the mentality with those elites that simply know better than the rest of theserf, and need to be better "educated" for their own good......DESPITE the fact they already do a good job of recycling. It'd be marginally different if the city was horrible in such, but they're not
-
SIRS it's kind of funny that the gvt is going to tell us how to recycle and protect the environment
when the US Federal Government is the biggest polluter in the country.
Did you know the US Military is exempt from many environmental laws?
And some of the worst toxic dumps are on military bases/facilities.
It's funny how that usually works.
The "know-it-alls" say one thing and live another way.
Like George Bush's Crawford Ranch is much more enviro friendly than loudmouth Gore's house.
-
Here is some more info on LA's DWP
http://san.lacity.org/solid_resources/refuse/services/equipment_charge.htm (http://san.lacity.org/solid_resources/refuse/services/equipment_charge.htm)
-
and......?
But to answer Cu4, it's a perfect window into why this state has fallen so far, so fast. San Fran and LA, and the gerrymandered Democrat majority that run Sacramento have absolutely driven this state into ruin.....with the irony that most, if not all their policies are "for our own good"
-
Kimba was on the right track.
Recycling isn't as much an environmental issue as it is an income stream for cash strapped municipalities.
-
Kimba was also right that this should merely be a temporary program to deal with a "problem". Otherwise its far too easy to abuse it, in order to generate more bureacracy and income for more Government employees
-
Kimba was also right that this should merely be a temporary program to deal with a "problem".
So where is it written that this isn't a temporary program, even if it is successful and recycling profits do go up, to help alleviate the cash shortage "problems".
-
as outside observers,we would not know.But a 85k income is good incentive to wanna stay as long as possible.
-
when they started the US Income tax wasn't it also supposed to be "temporary"
-
Kimba was also right that this should merely be a temporary program to deal with a "problem".
So where is it written that this isn't a temporary program, even if it is successful and recycling profits do go up, to help alleviate the cash shortage "problems".
Let's just say I have a grasp of current reality, as it relates to Government programs in this state. Especially the ones run by Democrats
-
when they started the US Income tax wasn't it also supposed to be "temporary"
The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War.
In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections?to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945. [8][3] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1962. [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax)
-
Let's just say I have a grasp of current reality, as it relates to Government programs in this state. Especially the ones run by Democrats
Then i recommend that any potential new voters who become eligible in your state be given a strong compatible platform and incentive to vote GOP. Triangulation is not a bad strategy.
-
Those weasels always use "temporary" to sneak in their evil!
"During the American Civil War, the first U.S. income tax was created,
but this one was meant only as a temporary measure to help pay
for the war. It was repealed in 1872."
"Personal Income Tax Introduced in U.S. (1913): At first, income taxes
were considered a temporary tax to help raise money for war"
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/qt/incometax.htm (http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/qt/incometax.htm)
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/20/temporary-taxes-are-rarely-temporary/ (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/20/temporary-taxes-are-rarely-temporary/)
-
keep in mind the first income tax was created by the GOP
-
Let's just say I have a grasp of current reality, as it relates to Government programs in this state. Especially the ones run by Democrats
Then i recommend that any potential new voters who become eligible in your state be given a strong compatible platform and incentive to vote GOP. Triangulation is not a bad strategy.
The Gerrymandering of the state has largely made that an impossibility. And now with the passage of Prop 25, and the defeat of 23, the Unions haven't been in this strong a position of controlling a state's government, in quite a while
-
well
here`s abit of useless trivia about democrats and republicans. in the past the liberal and conservatives veiws are opposite to the parties todays. when I say I`m a conservative democrat I`m meant my views are more classic than contemporary.
-
And now with the passage of Prop 25, and the defeat of 23, the Unions haven't been in this strong a position of controlling a state's government, in quite a while
And so?
People won't vote your way unless it is their best self interest to vote your way.
What percentage of the workforce in Cali is union? 20-25%?
Work the other 75%.
As if unions are a given to vote dem. Reagan didn't think so, neither did the teamsters.
-
You're obviously not paying attention Bt. The state is in an absolute freefall, and the electorate just voted in an all Dem Executive brance, to compliment no Democrat incumbant that lost a seat in the Legislature to a Republican
-
and?
Change the dynamics of the game instead of whining about it. Where are the voters, how do you get them?
Is the conservative philosophy so bankrupt that it can't be sold on it's own merits?
-
Is the conservative philosophy so bankrupt that it can't be sold on it's own merits?
==============================================
California has a big mess due to its own voters, both conservatives and liberals alike.
They passed a proposition in the 1980's that made it necessary to have a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes. There are a rather pitiful minority of conservatives in the legislature, but more than a third, so taxes cannot be raised.
Voters can, however, enact programs with a simple majority. The legislature can raise salaries with a simple majority.
So the state can raise expenditures without raising revenues. It is a bipartisan mess that appears to have only one solution: throw out a few more Republicans.
They could also throw out a huge number of Democrats, but that is far less likely.
Jerry Brown is smarter than Arnold. Let's see what he does.
-
I hope Cali makes it even harder on business so they'll move to my state!
(sorry sirs and kramer)
-
I hope Cali makes it even harder on business so they'll move to my state!
(sorry sirs and kramer)
Aren't the demographics for both states about the same?
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/895dabf0.jpg)
-
texas!
a buddy of mine was raised in europe and had all the stuck up attitude against american foods. then he did a job in dallas and eat some of the food there and totally did a 180. he totally love southern cuisine.
he even learn to eat in our speed,it`s still not easy for him to eat that way but it`s worth it to eat the food.
some day I gotta good to you neck of the woods and try it out.
-
and? Change the dynamics of the game instead of whining about it. Where are the voters, how do you get them? Is the conservative philosophy so bankrupt that it can't be sold on it's own merits?
The GOP has been turned into a caricature of its once conservative foundation, within this state. You have a few outstanding conservatives, but alas, the GOP establishement ususally runs to the middle and supports folks like Whitman & Aunold. To much belief in compromise as the solution
But the point I made prior stands unrefuted, as the the control both the Dems & Unions have on this state's Government
Oh, great post, Cu4
-
You have a few outstanding conservatives, but alas, the GOP establishement ususally runs to the middle and supports folks like Whitman & Aunold. To much belief in compromise as the solution
But the point I made prior stands unrefuted, as the the control both the Dems & Unions have on this state's Government
Guess that is why they have elections. And primaries.
But you still didn't answer why the conservative message in California is so distasteful to the majority of voters, yet in Texas that message is sopped up like sauce on a biscuit.
-
Again, someone's not paying attention. We just had elections. The conservative message is great. The politicians and GOP establishment here however believe compromise is key. And ironically why they keep losing, though the union message, power, money, and influence can't be ignored either
-
The politicians and GOP establishment here however believe compromise is key. And ironically why they keep losing
So even California conservatives don't believe in the superior merits of their arguments, what with the tendency to run candidates that compromise at the drop of a donation dime. Obviously the Cali voters are not being presented a clear choice.
-
Obviously
-
Obviously
Is there another reason that Cali GOP voters do not elect conservative politicians to represent them in the general elections, and instead opt for compromisers? Is it the message or the messengers. And don't tell me the state party has so much control over who runs in the primary that only compromisers need apply. We have seen that doesn't hold true in other states, is it a Cali thing?
-
Union, power, money, and influence. Not to mention the most densely populated (read voters) regions are being properly led to the slaughter (read, more and more government programs, they end up relying on, and "entitled to")
Whitman won the primary because she presented herself as a hard core fiscal & social conservative. As soon as she won the primary she literally had whiplash in her effort to compromise those principles to get to the middle
Same with Aunold
-
Union, power, money, and influence.
And what do unions have to do with GOP primaries.
As for Whitman, are you saying the conservative message in the primaries was not sufficient enough for her to win a general. Why did the conservative message fall on deaf ears, in Cali, is it flawed? Was it simply not in the best interest of the majority of Californians to embrace her message? Why the persuasion gap?
-
Seriously Bt, are you not paying attention?? I addressed Whitman and the primaries. Her run to the center demonstrated very little credibility in adhering to the conservative principles she won with her primary victory. She was running nearly identical ads in different languages, presenting completely different intentions. Nothing wrong with the Conservative message, and everything wrong with the messenger
But to add salt to the wound, the unions piled on the $$$ and paid for Gloria Alred to smear Whitman with her former houskeeper, upon a constituency she had a fairly good chunk of. But by then, her "message" had already lost most of its credibility. As I said, salt to the wound
-
BT I am not sure what your agenda is this time,
but if you are seriously asking the simple question
of why Texas is more conservative than Cali even
if the Hispanic population is about the same, personally
I think it is because: #1 the white population of Texas
is much more conservative than the white poplulation
in Cali thus denying an unstoppable voting block....in Cali
you have liberal whites and Hispanics forming an unstoppable
voting block...and #2 in Texas you have state constitutional safe-guards
that were put in place by the Tx state founding fathers that realized way
back when that half-witted control freak liberals were coming
and thus they placed in the state constitution "No State Income
Tax" and only a part time legislature...part timers can do less
"know it all" damage than full time know-it-alls!
(http://mcmoy.com/images/tex-flag1.gif)
-
I think by nature hispanics ( their predominate religions and patriarchal culture might have a lot to do with that) are naturally more conservative than many other minorities. Perhaps in Texas they are given the room to flourish. In California perhaps they have bought into the victimology mindset that is so prevalent with guilt ridden liberals and have surrendered to the state. I'm not sure what Conservative Republicans could offer than that might lessen their dependence on state programs.
When i lived in California Pat Brown was governor, Kennedy was President and Nixon would lose his race for Governor, the Assembly did not meet year round at that time, the Hispanics in my neighborhood owned small businesses, gas stations, construction companies, some in the foothills owned small ranches etc. Mike Sanchez and I had a corner on the market for lawn mowing in our neighborhood. They were as middle class as the rest of us.
Wonder what happened to their American Dream. Did they become alienated by the reaction of their neighbors to the farm workers strike led by Caesar Chavez? Was that the dividing wedge? What happened after 1963 that made group identity more important than individual pursuit of the American Dream. And why was that change of mindset successful in California but not nearly as successful in other regions of the country.
I really don't have an agenda. I do have a lot of questions as to why it seems foolhardy to expect the pendulum to swing back to the right in the Golden State.
-
I guess "agenda" was not really the correct word...
more like "not sure where ya going with this"
I really can't see Cali "ever" swinging back conservative...
Sure Texas has as many hispanics as Cali
but Texas has lots more conservative whites than Cali
I think because of demographics Texas will start going dem within 10-12 years.
it's simple math....
it's the end game of intentional border chaos and allowed illegal invasion
Older whites die off
replaced by more and more poor, low skilled, hispanics
Sure Bush managed to make some inroads with Tx hispanics when he was governor
But poor low skilled immigrants are generally going to vote for the party that promises gvt goodies
as far as not being as successful elsewhere in the country
you just wait....this is a game in progress
it's a ticking time bomb....
and I think eventually the US if it holds together....because of demographics
will look a lot like Cali....a permanent democrat majority
eventually though....the creative producers will look to escape
-
Texas is a Southern state. Texas had slaves. Texas protestants are more likely to be evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Baptists than Californians.
California has more diversity in everything: more diverse geography, more diverse population, more diverse weather, more diverse industry.
-
The Essence and Future of Texas vs. California
by Tory Gattis 11/21/2009
I know there have been a lot of articles and references to Texas vs. California recently in this blog, but, well, there's a new one with some genuinely new contributions to the argument ("America's Future: California vs. Texas", Trends magazine, hat tip to Jeff). And it says some nice things about Houston too, so how can I pass on it? The beginning of the article is here - including an overview of both states' situations - but here are some key additional excerpts:
...Both the Brookings Institution and Forbes Magazine studied America?s cities and rated them for how well they create new jobs. All of America?s top five job-creating cities were in Texas. It's more than purely economics and regulation can explain, though. Texas ? and Houston in particular ? has a broad mix of Hispanics, whites, Asians, and blacks with virtually no racial problems. Texas welcomes new people and exemplifies genuine tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina hit, Houston took in 100,000 people. Not surprisingly, Houston has more foreign consulates than any American city other than New York and Los Angeles.
...
But, how did this happen? What?s wrong with California, and what?s right with Texas? It really comes down to four fundamental differences in the value systems embodied in these states:
First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the '80s, California?s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net. This unrelenting commitment to big government has led to a huge tax burden and triggered a mass exodus of jobs. The Trends Editors examined the resulting migration in ?Voting with Our Feet,? in the April 2008 issue of Trends.
Second, Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a ?religious sacrament? rather than as one component among many in maximizing people's quality of life. As we explained in ?The Road Ahead for Housing,? in the June 2009 issue of Trends, environmentally-based land-use restriction centered in California played a huge role in inflating the recent housing bubble. Similarly, an unwillingness to manage ecology proactively for man?s benefit has been behind the recent epidemic of wildfires.
Third, California has placed ?ethnic diversity? above ?assimilation,? while Texas has done the opposite. ?Identity politics? has created psychological ghettos that have prevented many of California?s diverse ethnic groups and subcultures from integrating fully into the mainstream. Texas, on the other hand, has proactively encouraged all the state?s residents to join the mainstream.
Fourth, beyond taxes, diversity, and the environment, Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents. Meanwhile, California?s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies.
They go on to make six forecasts:
1. ...expect to see California?s loss of jobs to Nevada accelerate...
2. ...expect to see a backlash in California and across the country against regulations, especially green initiatives that can?t clearly demonstrate a positive ROI...
3. Watch for the smart money, including venture capital, to begin migrating to Texas for start-ups in many areas, including energy, info-tech, manufacturing, and biotech. Just as Delaware?s tax laws once encouraged numerous businesses to incorporate there, even when they had no connection to the state, Texas will become a magnet for new businesses by offering cheap land, a favorable regulatory environment, a business-friendly culture, and a large supply of skilled labor. Unless California revamps dramatically, expect to see its economy languish, even as the recovery takes off.
4. To make its business climate even more business-friendly, Texas will invest heavily in secondary education and work hard to attract the best talent to its research universities (note the recent Tier 1 proposition and funding). Keep an eye especially on the University of Texas, which already has a first-rate campus and faculty. Within 10 years, UT, as the locals call it, may well rival Stanford or Berkeley.
5. Other states will adopt tort reform measures pioneered in Texas. Unlike California and most other states, Texas has been aggressive in minimizing the enormous burden of frivolous lawsuits...
6. Look to Texas to become a cutting-edge cultural mecca. Houston has always offered a vibrant cultural scene, ever since the Alley theater company was founded there in 1947 by Nina Eloise Whittington Vance. In the 1950s, John and Dominique de Menil moved to Houston with one of the most significant private collections of art in the world and began donating art and money to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. Both institutions have grown to world-class status since then. In the coming years, this trend will spread to the major cities of Texas (take that, Dallas!), attracting the best talent and money and shifting the cultural balance of the nation away from New York and San Francisco.
I can personally vouch for #5. I was just visiting my brother out in CA, and a friend of his with a small store was being hit with a large disability discrimination lawsuit for a minor oversight (handicapped parking was marked on the ground and had the requisite walkways and ramps, but lacked a pole sign). Evidently this has become a cottage industry in California, where lawyers guide the disabled through stores looking for very minor violations of a vague law (things like high shelves or tables), then sue (expecting a quick settlement, of course). Under CA law, discrimination guilt is assumed if there's anything in the store the disabled can't do that a normal customer can do, regardless of the availability of employees to provide assistance. His friend was clearly exasperated with the unwinnable situation. Just plain nuts.
As Jim Goode says, "You might give some serious thought to thanking your lucky stars you're in Texas."
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001211-the-essence-and-future-texas-vs-california (http://www.newgeography.com/content/001211-the-essence-and-future-texas-vs-california)
-
>>Texas at the Top of Big Cities
Our list of best places among big cities is dominated this year, as last, by Texas, with the Lone Star State producing fully half of our top 10. This year, like last, the No. 1 big city (those with a more than 450,000 non-farm jobs) was Austin, Texas, which enjoys the benefits of being both the state capital and the home to the University of Texas, as well as a large, and growing, tech sector. Also beneficial is the Lone Star states two leading exports, steers and queers. <<
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001517-the-best-cities-for-jobs (http://www.newgeography.com/content/001517-the-best-cities-for-jobs)
-
Very interesting BT.....
I have a brother in the San Fran area and about ten years ago my brother and I helped him get in the same
business we are in here in Texas. It has been amazing to watch. My brother in San Fran is liberal but even he
says "I can't believe how anti-business the gvt is out here....they hound me to death". Here in Texas we
rarely see gvt bureaucrats, in San Fran he gets regular visits by all kinds of "gvt nannies" checking on him.
I think I told you about when my brother recently bought a world famous Olhausen Pool Table.
He talked on the telephone with one of the Olhausen brothers. My brother said "I thought you guys were in California?".
Mr. Olhausen said "we were, but we had to move, the bureaucrats were beating us to death...too much
wood dust in the plant, too much this, too little that....blah blah....so we picked up and moved to Tennessee
where the state gvt is not so anti-business...we love it here".
http://www.olhausenbilliards.com/THE+STORY/id/43/ (http://www.olhausenbilliards.com/THE+STORY/id/43/)
It's sad for California. The Left is not going to have anyone left to tax!
-
The people are't going to get it here, and I do believe it's past too late. And guess which party has been in control of the Government of its direct decline, all this time?
Yet it also says something when in a time of incredible anger at Government, for their excessive deficit spending, mountains of debt being placed on the tax payers of the future, and policies that have significantly exacerbated our unemployment, IIRC, not 1 state Democrat lost their incumbant position, in a race against someone else. And the Executive Branch is now entirely Democrat
What's wrong with that picture? To me, it's a picture that demonstrates that we've passed a tipping point, here in this once great state, and why I'm opining that it's too late. The State is going to have to completely go to hell now, for the electorate to wise up. At least in that, they are making significant progress
-
I thought the redistricting problem was handled by Proposition 11 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_11_%282008%29) and the passage of Proposition 20 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_20,_Congressional_Redistricting_%282010%29)?
-
Too little, too late, I'm afraid
-
Too little, too late, I'm afraid
How so?
-
Answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/obama-lawyers-want-the-military-to-continue-to-bar-openly-gay-people!/msg114158/#msg114158). The tipping point has been achieved, punctuated by the defeat of prop 23 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)) and the passing of prop 25 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_25,_Majority_Vote_for_Legislature_to_Pass_the_Budget_(2010)). 23 kills what job incentives we may have been able to kick start. 25 makes the GOP all but a hood ornament. Prop 26 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_(2010)) is the only thread left holding the state, while at the same time debunking your idea that fees aren't really taxes
-
Not answered. Your complaint
But to answer Cu4, it's a perfect window into why this state has fallen so far, so fast. San Fran and LA, and the gerrymandered Democrat majority that run Sacramento have absolutely driven this state into ruin.....with the irony that most, if not all their policies are "for our own good"
was that through incumbent protection gerrymandering the dem assembly could perpetuate their majority. Propositions 11 and 20 took those duties away from the legislature and gave them to a citizens panel comprised of 5 dems 5 republicans and 4 independents. Seems like the incumbent protection scheme is broken.
So i'm not sure why you think it impossible for the pendulum to swing the other way. All the GOP has to do is convince the majority of voters in a given district that their platform is best suited for the people of California. It is, isn't it?
-
Taxes versus fees
When we think of government revenues, we tend to immediately think of taxes. But government also levies many fees and direct charges. N.C. State University economist Mike Walden describes the difference between taxes and fees.
?Taxes are paid for government services that are supposed to really help everyone. So the idea is ? we pay taxes and they go into a pot where they are funding things like K-12 education (and) roads," says Dr. Walden, a professor of agricultural and resource economics. "Those would be two good examples of where all of us directly or indirectly benefit."
"Fees, on the other hand, are paid for government services that directly help that specific person. So, for example, a college student pays tuition, that?s a fee, and the college student obviously is getting the direct benefit of the education," he adds. "Or a driver who parks at a municipal garage pays a few because they are using that parking space. Or a household pays a fee to the city for city water.
"So the difference here is whether the person who is paying the charge directly benefits: In that case, it?s a fee. Or if they benefit as well as everyone else benefits, that?s a tax.
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/calscommblogs/economic/archives/2007/05/the_difference.html (http://www.ncsu.edu/project/calscommblogs/economic/archives/2007/05/the_difference.html)
-
And in both cases, they're payment to the Government, mandated, or else. But yes, it was answered. Whether you wish to accept the answer or not, is your choosing, but the "pendulum" at this juncture is not likely to swing back, until there's a complete collapse in the states economic structure
But as I said before as well, under Democrat control, we are very much on the right path for that to happen. and under Brown, we may get there that much faster, as well
-
And in both cases, they're payment to the Government, mandated, or else.
The payee doesn't matter, the definition does. Otherwise there was no need for Proposition 25 or the numerous court cases challenging the misuse of fees to generate general fund revenue.
By saying that fees are the same as taxes shows that you agree with the misapplication of fees by the politicians you rail against, ie making moot your argument against taxes hidden as fees.
Whether you wish to accept the answer or not, is your choosing, but the "pendulum" at this juncture is not likely to swing back, until there's a complete collapse in the states economic structure
But as I said before as well, under Democrat control, we are very much on the right path for that to happen. and under Brown, we may get there that much faster, as well
Perhaps the real difference between Californians and Texans is that Texans are willing to fight for what they believe in.
I am really surprised by your defeatist attitude.
-
sirs likes to grumble rather a lot.
-
I'd rather grumble accurately than those who would piss & moan inaccurately
-
Considering that we have had three Presidents and one Chief Justice from California and all 4 were Republicans, I'm not sure if your claim that the Dems have a stranglehold on California is completely accurate.
Your claim that gerrymandered election districts designed by the dem majority in the legislature to perpetuate their majority is not accurate.
Demographically speaking, California is about the same as Texas, so demographics is not the problem.
Perhaps the problem is with the candidates that conservatives field. Perhaps they are not effective in delivering the message that not only differentiates them from the opposition but also convinces the voting public that their vision is the best way forward.
-
Considering everything i'm referencing stems from the legislature, and just "coming" from CA means pretty much squat, I'd say my reference to a perfect example of what can happen to a society when left in near total control of liberal Democrats, is spot-on
And you're absolutely right, Demographics isn't the problem. GOVERNMENT is. And when rigged to keep the same party in power of the pursestrings, you get what you see here in CA.
I know you really want to harp on the supposed lack of a good conservative message. As I keep trying to explain, and providing copious examples of such, it's not the message, its the messenger
-
Then i suggest California Partisan Conservatives concentrate on taking back the legislature one district at a time.
And if, as you claim, the message is not the problem, then i suggest California Partisan Conservatives improve upon their selection of their messengers, which i'm pretty sure the dem controlled legislative body in Sacramento, has zip to do with.
-
Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions
And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General
But your suggestions are appreciated
-
Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions
What do the unions have to do with an independent redistricting commission made up of 5 dems, 5 gop's and 4 independents?
And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think proper messenger selection can be helped. And certainly the opposition party is not to be blamed for your parties mistakes.
But your suggestions are appreciated
You're welcome
-
Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions
What do the unions have to do with an independent redistricting commission made up of 5 dems, 5 gop's and 4 independents?
It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be. And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place.
And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office
I think proper messenger selection can be helped. And certainly the opposition party is not to be blamed for your parties mistakes.
You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party. I'm an Indep with no party affiliation. I do tend to support conservative candidates & policy, which finds prescious little in any other party, outside of the GOP & Libertarian
-
It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be. And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place.
Why not? Proposition 11 was passed 2 years ago.
Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office
The candidate doesn't have to run twice. The party has to nominate them.
Are you saying the GOP is a terrible judge of character? Or that they don't pay attention to the track record of folks they nominate for district level office. Most of these folks come from the ranks of city councils, mayors or county commissioners.
You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party.
Then what are you complaining about? If you aren't in the game, you are in the bleachers.
-
It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be. And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place.
Why not? Proposition 11 was passed 2 years ago.
IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place. That's why not. The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades
Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office
The candidate doesn't have to run twice. The party has to nominate them.
The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase. You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.
Are you saying the GOP is a terrible judge of character?
A little, but more so the Candidate was all Uber-Reagan running in the Primaries. Arnold was a Rhino, but said the right things, and we had just endured a disaster of a Democratic Governor. Whitman was a complete unknown, and she said the right things. What are you proposing....polygraphs??
You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party.
Then what are you complaining about? If you aren't in the game, you are in the bleachers.
I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game. Nice try, though
-
IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place. That's why not. The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades
Why not? Proposition 20 was an extension to the duties proscribed by Proposition 11. Perhaps they are awaiting 2010 census data upon which to act and form the commission then.
But in the meantime, with the present system, didn't the GOP have the same ability to gerrymander if and when they held majorities?
The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase. You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.
The party backs the primary winners, the party apparatus also signals which would be the preferred candidate, presumably with prior vetting. Not saying that is always the case, see O'Donnell and Miller.
Were Meg and Carly backed by the tea party?
I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game. Nice try, though
Then perhaps you should let the GOP worry about who their candidates are. Not sure that you have standing to do more than vote for the presented candidates that best suit your interests.
-
IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place. That's why not. The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades
Why not? Proposition 20 was an extension to the duties proscribed by Proposition 11.
ASKED and ANSWERED. IIRC the commission is STILL not been put together. So, your question as to why hasn't been done yet lays squarely on.....you guessed it.....THE GOVERNMENT. Whether they're waiting for 2010 census data is speculation. The point is there's no commission yet to even start addressing the severely gerrymandered districts
But in the meantime, with the present system, didn't the GOP have the same ability to gerrymander if and when they held majorities?
On paper, yea. And.........? Wouldn't have made it right had they done so as well
The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase. You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.
Were Meg and Carly backed by the tea party?
Not publically. I liked Carly. I do believe Palin had some fine things to say about Carly, as well. She stayed consistent, and on message. Meg was all over the ball park, but pulled a hard right to win the primary. Point being, they ran on a conservative platform, that one them the primary. If they were to run a 2nd time, I'll know what to expect, and won't be "fooled twice"
I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game. Nice try, though
Then perhaps you should let the GOP worry about who their candidates are.
Perhaps, I'll focus on getting the GOP to push candidates I think are more appropriate for the state, if you don't mind
-
I'd rather grumble accurately than those who would piss & moan inaccurately
You grumble unintelligibly, mostly. Every discussion ends with you changing the subject, adding irrelevant details and silly remarks. Accuracy is not your forte.
-
I'll focus on getting the GOP to push candidates I think are more appropriate for the state, if you don't mind
How do you plan to do that, being an independent and all?
-
By supporting Conservative Candidates that run as a Republican
-
*piss....moan....piss some more......yada, blah, repeat*
Did you say something useful, constructive, or facilitative of debate, Xo?
Didn't think so
-
By supporting Conservative Candidates that run as a Republican
SIRS I am not "on your case" and I agree with you mostly in this thread
but just curious, if it's not too personal, you claim to not be a Republican
so which non-Republican candidates did you support with donations or
actually vote for in this last election?
-
No conservative non-Republicans were in the running, so my votes went to:
Whitman (because the alternative was far too horrible, to consider)
Carly
Cooley
Strickland
Dunn
No on 19, 21, 24, 25, & 27
Yes on 22, 23, & 26
-
Ok SIRS that makes sense. Like you Party means nothing to me. I would just as soon
vote for a conservative Democrat as a conservative Republican, except if my vote for
the rare conservative Democrat would mean the liberal Democrats would gain control
of a legislative body.
-
Precisely