... stop letting CA draw water from other states, make them pay their own way and see how that works out. Just imagine if the other states cut off the water supply and how CA agriculture would fare.
Where exactly does all of the water for California come from? Are you trying to convince me that the Colorado River covers all of us? That without the Hoover Dam, California would be an arid wasteland? My mind is boggled. Please educate me, or yourself.
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Where exactly does all of the water for California come from? Are you trying to convince me that the Colorado River covers all of us? That without the Hoover Dam, California would be an arid wasteland? My mind is boggled. Please educate me, or yourself.
Jeff, I believe we both know the Colorado River supplies huge amounts of water to Southern California. Yes, essentially, your agricultural base would be destroyed if you lost that water. But, you fail to mention the foreign and investor money from other states, no country or state stands alone. And have yet to answer the off shore drilling question.You came into this thread looking for an argument, I could not care less about your boggled mind. Have fun on your own.
Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
07:49 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
I had no idea that southern California made up our "agricultural base". California is a big, big state. And the majority of California's agricultural production is located north of Santa Barbara. So shut off the Hoover Dam. Be a prick about it if you have the chance. Do you think that water and power from Hoover Dam is donated to the city of Los Angeles? Who are you going to sell that power and water to? Better yet, what replaces the revenue that was generated from the sale of those utilities? But let's say that you take away that single source. That may turn Los Angeles into a dusty wasteland. At least until they star desalinating that big ass puddle of water, the Pacific Ocean. There are still the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Are you going to take away our runoff? Are you going to use a laser to dry out our many reservoirs? How are you planning on turning all of California into an arid wasteland of socialist dystopia?
And what about "foreign investors"? Are we bench racing economies? What am I supposed to answer? Off shore drilling? Nothing bad can happen there, right?
I guess what I consider a healthy mature discussion of facts, you consider an argument. I don't consider myself argumentative, but if you want to read that into my intent, I guess that is your prerogative. Have fun with that.
[This message has been edited by WhiteDevil88 (edited 07-06-2010).]
I had no idea that southern California made up our "agricultural base". California is a big, big state. And the majority of California's agricultural production is located north of Santa Barbara. So shut off the Hoover Dam. Be a prick about it if you have the chance. Do you think that water and power from Hoover Dam is donated to the city of Los Angeles? Who are you going to sell that power and water to? Better yet, what replaces the revenue that was generated from the sale of those utilities? But let's say that you take away that single source. That may turn Los Angeles into a dusty wasteland. At least until they star desalinating that big ass puddle of water, the Pacific Ocean. There are still the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Are you going to take away our runoff? Are you going to use a laser to dry out our many reservoirs? How are you planning on turning all of California into an arid wasteland of socialist dystopia?
And what about "foreign investors"? Are we bench racing economies? What am I supposed to answer? Off shore drilling? Nothing bad can happen there, right?
I guess what I consider a healthy mature discussion of facts, you consider an argument. I don't consider myself argumentative, but if you want to read that into my intent, I guess that is your prerogative. Have fun with that.
No, the power and water are not donated--they are paid for, but it is not as if the donors have a choice in the matter. Nor, did they have a choice in the matter regarding the water back when the dams were built. Emminent Domain is a wonderful thing, as long as you are on the recieving end. There are bukoos of markets for excess electrical power both within the states where the hydro plant is and outside those states, and California would be far more on the losing end of a battle regarding loss of elec power or water. Hoover can't begin to supply Calif's needs---even Texas sells excess electrical power to Calif. Having spent 2 years in a place where all water came from desal plants, I have to say it is not all it's cracked up to be, unless tech has made exponential advancements since then. Cook, drink, bathe--that's it. No yard watering--no vehicle washing-no swimming pools--ya just prayed it rained occassionally. That, was this nation's 1st large "modern' desal plant, originally located in Point Loma Calif, then disassembled, moved, and reassembled at US Naval Base Guantanamo Bay Cuba. It was forever breaking down, and had a very small capacity.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
10:30 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35931 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by maryjane:even Texas sells excess electrical power to Calif.
Jumping in, in mid conversation, remember Enron. California may be a big state ... a big big state, but, the bigger they are, the faster they fall. Edit The harder they fall.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
10:39 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Under the current imperfect administration of the universe, most new ideas are false, so most ideas for improvements make matters worse. Given California's parlous condition, making matters worse there requires ingenuity, but voters managed to do so last Tuesday.
Actually, 8.9 percent of eligible voters did. By a margin of 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent, they passed Proposition 14, the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act. Proponents outspent opponents 20-1. Of the approximately $4.6 million spent promoting the measure, $2 million came from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political committee.
He seems to consider this reform his defining achievement, which, in a sense, it is. The percentage of Californians who today approve of Schwarzenegger is a number beginning with 2. But now California has adopted a candidate selection process that is intended to nominate candidates like him.
Proposition 14 is an attempt to change government policies by changing the political process. Henceforth, in primary elections that select candidates for most state and federal offices — including almost one-eighth of the U.S. House of Representatives — all voters, regardless of party registration, or those who have "decline to state" status (no party identification — 20.2 percent of Californians), will receive the same ballot. All candidates for a particular office will be listed, regardless of party affiliation, if any, which they may choose to state, or not.
The two receiving the most votes will be on November ballots, regardless of the desires of the political parties the nominees may claim to represent.
Proposition 14's purpose is to weaken and marginalize parties, traditionally the principal vehicles for voter education and mobilization. It would strip them of their core function of selecting candidates who represent the preferences of their members. It infringes the First Amendment protection of freedom of association, which includes the right of parties not to associate with candidates they do not select.
Supporters of "top two" primaries think parties are too representative — too responsive to their "ideological" members. These are usually the parties' most interested, informed, and active members. But such people are, say Proposition 14 supporters, tiresome because they are not congenial centrists.
Being "partisan," they do not practice the bipartisanship that enables government to "get things done." Among California "centrists," getting things done usually means raising taxes to pay for other things government has done.
In areas where Democrats or Republicans dominate — there are more and more of them as the nation increasingly sorts itself out into clusters of the like-minded — the November ballots will offer voters a choice of two Democrats or two Republicans. Voters with sensitive political palates can savor faintly variant flavors of liberalism or conservatism.
Voters who prefer their political menu seasoned with the spices provided by minor parties are pretty much out of luck. Under Proposition 14, such parties — Green, Libertarian, etc. — which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those by failing to run first or second in primaries.
But, then, blandness is the point of this reform. It seeks to generate a homogenized political class, one not lumpy with liberals and conservatives who, being conviction politicians, do not always play well with others.
Does America need a cure for "partisanship," the supposed disease of leaders such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson at the birth of America's party system? Does America need a nominating process that narrows choices by stacking the deck against minor parties?
Does it need a process that produces "pragmatic" candidates who, because they have no ballast of "ideology," aka ideas, and are not rendered "rigid" by convictions, can "reach across the aisle" to achieve compromises congenial to the entire political class? Does America need a nominating process that, suppressing candid partisanship, will tempt stealthy partisans to game the system by voting a weak candidate into the top two?
Putting Proposition 14 on the ballot was the price paid for the vote of Abel Maldonado. He was a Republican state senator last year when three Republican votes were needed to enable Democrats to pass another tax increase that supposedly would solve the budget crisis that preceded the current one. Maldonado also was rewarded by Schwarzenegger, who made him lieutenant governor.
Maldonado plays nicely with others. He is not rigidly ideological: He worked across the aisle to reach a compromise that gave the political class access to more of other people's money. He, like his patron, the governor, is, presumably, pretty much the sort of pragmatist Proposition 14 is designed to favor.
IP: Logged
10:09 AM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
Pokey, Please don't tell me you think Gross Domestic Products is an indication of how California is doing all on it's own. Pull all that foreign money out of CA, stop letting CA draw water from other states, make them pay their own way and see how that works out. Just imagine if the other states cut off the water supply and how CA agriculture would fare. But, let's suggest for a second that all of that is due strictly to only California investment, science, engineering, agriculture, etc. We were in more of a national economy but has transition into a world economy. Then why is it with all that money flowing through CA, they can't be fiscally responsible? IF you want to compare CA to KY, then do so but do a fair comparasion. Compare the tax base and see which state is doing a better job with what they have. I'm surely not braggin on KY, we could and should be doing better but at least we're not begging in the corner for hand outs. I can assure you, KY has it's own issues that I have referred to before. The CA legislature can't figure out how to balance a budget and wants to set the standard for the rest of the nation to follow. Well, thanks but no thanks.
As I've previously stated, I've got nothing against CA as a whole but, I do have a problem with any entity that leeches off the rest of the states and then has the gall to act superior. As I asked before, who is it that won't let the nation tap into that off shore oil? We all use gas and diesel yet CA imports. I know there are lots of reasons for that but the fact is, the oil is known to be off shore and yet, CA won't let the drilling platforms go after it.
Ron
Ron, We was a measuring peckers there not how many times copulation takes place.
Truth is pretty blunt.
California is run by a bunch of idiots. California could Run entirely on its own resources. Comparing how it is run and how it could be run are two entirely different animals.
If California were on its own the there would by default have to have a different mindset. We have the resources and the capability. We don't have the leadership or the will of the populace in general. But name a state that does.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Ron, We was a measuring peckers there not how many times copulation takes place.
Truth is pretty blunt.
California is run by a bunch of idiots. California could Run entirely on its own resources. Comparing how it is run and how it could be run are two entirely different animals.
If California were on its own the there would by default have to have a different mindset. We have the resources and the capability. We don't have the leadership or the will of the populace in general. But name a state that does.
I'm going to zip it back up before I go blind.
Please do. Just be careful, don't zip anything important into that zipper.
No doubt about the leadership issues. Bringing home the bacon will be the ruin of all of us unless we put some real selfless leadership in place.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: [Don makes hasty retreat!!!]
Ron
IP: Logged
06:44 PM
PFF
System Bot
USFiero Member
Posts: 4873 From: Everywhere and Middle of Nowhere Registered: Mar 2002
Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: At least I have the honesty and presence of mind to identify my own BS. It is liberating, you should try it. (Honesty, not Grade AAA medical pot.
Dude, the Mary Jane has made you lose your edge. Please retort with an acerbic, witty one-liner.
IP: Logged
11:31 PM
Jul 8th, 2010
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Anyone else hear about California's proposition 14?
Yup. In this ridiculously liberal state, that's going to mean more liberals running things. It's gonna be interesting watching them drive the bus off a cliff.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-08-2010).]
Yup. In this ridiculously liberal state, that's going to mean more liberals running things. It's gonna be interesting watching them drive the bus off a cliff.
They believe that if they just keep trying it will eventually work. It won't, but they won't change even at the end when it is all gone. They will just take the attitude that it all failed because of sabotage or lack of effort.
IP: Logged
12:08 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
They believe that if they just keep trying it will eventually work. It won't, but they won't change even at the end when it is all gone. They will just take the attitude that it all failed because of sabotage or lack of effort.
Or the liberals favorite boogeyman, "Republicans". They'll blame Arnold.
IP: Logged
12:41 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
Rasmussen says 59 percent approve of Obama's performance (with 43 percent "strongly" approving) while 39 percent do not.
USC/L.A. Times says Obama is seen favorably by 59 percent and unfavorably by 36 percent. Fifty-four percent want to elect a senator that will support his policies (with 44 percent "strongly" holding that view) while 35 percent don't, with 11 percent undecided.
IP: Logged
12:24 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Rasmussen says 59 percent approve of Obama's performance (with 43 percent "strongly" approving) while 39 percent do not.
USC/L.A. Times says Obama is seen favorably by 59 percent and unfavorably by 36 percent. Fifty-four percent want to elect a senator that will support his policies (with 44 percent "strongly" holding that view) while 35 percent don't, with 11 percent undecided.
That's gonna be a LOT of people out of work and starving.
IP: Logged
12:42 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Rasmussen says 59 percent approve of Obama's performance (with 43 percent "strongly" approving) while 39 percent do not.
USC/L.A. Times says Obama is seen favorably by 59 percent and unfavorably by 36 percent. Fifty-four percent want to elect a senator that will support his policies (with 44 percent "strongly" holding that view) while 35 percent don't, with 11 percent undecided.
Kind of supports my point. Someone had to elect those "politicians", Until those folks wise up, CA will continue on it's downward spiral.
