Two Californias (shopper, safety, teach)

[Snort]

Those are obviously the gasbags. Would they really be welcome in any prison though?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Snort

Those are obviously the gasbags. Would they really be welcome in any prison though?

All I know is: when a couple guys party as hard as those two have

http://www.radiance.org/lahimages/blotto.jpg (broken link)


they're gonna have to face the man and do some time somewhere ...

http://www.radiance.org/lahimages/pardonus.jpg (broken link)

(Suppose they can appeal for pardon from the Water Authority?)

[Cali-girl]

Originally Posted by Kele

Abandoned farms, Third World living conditions, pervasive public assistance -- welcome to the once-thriving Central Valley.



Sad, sad state of affairs in the state that I love.....

Two Californias - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

Well, haven't you heard - the federal judge ordered the pumps turned back on earlier this year (May, I think).

So ag will recover and unemployment should decrease. The CV will come back. Right now, CV farmers on both east & west sides of the CV are trying to get the Peripheral Canal built. They have offered to pay for it all - something like $1B+.

-Cali-girl

[TimC2462]

Well, that was interesting. Here's my observation on highnlite's participation in this thread.

The article points out a lot of observation that is generally agreed by the posters but highnlite calls the Hanson "a right wing nut case" and states that we cannot take anything of value from the article.

Then someone corrects him on his inaccuracies about the various water projects in California, he dismisses them as false because it doesn't quite fit his liberal views. He goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives.

Then a second poster comes along and discusses about ramification of the illegal immigration that has gone uncheck in the last few decades, highnlite says it was all the conservatives' fault. Again, he goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives.

Along comes a third person (Lovehound) citing his personal experience and observation, he tries engage in a rational discussion with highnlite using facts. But unsurprisingly, highnlite disagrees with the Lovehound's point of view and dismisses it as conservative rant, even though Lovehound describes himself as moderate. Then highnlite goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives after calling Lovehound a grasshopper.

Every single time someone mentions about conservatives, he goes on and on in glorifying the liberal Democratic party.

Anyone see the pattern here?????

[nullgeo]

Alrighty then! Party on! Everybody back in the bar for another round!

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

Well, that was interesting. Here's my observation on highnlite's participation in this thread.

...

...

Anyone see the pattern here?????

My attempts to discuss the topic with Dot High and Lite have not resulted in anything productive or rational. Anybody reading the topic can see what he is with no help from me, just read his posts. I doubt I'll have anything further to add unless this topic takes on some substance, although it's day two of my DIY project and I will probably require additional breaks to allow my bleeding to subside. I'm certainly no Bob Villa! I sure wish I was buddies with him!

Carry on.

[.highnlite]

Wrong Tim, I challenge you to find anything I have said positive about the Democratic party.

On the other hand, Conservatives have opposed just everything good that this country has tried to do. That is history, not opinion.

Someone has to be rational around here......

The article points out a lot of observation that is generally agreed by the posters but highnlite calls the Hanson "a right wing nut case" and states that we cannot take anything of value from the article.

Nope, wrong again, I did not say we cannot take anything of value from the article, but I did say, essentially approach with caution as Hanson has extreme views.

Then someone corrects him on his inaccuracies about the various water projects in California, he dismisses them as false because it doesn't quite fit his liberal views. He goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives

Nope, wrong again, the "abandoned farms" are the result of a decision which affects water distribution from the California Aquaduct, the poster in question dragged in the Central Valley Water Project, which is another matter entirely.

Then a second poster comes along and discusses about ramification of the illegal immigration that has gone uncheck in the last few decades, highnlite says it was all the conservatives' fault. Again, he goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives.

Yep, the conservatives love to blame the illegal immigration problem on liberals, yet, it was the ending of the Bracero Program, which did not remove the need for labor that resulted in the good staunch Republican Farmers to encourage illegal immigration, they constructed hidden camps in the canyons around here to house and feed these illegals. Why do I say Republican Farmers? They are the overwhelming majority of California Farmers, it is difficult to find a Democrat or "liberal" farmer.

One of those staunch Republican farmers who participated in the the hidden camps, and the importation of illegals was my father, I know this subject very well.

Along comes a third person (Lovehound) citing his personal experience and observation, he tries engage in a rational discussion with highnlite using facts. But unsurprisingly, highnlite disagrees with the Lovehound's point of view and dismisses it as conservative rant, even though Lovehound describes himself as moderate. Then highnlite goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives after calling Lovehound a grasshopper.

Really? he did? Where was this, Lovehound may describe himself as a moderate, but to say that the new National Healthcare program is "psycho" is not a moderate position. Now this part cracks me up, this has happened twice, I have been accused of calling two people "a grasshopper" Yet my sentences were reasonably constructed and did not call anyone " a grasshopper". Apparently you are unfamiliar with "Kung Fu" a TV series starring, David Carradine.

Anyone see the pattern here?????

Why yes, the pattern appears to be, that if what I say is at odds with one's political ideology then
A. the dear reader distorts what I say
B. the dear reader does not understand what I say.

The cure for this, is to read carefully and think about what I say, if you have a question about what I say, ask me the question.

This seems easy, but it is easier not to allow data to interfere with belief.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Pull up a chair grasshopper, remove your ego, ask a question, learn. Go ahead, it won't hurt, and it will help you.
Or, continue unlearned, which would be a tragedy.

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Now this part cracks me up, this has happened twice, I have been accused of calling two people "a grasshopper" Yet my sentences were reasonably constructed and did not call anyone " a grasshopper". Apparently you are unfamiliar with "Kung Fu" a TV series starring, David Carradine.

[.highnlite]

I am sorry you are confused, try context, you needing to become educated, me, willing to educate you. If you paid attention to the phrasing, that really should have been obvious.

My guess is that because you don't agree with me on much, that you took that for a negative rather than paying attention to the context. Which seems to be about par.

I guess I have to educate you about the TV series Kung Fu, the master teacher referred to the young student, David Carradine, as Grasshopper. Which is quite different than calling him "a grasshopper"

Holy Mackeral, I am actually more educated in TV culture than another, very damaging to my self image as a TV hater.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

Well, that was interesting. Here's my observation on highnlite's participation in this thread.

The article points out a lot of observation that is generally agreed by the posters but highnlite calls the Hanson "a right wing nut case" and states that we cannot take anything of value from the article.

Then someone corrects him on his inaccuracies about the various water projects in California, he dismisses them as false because it doesn't quite fit his liberal views. He goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives.

Then a second poster comes along and discusses about ramification of the illegal immigration that has gone uncheck in the last few decades, highnlite says it was all the conservatives' fault. Again, he goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives.

Along comes a third person (Lovehound) citing his personal experience and observation, he tries engage in a rational discussion with highnlite using facts. But unsurprisingly, highnlite disagrees with the Lovehound's point of view and dismisses it as conservative rant, even though Lovehound describes himself as moderate. Then highnlite goes on to make insulting statements about conservatives after calling Lovehound a grasshopper.

Every single time someone mentions about conservatives, he goes on and on in glorifying the liberal Democratic party.

Anyone see the pattern here?????

slightly Thank god the DREAM act failed!