GoldenDogs

Hi Kylie... I haven't been posting here much lately, but have followed some of the conversation and just wanted to say that this is the best post I have seen here in a very long time. It puts things into perspective more than anything else I've read lately and I thank you for it... A nice read to start out my day! Thanks!

For some reason, I see any involvement by Gloria Allred a credibility-damaging event. I think most people don't think much of her or her tactics. Who pays this woman and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall a time when she championed a cause against a liberal. It's also interesting that she always pops up in cases where the accused is a conservative/Republican. Are the polls indicating less support for Cain over these allegations? I haven't seen polls today... but yesterday's information indicated the public could care less about these accusations. So, not much has been said here about the Occupy Wall Street protests/sit-ins/riots/whatever. I'm particularly interested in how my more left-leaning friends in the forum feel about the movement...

All true, Redd... thanks for reminding of his political past. His uncertain positioning on the issues, though, really does make him a scary candidate whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal. I personally have more respect for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation, if they are consistent on issues. I know, few politicans are really like this... which may be why so many of us are unhappy with so many of the candidates out there. And so often those who are set to deliver exactly what they are selling AREN'T electable... So I guess you need a moderate candidate? But then I think that a moderate candidate generally gets nothing done... This seems all so depressing to me. Maybe I shouldn't be talking politics today... LOL...

Well, it certainly is fair game to question motives - but generally, in politics, if something nice is actually said, then it generally is the real deal. It's the nasty stuff that often is disingenuous at its root. That's a tough one, I'll admit. Romney is a RINO. In that respect, I don't see much of a difference in the candidates... both relatively moderate, however if I'm honest, I'd say the edge of experience MUST go to Hillary. She's Secretary of State, for crying out loud and has spent a considerable amount of time in and around the oval office - and I'd bet money she had considerable input in many issues Bill faced while President. If it were all about experience, she wins hands down. And the only Republican who comes close is Newt Gingrich, based on his turn as Speaker of the House. Then comes those served as governors. At the end of the day, and sadly as many of us have discussed here, party politics always surface and regardless of who ultimately becomes President, that person, Hillary or Romney, would be beholden to some degree to the party that nominated them. What promises were made at the expense of the best interests of the people? Those promises and the effects of keeping them are never good for those in the minority, regardless of party, and therefore is never good for the country as a whole. Sounds kind of hopeless. I want to tell you, Max, that I would go with the experienced candidate, but I'm not so sure I could. And that clearly represents how polarized we are as a result of the party system... which, sadly, is still a better system than that of other countries, at least in my opinion.

Okay... WHAT? This is all opinion, right Max? First off, part of the "game" of politics means you DON'T heap praise on your immediate opponent. I'm not surprised when one candidate trashes another... what, you think Obama is going to tell us which more moderate Romney policies he adores? Of course not... Nor would Perry mention how Obama's illegal immigrant policies mirror his own. Puh-lease. I absolutely differ in your assessment of GOP opinions of Hillary... to the contrary, I think every bit of kind words or praise currently heaped on her by the GOP are genuine. Even *I* had kind words for her back in 2008. I may not agree with her more liberal policies, but I believe she is a smart woman who truly works in the best interests of America. Same with Bill... wasn't my favorite president, disagreed with many of his policies (especially his first term agenda)... but I have no doubt both Clintons love America and work in the best interests of the country. Hillary should have been the Democratic nominee and I believe, had she won, we would be in better shape now than we are. I would have been comfortable with her, given her background... I think she would be a perfectly viable challenger to the nomination against Obama... and I bet she would win. I mean this with all sincerety, Max. Because it's all true.

But, Alpha, a drunk driver is mobile and can nail you when you least expect it. We have the ability to move away from second hand smoke, but an impaired driver (whether it be alcohol or another mind-altering substance) will come out of nowhere. I feel alcohol is as dangerous as cigarettes in that respect. I just can't get on board with that. With so many businesses on the edge and people tightening their belts due to rising prices across the board, increasing costs still more in this environment is a poor choice, in my opinion. I don't buy soda and buy very little "junk food" - for both dietary reasons AND for cost. A freakin' 12-pack of soda is higher than a cat's back! Sure, others are still buying soda... but what is their personal price threshold? And if we tax everything to death, at what point do individual price thresholds take hold and purchases drop to a point where manufacturers just can't continue on? Jobs lost... unemployment rises... the economy takes an even bigger dump. Staples are a necessity - eggs, milk, etc. But when times are tough, the first thing most people do away with are the extras... Agree with this 100%.

Ahhhhh... but why must one eat a greasy burger when there is fresh fruit and vegetables at the ready? Why, Max, "responsible eaters" are a myth - people need some guidance to ensure healthy eating. I can tell you from experience how difficult it is to avoid lapsing into unhealthy eating habits, what with ice cream and cookies and chocolate of any sort! If the stuff was banned, it would be a lot easier to stay on a healthy diet, right? Of course, I'm being facetious here. I truly believe it is up to an individual whether or not they wish to engage in some unhealthy vice, as long as harm isn't brought to another individual as a result of their actions. Of course, this brings to the surface some complicated issues... We prosecute those who drink and drive and hurt or kill others as a result... What about a smoker whose second-hand smoke results in asthma or worse in another person? Or the parent who cooks lots of sweets for a kid who ends up obese or suffers from diabetes in later life as a result? My head hurts now.

If we ban cigs then we've got to ban alcohol, too... That's where we get into a gray area with these things. For the record, I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes because if people want to ingest smoke to their own detrement, let 'em. We've educated the world to death on the dangers of substance abuse... if people refuse to listen, who is society to force them against their will? If we ban cigs... and alcohol... then we must ban fast food. It's bad for you! Take it all away... fruit cup all around, no fries! Just gets into an area that concerns me... But I can see where someone might nail me, as a person who leans right, the inconsistency in my "nanny state" viewpoint, Alpha... for example, why am I so opposed to banning things yet willing to refuse all abortions on demand. Yeah, I can see both sides of that one... Which, I guess, is why these arguments aren't all so black and white...

With overcrowding the way it is in most prisons, I agree 100% with you, Alpha... Especially given the "three strikes" law we have here in California. So, technically, you could have some guy busted for smoking a joint go up the river forever while some perverted molester gets the minimum and gets out in short order to do it again... Another well-intended law gone awry...

Thanks Alpha... makes sense now to me. I can see where one drug company decides to go for it, then another, then another... soon the market would be diluted. But the first company to dive in WOULD make some big bucks, at least in the short term. My think about legalizing marijuana is more about that magic invisible line... if that, then what next? Why not cocaine? Some clever person somewhere could likely rationalize why they need it...

Total agreement... Getting back to the hippies... LOL... A coworker today mentioned that he had seen the individuals picketing here downtown and among those out there was a guy he knew who worked at the local cable company. He tried to figure out why that guy was out there when he's gainfully employed and making GOOD money... We saw this morning two sets of protestors... there were four on one corner and another unrelated group of protestors picketing with very nice signs in front of a law firm's office. I have no idea what their deal was since their very nice signs had very small print and it was very hard to read from a very far distance... :-) Very sincerely, Brian

Well, I don't doubt that the effects of marijuana helps some terminal patients with pain... But the people I see pushing for legalization (ie: protests, waving signs and banners, petitions, etc.) look to be some of the most fit and active among us. It's confusing to me. And I agree, if there is money to be made from something, including legalizing certain narcotics, lawmakers would jump on it. They haven't - even in California - for a reason... Not sure what it is, but it certainly suggests a need for more research. The dangers of OTC pills and the greedy pharmaceutical companies notwithstanding, I need to know why an FDA-approved pill that meets legal requirements and is safe can't accomplish for those in need what smoking a join will do. I'm all for making any medicinal properties in weed available to those in need in an appropriate way... but I would definitely like to know the answers to these questions... As for the possibilities of a sit-in in Sacto... I know I'm going to take heat for saying this... but some of us can't go and protest because we have jobs. Now, I'm not blatantly stating that all protesters (tea party or ows) are all unemployed bums... but I often wonder how a person can facilitate hanging out somewhere for days or even months with responsibilities at home. Just wonderin'...

California is toast, Roman. LOL... Seriously. There is no hope for my state. It's a shame... such a beautiful place, but it has been run into the ground. Schwarzenegger sucked as governor, so does Brown. Of course, it doesn't really matter who is in the governor's mansion because the state legislature runs things... into the ground. They don't seem to get that there IS NO MONEY. I'm not quite sure what they're doing in Sacramento each day, frankly. Hmm... legalizing weed... big deal here these days. For the longest time, some dude was stationed outside of the nearby Walmart, petition in hand, looking for signatures to reverse a local county ordinance banning larger medical marijuana stores (or whatever you call them). The local ordinance states that no more than a certain amount should be available... or something like that. You know, if things would get magically better by legalizing marijuana or any other substance currently classified as illegal I might be all for it. But I seriously need someone to answer this question for me, because I'm lacking knowlege on this... I have wondered why a marijuiana "pill" won't work to ease pain in a terminal patient or take the edge off... whatever... and that only SMOKING weed helps. If it is about the "substance", why isn't it satisfactory to produce a pill one could take to achieve the same effect as smoking grass? I also don't get why, in some instances, the very same people advocating the legalization of marijuana are demanding that cigarettes should be banned... Seems hypocritical to me. Not that I'm a big nicotine fan... or alcohol (gasp, shock!) for the matter... curious as to your thoughts on this, Roman... and anyone else reading this. I guess I could be called a dull and boring person... Never smoked pot or cigarrettes... never had an interest. And I don't really like the taste of alcohol. Sipped some wine last month while on vacation and my tastes haven't changed... still didn't like it!

Max, Max, Max...

With all due respect, Alpha... do you live in the San Joaquin Valley of California? You can research this issue, but unless you live here and have driven the I-5 corridor regularly to see what's up there, it makes it pretty tough to do more than speculate as to the situation here. Onions, garlic, grapes and olives are all grown here in our dry conditions. However, some irrigation is needed even for crops that like more arid conditions. Ever heard of the California aqueduct? An elaborate system for water deliveries was built here and, in my opinion, that it ISN'T being utilized to its full potential is outrageous - still worse, that this creates a negative economic impact in terms of goods and employment in a state that is already broke is outrageous. If anyone has ever stopped to wonder why California is in such dire straits need only look at the water delivery situation as an example. Someone asked me my opinion of Governor Brown... I didn't vote for him, however I can't blame the current mess on him... or at least totally on him (a previous stint as governor was less than sterling and may have contributed to current issues), but our state legislature is squarely to blame for the economic disaster that has befallen California. The lawmakers in Sacramento make the US Congress look good... damn good. And that's a pretty pathetic statement. All of this said, it should be noted that the situation moderately improved this past year following a particularly wet winter... and last year's congressional elections. Seriously. Representative Jim Costa, a Democrat, successfully lobbied to get more water delivered to farmers... finally... when his chances for reelection look slim. And he pulled it off... just barely.

Okay... thanks Alpha... :-)

But who in the government could oversee such a massive social program without the elements of corruption, abuse and waste? Name a person or organization, right-leaning OR left, that you truly trust to manage your money responsibly. Besides... don't programs already exist to help those in dire need? Shouldn't eliminate duplication of service before funding another? I live in California and not too far from my little suburban street are parched farmlands that have been denied water deliveries from the north because of a worthless fish called the Delta Smelt. Much of the San Joaquin Valley along the Interstate 5 corridor is a barren wasteland that once would and could be again a bountiful basket of food that could feed the hungry in our own country scores of times over. Given the state of California these days, I'm not impressed with the video you presented. Certain liberal policies have negatively impacted quality of life here and across the country in absurd ways and underscore the routine failure of government intervention in our daily lives.

Interesting comments...

Unfortunately, that's why it will never work, Alpha. The "elite" remain the "elite" while the "peasants" do all the work and reap little more benefits than just surviving, all the while working to produce goods that keep the "elite" in their positions of power. What country today embraces socialism? Do those people enjoy the benefits of freedom the way we do? But somebody somewhere along the line had to buy something to grow crops... equipment, tools, etc. It was cool back in the day when people paid their doctor with a chicken or eggs or a hearty meal. But, like or not, the economy runs on currency - or at least numbers representing currency. In the end, cash is still king and you can't obtain even basic necessities without it. What would help some with this is a simplification of the tax code. Just a thought... I don't have a problem with welfare when it is being used as intended; it is supposed to be a safety net of temporary support for those in need until they get back on their feet. It was never intended to be a career. But now that you mention it... How about taking some of those tax dollars certain welfare recipients piss away in booze or cigarettes or Little Debbie cakes and making them earn it through work... Run them through a training program of some kind, then FORCE THEM out of the house when qualified to look for a job. Wait, they have half a dozen kids? Then use our tax money to fund child care for them. But wait, they want to have six MORE kids? Sorry, lady... identify the father(s) so that we may lean on HIM to refund the taxpayers. At some point, she'll become infertile... seriously... Then put her ass back to work if she refuses to play along. But wait, there are no JOBS available? There might be if we offer some tax incentives (or punishments?) to businesses currently employing illegals to send then packing and begin employing freshly trained welfare folks. Just think if Obama's stimulus money had been used for this rather than whatever it was used for... That's where money can REALLY do good, instead of paying off unions. It's a choice government and the people need to make in an investment in the US... Again, government has no place in managing health care in the United States. Free market always works best... I don't want to rehash the whole health care issue so I won't go into detail on it, but socialized medicine is already practiced in this country (ie: Medicare) and it ain't great. Again, like welfare, you get just enough to survive but not enough to thrive. I agree to cutting military spending if we bring all troops home (except, of course, strategic bases used to defend allies), reassign them to secure our borders... And STOP giving our enemies money, PERIOD. Fund our allies, NOT our enemies, as we continue to do! Tax dollars saved this way could be used to develop alternative energy that actually WORKS - all the while we should be developing our vast oil reserves that sit untouched. Enough with this regulatory crap... We have the technology to drill without damaging fragile ecosystems... That's where PROPER and ENFORCABLE rules and regulations come in - do it right without being selectively punitive or unreasonable. Then we won't have a need to defend oil abroad. Honestly, left-leaning policies have made it next to impossible for America to exist WITHOUT dependence on foreign oil. I know the strategy is to force American acceptance of alternative energy, but we're not to a point where alternative energy resources can be used on a grand scale in a cost-effective way. Let's move in the direction, but we STILL need to utilize our natural resources until we do. If we move too fast, our already fragile economy will collapse even further... then we have ZERO ability to put a dime toward exploring alternative energy solutions. We need to be smart about these things... and we're not.

Hey Alpha! I agree that the government should be there to help people in need... It is an excellent use of taxpayer funds and it is what those funds have always been intended for. However, I believe that government employees should not make up the bulk of a free market system jobs. I believe our economy works best when driven by private business. Taxes derived from private business is what should pay for those government jobs you mentioned... An economic model where the government pays workers, then takes money from those workers to fund themselves? Ummm... It's not sustainable. Socialism doesn't really work... In many ways, I liken it to welfare-dependent folks - we all know some able-bodied folks that have milked the system - receiving government assistance at a fixed level, receiving just enough to get by but never enough to, for example, buy a new car or house. And some people are just fine with existing rather than achieving. That's what dependence does. And it's the old adage... if you've never had to work for it, then you likely won't appreciate it. I apologize for being simplistic or seemingly lacking compassion with all of this, but it's the only way I know to get the point across. Alpha, I support government assistance when people utilize appropriately to move ahead in life, not linger in a state of mediocrity because it's easier and free. I don't take at issue at all with that... And I absolutely agree with you that it's what family should do. I remember you talking about this before, working with your mom on the house, etc. Alpha, you ARE an entrepreneur... and I would call you a successful businessman. You are running a business... Now, as you have said, your chosen career may not pay a lot of money but I'd call it a success because it EXISTS and you forge ahead. You're doing what so many other people either can't or won't do. I totally believe that it is on the backs of people like you, me, and other friends here who work each day and pay the taxes that fund our teachers, firefighters, police, etc., that keep this country going. You and your family are far from socialists... I see you as the backbone of this country. I don't connect what families should do with what government should do... I believe it is two totally different things. I truly believe government's job is to provide the environment for you to achieve on your own without burdensome hurdles to overcome. And, in turn, it is our job to strive to build the best life, career, family, whatever in the environment that achivement-friendly environment the government provides. As for the Glenn Beck comment... I actually agree with that. Because responsible, compassionate people who attain lots of money can do very good things with that money. With wealth, such a person (like, say, Warren Buffett - who was mentioned in this thread earlier, or maybe Steve Soros?) could establish or grow a business that requires employees who could get paid well to do good work - so that they could save money to eventually start their own business that would require employees, etc. I think maybe that it how it is suppose to work. Because unfettered creativity and innovation (Steve Jobs, anyone?) can result in untold positives in the world. Sure, with money comes greed... But you can't really throw the baby out with the bath water, right? Besides, I trust the judgement of the average person with handling their own money moreso than the government. Speaking of greed... perhaps all of the money our government takes in to "do for us" has resulted in greed? As the overseer of all of our tax dollars, do you really trust the government to handle it appropriately? It isn't exactly working out well for us, is it? I think that's why socialism fails... The thing you pointed out, Alpha - greed!

Don't sweat it, Max... I was just pointing the inconsistency that I had noted having read your material for many years now, first at WoST and now here. I concede that people can change their minds about issues... I have, myself, about many things over the years. Some things I'm still conflicted about, others not so much. But my core beliefs - the notion that I am still rather conservative - don't change based on the stupid things certain conservatives may say. And while I acknowledge that sometimes it seems the values both liberals and conservatives often embrace sometimes seem to be a moving target, I insist there are still core beliefs that don't change. I'm not Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh... neither of those gentlemen represent in full what I stand for or may believe in - though there may be points I agree with every now and then, etc. I suspect Roman might agree that while he may lean left, not every view presented by a Democrat represents his personal views of each so-called "Liberal" issue. As I said previously, I doubt very seriously that Roman would suddenly declare himself a conservative because some Democrat said or did something foolish. We've hashed this one out... no point in beating a dead horse. Let's move on, Max. I agree with Roman's last post... be yourself. Whoever that may be... LOL! There have often been great discussions on issues here in the past and I look forward to more in the future. On some things, we'll all just have to agree to disagree. And, Roman, three years feels like forever ago... We've all lived some since then. I sent you a private message... It's cool, Max... Let's move on to some fresh material...

Again, Max, you seem to be misrepresenting what has been said. I haven't asked you to adhere to a specific ideology, nor did Roman to be honest. I can't speak for Roman, but I'm simply asking that you be consistent... dude, you're all over the map. It seems as if you have no core beliefs now... I'm not particularly happy with either party these days. Most of the Republican candidates I see are pandering in the same way I perceive you to be doing, Max; they hide their core beliefs in an attempt to secure an otherwise out of reach section of the electorate. You seem to shift gears and attempt to mold your image and characterize yourself depending upon the person you are speaking with. I plainly see that you are trying to project yourself as a moderate... Maybe you have legitimately moved to the center - I can't read your mind. Whatever the case, you seem to be contradicting yourself now more than ever in this attempt to be moderate. There is a good reason why folks on both the left AND right are no fans of moderates... Now, I wouldn't say that both conservatism and liberalism are both badly flawed - there are good and bad points to both political viewpoints. Remove politicians and the desire to seize more power from the equation and go grassroots and you'll find that regular people coming to the table representing both ideologies have more in common than not. Remove radicalism from any viewpoint and you're left with basically good people who want to figure out how to live in harmony and do the best for themselves and their loved ones. I have no idea if all that I have just said makes any sense... I'm not spending a lot of time composing my thoughts - I think it works better for me to just articulate my ideas without worrying about how to compose them. In the past I think I've come off poorly to some trying to express my thoughts in a colorful way rather than just come out with it... Don't have time to be fancy in my words so I'm keeping it pretty bare bones. Hope it makes sense. If not... Oh well. :-) I didn't mean it in a bad way... LOL

Thanks for the clarifications, Max. I admit to be confused, though, by the idea that stupid conservatives or Republicans make you less conservative... I mean, your beliefs and principles are what they are, stupid comments notwithstanding. Liberals that today say they are disenchanted with Obama based on his performance, failure to keep promises, etc. don't state they are less liberal because they are disappointed with Obama - and certainly I don't hear viewpoints signficantly changing, ie: "I'm no longer for gay marriage because Obama's record on the economy sucks." Okay, that's an exaggeration, but you get my point. Whatever your beliefs today, I'm cool with that. My own beliefs on many social issues have evolved, or at least I don't find those issues to be so black and white anymore. With regard to your comments on moderate candidates... I'm afraid the country is so polarized right now that it doesn't really matter who gets elected. A significant base in both parties with resist an elected President of an opposing party and will be unwilling to work together. What kind of individual will we need to make things happen? Perhaps a hybrid of Reagan and Clinton? I don't see anybody like that on either side...

Not sure I understand the government job cuts affecting private sector... I have always believed that private enterprise - entrepreneurship (spelling sucks and I don't wanna check it! LOL) - was what drove growth in this country, not the government. I believe the best opportunity is to build wealth and security on your own rather though through a gift of the government... Perhaps we differ on that idea, Carl... Either way, I believe Democrats had a wonderful opportunity when Obama took office to do some great work and they blew it. But I will say that it can't all be on Obama's shoulders... Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi share the burden. Reid is simply out of touch and Pelosi had delusions of grandeur, in my opinion. Mind you, I realize anyone here can pick any Republican out of the crowd (myself included) and same the same for them... but I'm not singing to the choir here. :-)