California Crew: Please vote on June 8th, and please vote no on 16.

[IndyColtsFan]

Like their bigoted anti-imigrant law

 

[nonlnear]

FUCK ARIZONA. They won't turn off the power. Like their bigoted anti-imigrant law, they're full of shit, and they don't have a leg to stand on. Their power facilities are partially owned by California companies.

Hey illiterate shithead, nobody ever threatened to shut any power off.

 

[werepossum]

This is deeply flawed reasoning. Voting for a new law and voting against a new law are not equivalent actions. They have radically different requirements - at least for any sane person who doesn't dream of kings and emperors. If I know nothing about a new law I MUST vote no. It is only with a preponderance of evidence that I would ever consider creating a new chain for the people and subsidy for the legal profession. If a pro-whatever campaign has failed to educate me on their desired policy change (and my bar is a lot higher than a pamphlet and some flashy ads!) then I vociferously oppose it no matter what. Even if it were a good idea, the condescension required to campaign for a new law without aggressively educating the public THOROUGHLY is so very evil in its approach that I can't support it.

Being safely far away from California I have no opinion on this proposition, but your paragraph on the difference between voting FOR a new law and voting AGAINST a new law is pure gold and should be required reading for all Congressmen at the start of each new session.

 

[Patranus]

why would anyone vote yes on this, wouldn't this kind of destroy any hopes of a new power company?

No, only a GOVERNMENT run power company.

 

[Double Trouble]

Not sure what to make of this... on the one side, restrictions on more government activity is usually a good thing. On the other side, this is a prop pushed heavily by the power company to make sure they can keep screwing the captive customers. Lose lose.

 

[Patranus]

Not sure what to make of this... on the one side, restrictions on more government activity is usually a good thing. On the other side, this is a prop pushed heavily by the power company to make sure they can keep screwing the captive customers. Lose lose.

The sad thing is it is government in California preventing secondary power companies from entering the market.

All they have to do is deregulate the market like they did with the phones and power prices would instantly drop in the state.

 

[Amused]

Sorry, but no. I will support anything that makes it harder for the local, state or federal government to take over any industry.

 

[Harvey]

FUCK ARIZONA. They won't turn off the power. Like their bigoted anti-imigrant law, they're full of shit, and they don't have a leg to stand on. Their power facilities are partially owned by California companies.

Hey illiterate shithead, nobody ever threatened to shut any power off.

Thanks for the gratuitous name calling, but unless YOU are illiterate, maybe you can tell us how you reconcile your dumbass post with this from your favorite propoganda source:

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

By Judson Berger - FOXNews.com

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

Spokesman David Beltran told Fox News that the message didn't even warrant a response.

"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights," Beltran said.

That was after Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Villaraigosa slamming his City Council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."
.
.
(continues)

When it comes to being illiterate, you must be one of the children your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush left behind. Unless you'd care to apologize, you can kiss my left behind. :hmm:

 

[Cogman]

While I'm not californian, so my opinion on the matter really doesn't mean anything, I would vote yes for this bill.

The meat of the bill is to make it harder for local Californian governments to spend tax payers money without their say-so. California is a huge debt hole as it is, anything to plug it up would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Cogman]

The sad thing is it is government in California preventing secondary power companies from entering the market.

All they have to do is deregulate the market like they did with the phones and power prices would instantly drop in the state.

Sorry, but no, that isn't what the bill does at all.

(c) The politicians in local governments should be held to the same standard before using public funds, borrowing, issuing bonds guaranteed by ratepayers or taxpayers, or obtaining other debt or financing to start or expand electric delivery service, or to implement a plan to become an aggregate electricity provider.

Translation: The government can't spend money setting up a power company without the tax payers say so.

This bill is all about keeping the tax payers money in check. Letting the tax payer decide where it goes.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

When it comes to being illiterate, you must be one of the children your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush left behind. Unless you'd care to apologize, you can kiss my left behind. :hmm:

The article from Fox that you quoted is full of exaggeration and misinterpretation. I think you need to CAREFULLY reread HIS letter. He made NO threat whatsoever. He is basically saying "If you want to boycott AZ, we'll help you boycott everything from AZ and I'll ask the power companies to renegotiate (key word in his letter) their agreements with you to help if that's what you want." You can not negotiate unilaterally, so the assertion that this guy is threatening to pull the plug is complete and utter hogwash and you know it. He was obviously doing it for political grandstanding and knew they wouldn't take him up on his offer.

 

[Harvey]

Translation: The government can't spend money setting up a power company without the tax payers say so.

This bill is all about keeping the tax payers money in check. Letting the tax payer decide where it goes.

Sorry, but you're wrong. We elect our government officials specifically to act on our behalf and spend money to do the state's business on behalf of the electorate.

This bill is Pacific Gas and Electric's attempt to handcuff and micro-manage our elected officials by requiring a 2/3 majority vote to do the very business we elected them to do. Any campaign to pass such a measure would cost more than it could possibly save and the time it would require would prevent timely, effective action.

We elect our officials to do a job. Let them do it. If you don't like what your candidates say they'll do, don't vote for them. If you don't like what they do once they're elected, don't vote for them again. If you think they act illegally, file a complaint or a law suit to stop them.

Meanwhile, as long as they're doing the job reasonably well, STFU, and get out of the way while they do it.

Sorry, but no. I will support anything that makes it harder for the local, state or federal government to take over any industry.

So it's wrong when public officials try to provide critical services for the citizens and stop abuses from greedy companies like PG&E, Enron and BP, and it's completely OK for those companies to rip us off by manipulating supplies and overcharging us for what they do provide?

That's pure bullshit! You live in a fantasy if you think government is ALWAYS wrong and private industry is ALWAYS right or fair, let alone having any concern for those they rip off.

 

[Cogman]

Sorry, but you're wrong. We elect our government officials specifically to act on our behalf and spend money to do the state's business on behalf of the electorate.

This bill is Pacific Gas and Electric's attempt to handcuff and micro-manage our elected officials by requiring a 2/3 majority vote to do the very business we elected them to do. Any campaign to pass such a measure would cost more than it could possibly save and the time it would require would prevent timely, effective action.

We elect our officials to do a job. Let them do it. If you don't like what your candidates say they'll do, don't vote for them. If you don't like what they do once they're elected, don't vote for them again. If you think they act illegally, file a complaint or a law suit to stop them.

Meanwhile, as long as they're doing the job reasonably well, STFU, and get out of the way while they do it.

I honestly support big business in the electric industry. It is more costly, environmentally UNfriendly, and messy to have 1000's of different electric companies out there. Electricity is most efficiently and cleanly made on the large scale, something that the local governments should be considering.

As for handcuffing the politicians spending, So? Why is it so bad to have more say in how your money is spent? Putting a speed bump in their spending is what is needed. Trust is something I don't have for any politician "Read my lips, no new taxes!" is a quote that rings clear.

 

[nick1985]

Like their bigoted anti-imigrant law

Harvey, I thought you were smarter than this.

Its ILLEGAL immigrants we dont like, not legal ones. Bigotry not found.

Try again Harv'

 

[nonlnear]

Thanks for the gratuitous name calling, but unless YOU are illiterate, maybe you can tell us how you reconcile your dumbass post with this from your favorite propoganda source:

When it comes to being illiterate, you must be one of the children your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush left behind. Unless you'd care to apologize, you can kiss my left behind. :hmm:

Wow you really are a clueless idiot. The letter contains no threat, and insinuates nothing at all about violating any contract. It was designed to invite the clueless media (of which I agree Fox is one of the worst, but they are all very similar in their level of stupidity) to misinterpret it, but that's part of the comic genius of it all.

Thank you for confirming your idiocy. I wasn't expecting your second round to be quite this blatant, but quoting a secondary source when the letter is SO easy to find seems about par for the course. I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

 

[Amused]

So it's wrong when public officials try to provide critical services for the citizens and stop abuses from greedy companies like PG&E, Enron and BP, and it's completely OK for those companies to rip us off by manipulating supplies and overcharging us for what they do provide?

That's pure bullshit! You live in a fantasy if you think government is ALWAYS wrong and private industry is ALWAYS right or fair, let alone having any concern for those they rip off.

This has nothing to do with one being always right or wrong, Harvey. And it's very sad that you equate greed only with private companies and not with governments. You have a twisted sense of altruism when you think authoritarianism is better than freedom.

Tell me, if the government controlled all the utilities and the costs to us were twice as high, and service twice as shitty, what recourse would you have??? Could you switch? Could you choose another? Could you put them in jail? Nope. You'd be fucked.

Be careful appointing an untouchable and wasteful government to fill your needs. They have no need to turn a profit and this makes you think they'll serve you better... but just look at the military and public schools: It ONLY means they have no need to contain costs. You'll end up with half the quality at twice the price because they can't fail.

It's time to face the facts, Harvey. Humans are NOT altruistic. And goverments made up of humans will be even more corrupt and greedy than any business. Why? Because power corrupts.

 

[Craig234]

Every far-left Democratic Party tool in the state of California hates this Prop 16, so I guess it means I'll be voting YES...
Thanks for the heads-up SoCalAznGuy!

If you run out of power, buy some from Arizona, assuming your municipality hasn't pissed them off yet.

You're an idiot for that logic. Can you discuss the merits of that issue?

The radical righties are demanding to be oppressed.

If they were Jewish slaves in ancienct Egypt, they'd be saying they were against leaving because that radical liberal Moses wanted to, and the desert has no free meals.

And Moses was just jealous the Egyptians had wealth.

 

[nick1985]

Craig is back! PRAISE JEEBUS!!!

 

[sandorski]

What's with California and 2/3? Hasn't 2/3 caused enough trouble already?

 

[Craig234]

This has nothing to do with one being always right or wrong, Harvey. And it's very sad that you equate greed only with private companies and not with governments. You have a twisted sense of altruism when you think authoritarianism is better than freedom.

No, you're an ideologue who can't tell the sky isn't striped red and green.

Companies are inherently not 'altruistic'. By law. They do some things that are good for society, because they profit from it. They do some things that could be called altruistic, because it's in their interest, because it's affordable from the money they've taken. Even the most altruistic things - even outside of companies by company owners - are paid for by money with a price how it was extracted from society. The Nobel prizes, universities, come from money with a price how it got to the donors' hands.

It doesn't mean they don't do a lot of good things, but it's at a price. Give me a bilion dollars of your money, and I'll buy you a nice ten million dollar altruistic thing.

On the other hand, government are generally 'for the people'. Not always; there are some interests people in government have that aren't 'for the people'. There are corruptions of government, like when oil companies donate and get a $75 million cap on oil spill costs, when Wall Street donates and gets their activities deregulated. But generally it's 'for the people'. As 'altruistic' as the public agenda.

It's government building roads for the public not based only on the ones profiting a corporation, but to help the people. It's government providing law enforcement, not only for shoplifting, but to help the people. It's government providing Medicare administration, not for making as much profit as possible, but to help the people.

Government doesn't have 'profit', its role is not by law to maximize the money taken and kept, but to help the people.

It's a strain of paranoia to not be able to tell the difference between the government helping the people, and the corrupt oppressive government.

Not every government is Hitler, Mao and Stalin, yet some people can't tell any difference from those with the US government.

Listen to Newt Gingrich in the last week saying Obama is as big a threat to the US as the Nazis were, according to a report.

Car companies are great, we benefit greatly from them. We don't benefit from blocking government from regulating them - if they could, car companies would not have offered seat belts, would offer poorer and poorer safety and higher costs and more pollution. The 'free market' utopia where the car companies improve all those things because customers would like them to is a lie. An ideological lie from the people who would profit by that deregulation.

Amused can't tell the difference - he spouts ideology, the government is no different in its profit motive than a corporation, in his view.

His right to free speech is great, but allows him to have wrong, harmful views. He takes full advantage here.

Tell me, if the government controlled all the utilities and the costs to us were twice as high, and service twice as shitty, what recourse would you have??? Could you switch? Could you choose another? Could you put them in jail? Nope. You'd be fucked.

In fact, the government being in control creates MORE interest to be responsive to the public.

What happens when private monopolies take hold? Like the far right generally, you implicitly hate democracy here. Its vote for the people is of no value to you.

Let's look at your question. How has the government done generally with the power industry? Did you get informed before you posted and discuss the factual issue whether the government has sometimes, has usually, improved the situation? No, you did not bother to use any facts - you put up an invented argument fitting your ideology only.

What this initiative does is to effectively give PG&E monopoly power and HURT the people. You are for that.

Be careful appointing an untouchable and wasteful government to fill your needs. They have no need to turn a profit and this makes you think they'll serve you better... but just look at the military and public schools: It ONLY means they have no need to contain costs. You'll end up with half the quality at twice the price because they can't fail.

Since when is elected government "untouchable" by the voters, compared to a private corporation?

Just look at the military, you say - where is the problem, it's with a LACK of democracy: it's private corporations who corrupt the government role from the massive money.

How would turning over the military role to your beloved private side - Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe, Northrup Grumman - improve things? Books could be and have been written about the corruption of the private in the military spending - going back to the early republic, when companies regularly screwed the public, selling the military who was protecting them bad boots, rotten food. Harry Truman became Vice President from his work on corporations screwing the public in WWII.

Public education, imperfect, has had a great improvement from the illeteracy that came before it.[/quote]

It's time to face the facts, Harvey. Humans are NOT altruistic. And goverments made up of humans will be even more corrupt and greedy than any business. Why? Because power corrupts.

Yes, because corporations don't have any power. Altruistic indeed.

Humans are partly altruistic.

Government workers work for money - not altruism. But the public can say "let's have national parks", "let's have help for the handicapped", "let's have non-discrimination laws", "let's have product safety laws", and so on through DEMOCRACY because that's what government and democracy are for, not the private tyranny of a few elite nobles who own and run everything, and where people are oppressed serving the powerful few, as is the case today in too many placed in your 'private utopia'.

 

[Craig234]

What's with California and 2/3? Hasn't 2/3 caused enough trouble already?

It's the right wing/corrupt business behind the initiatives, and foolish voters.

With Prop 13, the reduced homeowner tax was enough of a carrot to get people to say 'who cares' about the slashing of taxes from business and the government working.

Today, it's a propaganda campaign to hide the 2/3 in this ballot, which is designed to actually PREVENT any voter say, by only talking about 'let the voters have a say'.

Yes, 2/3 has caused plenty of harm, handing the 1/3 Republicans a veto they abuse.

 

[Craig234]

If I know nothing about a new law I MUST vote no.

Actually you shouldn't vote IMO.

Why should the people who did get informed be prevented from deciding by your no?

 

[Amused]

No, you're an ideologue who can't tell the sky isn't striped red and green.

Companies are inherently not 'altruistic'. By law. They do some things that are good for society, because they profit from it. They do some things that could be called altruistic, because it's in their interest, because it's affordable from the money they've taken. Even the most altruistic things - even outside of companies by company owners - are paid for by money with a price how it was extracted from society. The Nobel prizes, universities, come from money with a price how it got to the donors' hands.

It doesn't mean they don't do a lot of good things, but it's at a price. Give me a bilion dollars of your money, and I'll buy you a nice ten million dollar altruistic thing.

On the other hand, government are generally 'for the people'. Not always; there are some interests people in government have that aren't 'for the people'. There are corruptions of government, like when oil companies donate and get a $75 million cap on oil spill costs, when Wall Street donates and gets their activities deregulated. But generally it's 'for the people'. As 'altruistic' as the public agenda.

It's government building roads for the public not based only on the ones profiting a corporation, but to help the people. It's government providing law enforcement, not only for shoplifting, but to help the people. It's government providing Medicare administration, not for making as much profit as possible, but to help the people.

Government doesn't have 'profit', its role is not by law to maximize the money taken and kept, but to help the people.

It's a strain of paranoia to not be able to tell the difference between the government helping the people, and the corrupt oppressive government.

Not every government is Hitler, Mao and Stalin, yet some people can't tell any difference from those with the US government.

Listen to Newt Gingrich in the last week saying Obama is as big a threat to the US as the Nazis were, according to a report.

Car companies are great, we benefit greatly from them. We don't benefit from blocking government from regulating them - if they could, car companies would not have offered seat belts, would offer poorer and poorer safety and higher costs and more pollution. The 'free market' utopia where the car companies improve all those things because customers would like them to is a lie. An ideological lie from the people who would profit by that deregulation.

Amused can't tell the difference - he spouts ideology, the government is no different in its profit motive than a corporation, in his view.

His right to free speech is great, but allows him to have wrong, harmful views. He takes full advantage here.



In fact, the government being in control creates MORE interest to be responsive to the public.

What happens when private monopolies take hold? Like the far right generally, you implicitly hate democracy here. Its vote for the people is of no value to you.

Let's look at your question. How has the government done generally with the power industry? Did you get informed before you posted and discuss the factual issue whether the government has sometimes, has usually, improved the situation? No, you did not bother to use any facts - you put up an invented argument fitting your ideology only.

What this initiative does is to effectively give PG&E monopoly power and HURT the people. You are for that.



Since when is elected government "untouchable" by the voters, compared to a private corporation?

Just look at the military, you say - where is the problem, it's with a LACK of democracy: it's private corporations who corrupt the government role from the massive money.

How would turning over the military role to your beloved private side - Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe, Northrup Grumman - improve things? Books could be and have been written about the corruption of the private in the military spending - going back to the early republic, when companies regularly screwed the public, selling the military who was protecting them bad boots, rotten food. Harry Truman became Vice President from his work on corporations screwing the public in WWII.

Public education, imperfect, has had a great improvement from the illeteracy that came before it.

Yes, because corporations don't have any power. Altruistic indeed.

Humans are partly altruistic.

Government workers work for money - not altruism. But the public can say "let's have national parks", "let's have help for the handicapped", "let's have non-discrimination laws", "let's have product safety laws", and so on through DEMOCRACY because that's what government and democracy are for, not the private tyranny of a few elite nobles who own and run everything, and where people are oppressed serving the powerful few, as is the case today in too many placed in your 'private utopia'.

And in that entire wall of misguided text you fail to note one thing: There is a difference between regulation, and a total takeover.

Makes every example moot.

Sorry craig, but yet again your collectivist dreams fail as they ALWAYS have throughout history.

Wanna make a valid comparison? Try private car companies vs Soviet car companies.

Libertainism and a free market is about opportunity, not nobility. YOUR ideal creates true nobility: Government control = government nobility.

 

[Craig234]

And in that entire wall of misguided text you fail to note one thing: There is a difference between regulation, and a total takeover.

Translation of 'wall of text' usually: unable or unwilling to discuss the issue.

Keep it to bumper stickers to repeat!

Makes every example moot.

Sorry craig, but yet again your collectivist dreams fail as they ALWAYS have throughout history.

Wanna make a valid comparison? Try private car companies vs Soviet car companies.

Libertainism and a free market is about opportunity, not nobility. YOUR ideal creates true nobility: Government control = government nobility.

Straw men, ideological buzzwords, you disappoint and fall short consistently.

Exactly the expected response from the ideologue to his ideology being exposed.

No one's advocating soviet-style car manufacturing. Indeed I specifically praised having private care manufacturers.

But don't let that get in the way of you having to lie about my position to make the straw man you can deal with.

There are the things it makes sense for the government to do, and things it doesn't, and even gray areas. But you have the simple answer: it's always bad.

Unless, of course someone calls you on any specific exceptions to your nonsense, which you can then call another 'wall of text' to hide your inability to tell which is which.

Power is not the same as car manufacturing. It has its own sets of different factors. Sorry for the inconvenience of you having to not just say 'it's always bad'.

Of course, you have shown it's a waste of time to discuss the issue with you, the responses are for anyone else who can get something from your post getting addressed.

At least your type is predictable - just as so many issues devolve into "you're Hitler!", your type similar devolves to the never tired "you're the USSR!"

To my noting the complete lack of any facts on the good or bad of when the government has actually gotten involved in power - silence.

Why the black and white, uninformed, simplistic post from you? That's what ideologues tend to do.

 

[Kappo]

So it's wrong when public officials try to provide critical services for the citizens and stop abuses from greedy companies like PG&E, Enron and BP, and it's completely OK for those companies to rip us off by manipulating supplies and overcharging us for what they do provide?

That's pure bullshit! You live in a fantasy if you think government is ALWAYS wrong and private industry is ALWAYS right or fair, let alone having any concern for those they rip off.

When government owns something that is in competition with the private sector, they can create laws to cripple their "competition". When they start failing (a given), they simply need to tax more for the "good of the people" to cover up their deficiencies.

Name one thing that the government has run efficiently.