Comments by dogsnsand

Page 1 of 4 | Next

Posted on June 10 at 7:40 a.m.

I am surprised the Indy posted this letter as the author is not working off the facts. The video was posted 10 MINUTES before Elliot went on his rampage, not the day before. The manifesto was also emailed minutes before, and at 140 pages, starting with birth, would have been a slog for the people receiving it in Los Angeles to do something highly effective in Santa Barbara just mere moments before Rodger opened fire. We now know the parents called 911 after 10 PM - this whole thing was over at 9:36. Rodger concealed what he was up to until the last moment because HE DID NOT WANT TO BE STOPPED. Please think carefully before advocating that everyone who acts a bit off needs to be placed on 5150 holds. The police get multiple 5150 calls per DAY around here. We'd be locking up nearly all the homeless, some ex wives and husbands and others releasing some steam if they locked every 5150 call up.

On Let's Talk About Red Flags

Posted on June 2 at 7:52 a.m.

The participants' escalating in one-upmanship on this thread to prove their non-racist street cred are ironically looking both frighteningly ignorant and racist. I can just imagine how someone from CNN, like Donna Brazile would react. Kind of just like how the bench-turning set the glare of the national news media. Utterly provincial.

On Isla Vista Killings: Shock. Suffering. Survival.

Posted on June 1 at 2:29 p.m.

I don't get it, Dan. How would getting your own council member in a district process help the Westside when you have both the mayor and Murillo both living there today? Do you think Murillo should be organizing the Westside? Is that it?

On Council Elections by Districts or At-Large?

Posted on May 29 at 10:47 p.m.

I am struggling with the lack of reading comprehension displayed in some of the comments here. Many people act as if all the facts uncovered AFTER the slayings were known beforehand, by one single entity capable of stopping this, and simply ignored. The videos Rodger posted for his day of Retribution, originally planned for April 26th, were rants about why didn't girls like him and give him sex, how miserable he was. They didn't talk about his plans for murder. And when sheriffs went to check on him, even if they had viewed the videos, they would have been looking at what presented as a disgruntled, lonely nerd type. Concern for possible suicide, but of course Rodger didn't bother sharing his murderous plans with them, and if you read his 140 page manifesto, mailed 10 minutes before he started his rampage, and one minute after he posted the Retribution video, you would know that he took the original videos down April 30th, because he didn't want to be deflected.

He bought and owned the guns legally. He stabbed 3 people to death, and plowed into 2 others with his car. Per his manifesto, he was planning this out at least a year in advance. He intended to kill many more that night! Be grateful the sheriffs intercepted him twice that night! He rejected Halloween and Deltopia as potential dates for Retribution, where innocent victims would be congegating on the streets in high numbers, because there would be too many cops.

He knew exactly what he was doing, and did not want to be stopped.

This is that awful, terrible case where everyone actually did what they were supposed to do in the situation, and still the homicidal maniac prevailed.

On Isla Vista Killer's April 30 Check-Up

Posted on May 22 at 5:52 p.m.

OMG even total roadtards Caltrans is committing $541M to 'fix it first' for CA highways, while our county leadership freaks over maintaining our rinky dink roads. When the state is actually doing something more sensible than the locals, you know you're in trouble...

On Good Man, Happy Dog

Posted on May 16 at 2:05 p.m.

Insert any of these terms for 'illegal drug sales' in your argument:
human trafficking
arms sales

These are ALSO gang activities. Are you going to argue for them to be legal next?

Drugs are illegal because they're harmful. You've fallen into the trap of thinking they're harmful because they're illegal.

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 16 at 9:33 a.m.

I am always stunned at the insular mindset of the locals here. You're presented with the fact that la Eme is operating in your area, that they ordered local gangs to lay low until the threat of the injunction passes, after which they can go on a crime spree to make up for lost time...and here's your response:

Legalize drugs!
Throw out draconian laws!
I just don't like the injunction...

You guys are la Eme's dream. A bunch of yokels completely oblivious to the larger terrain they are standing on, who have zero idea how their whacked views contribute to gang proliferation.

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 15 at 2:49 p.m.

This article highlights some really important things: 1. Cartels are controlling the turf-war gangs here. 2. The gangs have cooled their jets under orders from the Eme. The anti-injunction set uses declining gang crime as one of their arguments to not go through with the injunction. Had they gotten their way, this was exactly what the Eme wanted, and that calls for some scrutiny of some of the characters against the injunction. Is it really about 'not targeting our youth', or were they doing the Eme's bidding? Hmmm. Macias' case is particularly interesting, given he was the #2 in Palabra, who started the agitation movement against the injunction.

It's only on the Indy that you could find a character like Loonpt whose only takeaway was to conclude that it fits his theory that we should legalize drugs. That's how you stop gangs. Right. They're already into trafficking and other illicit activities, as posters point out. You gonna' legalize those too?

On 'Mr. X' Casts Large Shadow in Gang Injunction Trial

Posted on May 14 at 8:38 p.m.

So the Volok / Netman argument is this:
Education Is Good. Teachers are Heroic. Therefore, never question funding.

And that's how we got to this sad state of affairs where California kids can not afford access to their own state universities. You guys are dying on the sword of ideology, and missing what's going on here. There's no question education is valuable, teachers do great work, etc. The problem is that universities have no incentive to control costs, and have raised tuitions to cover their bloated budgets so as to now become unaffordable. Das' answer is terrible: just subsidize them even more!

That class thing you so fear, where the elitists privatize do you miss what's happening in front of you? Pat Brown wanted to provide an Ivy League education free to any California kid that wanted it. And some of the UC's are ranked up there with the Ivy League schools now, which is awesome.

Too bad most California kids can't afford to go to their own schools, because they've been outpriced by the foreign kids that can pay out-of-state rates. Their only option is to take on massive debt and be saddled for life, assuming they can get in.

How do you not see that this is a really poor outcome?

On Reinvest in Higher Education

Posted on May 14 at 8:37 a.m.

It's too bad Das has so few ideas on how to fix the problem of affordability in California public universities. The student loan bubble produced the spike in tuition. Universities (across the US, but exorbitantly in CA) raised fees because student loans were granted freely, regardless of ability to pay back the loan or usefulness of degree. When that market tightens up, only degrees that produce well-paying jobs will likely be financed through loans. That will dry up demand for the basket-weaving degrees. So the answer to these spikes in tuition isn't to raise more taxes to further subsidize these schools. If they were forced to cut costs, they could, easily. There's a lot of fluff in their budgets to eliminate. Do they really need forced diversity classes and diversity administrators at each school, pulling down $200K+ annual salaries? The UC's have gotten notoriously administration-heavy, with departments creating little fiefdoms at huge expense. If people are unwilling or unable to pay their steep prices, expect the fluff programs to be cut first. That's the sensible way.

On Reinvest in Higher Education

Page 1 of 4 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: