Page 2 of 5
Posted on October 2 at 10:03 a.m.
"Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan, Gary Johnston and his running mate are just two examples of what the writer is referring to."
Hmmm - I don't think he referred to anyone specifically. I'm not sure you can speak for him - but maybe you're him - I don't know. But it was a rhetorical question in any case.
"I think Ramey possibly meant that we haven't seen a 3rd party candidate"
OK - here is what I meant.
We have a huge diversity of opinion in this country. There is no way that we're going to really agree. The best anyone can hope for is to muddle through and get to some sort of compromise that pleases no one and a majority can only barely stand. The process of picking our government strongly reflects this.
This is the same process which has given a number of participants their say and exposed them to voters and shown them to be grossly unprepared, representing the thinnest slice public opinion, or unsuited to this role. Think Al Sharpeton, Ron Paul, or anyone you like or don't like.
Now the process has narrowed it down to two individuals who are, at best, everyone's second choice. And the carping begins: we don't like the candidates, they don't represent our views, they don't tell us the truth, etc., etc., etc. - Get over it. If you don't like this, consider all the well intended alternatives suggested here - Rosanne Barr, George Carlin, etc. etc. How many of you would be happy with any of those? Actually, considering all the sacrifices that one has to make to be a politician, I think we get a lot better than we deserve - and I don't even like these people.
On So-Called Debates
Posted on September 30 at 9:42 a.m.
"No other viable candidates will be allowed"
Which other viable candidates are you referring to?
Posted on September 30 at 9:33 a.m.
Hmmm - a very animated discussion!
Couldn't we just agree that anyone who serves on a public commission, voluntary or otherwise, is expected to perform the duties that the position requires? Is that sooooo controversial? The ABR members are charged with rendering some sort of judgment regarding architectural esthetics. If they, by their own admission, can't do that job because it conflicts with their personal politics or finances, they should just resign or be let go. And how is it that anyone stating such an obviously reasonable position be characterized as "bat-sh*t crazy"?
Is the writer of this article a serious person? or just an entertainer out to push people's buttons?
On Conflict of Dog
Posted on September 15 at 10:52 a.m.
One might quibble with regards to the speculation by onscreen commentators. And one might question whether someone's presumed motives are relevant to any kind of political / policy decisions. But I found the movie pretty interesting and entertaining. Even someone who loves Obama has to be intrigued with the parallel lives that Souza/Obama have led and how they've dirvirged.
As far as I know no one has cited any errors of fact.
On Game-Changer for Republican Campaign
Posted on September 14 at 2:36 p.m.
Maybe we should cut Ms Capps a little slack.
She is likable and well liked and seems to genuinely concerned about using tax payer dollars to help people.
Clearly the tax system makes absolutely no sense to her. But then who CAN make any sense of if.
I'm sure she has someone else do her taxes for her so she cannot be totally responsible for the accuracy of her returns.
She's had 14 years on the job AFTER retiring from a full and satisfying career as a nurse. Is it really realistic and fair to expect someone of this age and background to actually understand this stuff?
I really wonder if it's really fair or sensitive to send her back to Washington to do a job that clearly overwhelms her. Anyone who truly loves her, as do we all, should put her best interests at heart and encourage her to retire before she embarrasses herself on a major and irredeemable way.
On Worse Tax Problem
Posted on September 12 at 1:53 p.m.
I'm trying to understand what the writer's point here? Does he think Keith Rivera did nothing wrong and should not have resigned? Then just say so.
Does he think Keith Rivera did the wrong thing and atoned for it by resigning? Then say that.
Really, this commentary has all the substance of apple sauce - where are the editors here?
On The Price of Protest
Posted on August 24 at 10:06 a.m.
Isn't pretty simple?
Members of the ABR are charged with duties related to upholding architectural standards. If they can't do this because they feel compelled to use their position to promote their political beliefs they should resign or be dismissed. It's really just a simple question of being able to do the job.
On When Abstinence Is Not the Best Policy
Posted on August 16 at 8:53 a.m.
"My point is that government subsidizes everyone – nonprofits, individuals, and private, for-profit businesses."
This is true only if you assume that the government owns all of everyone's income. In that case, any income not taxed could be called a "subsidy".
This in turn follows from "you didn't build that".
On Everyone's Subsidized
Posted on August 8 at 11:28 a.m.
lol - I think this is the only statement that Ms. Schneider has made that I ever agreed with.
I would much like to see the city council backing this up by removing the current ABR members who seem to have misunderstood what their proper role is.
On Chick-fil-A's Architectural Approval Shouldn't Hinge on Owner's Politics
Posted on August 8 at 11:21 a.m.
The ABR and other such organizations - love 'em or hate'm, should stick to their stated purpose. To use their authority or other purposes violates the trust that the public has placed in them. Whenever this happens, the public confidence in government in general is diminished. I would urge members of such bodies to restrain their impulse to use their power to impose their views upon everyone else and stick to their assigned tasks.
On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style