> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>> California isn't new. > >>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>> constraints. > >>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes.
> >> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses.
> >> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength.
> > That's not what I said though.
> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know ..
all you have to do is go back and read. If you do you'll see that I said nothing about gay marriage. You support anything that bashes gays whatever the method and that is clear to all.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>> constraints. >>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>> That's not what I said though. >> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know ..
> all you have to do is go back and read.
I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify:
-- "the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic population by 30 million".
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>> That's not what I said though. > >> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know ..
> > all you have to do is go back and read.
> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify:
You need to just read. If you can't figure it out from all that then you're not smart enough to understand any clarification.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>> all you have to do is go back and read. >> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify:
> You need to just read.
Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally realize your point was trivial.
-- I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis that had crash-landed from a burning star onto American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis had left the building.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify:
> > You need to just read.
> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > realize your point was trivial.
Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. I also can't teach my dog to play chess. It's the same thing. Probably not your fault.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>> You need to just read. >> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >> realize your point was trivial.
> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless.
Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally realize your point was trivial.
-- Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>> You need to just read. > >> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >> realize your point was trivial.
> > Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless.
> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > realize your point was trivial.
Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros is pointless. Everyone else can just figure it out and Jaros cannot. Sadly, conversations with Jaros can never really have fruitful discussion as everyone knows. It's pointless to even try.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>> You need to just read. >>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>> realize your point was trivial. >>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >> realize your point was trivial.
> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > is pointless.
Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was?
-- The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>> You need to just read. > >>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >> realize your point was trivial.
> > Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > > is pointless.
> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was?
Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd responses that either have nothing to do with the subject or result in bizzare exchanges. The Harvard debate team or all 9 justices of the US supreme court could present lengthy evidence of a point to Jaros and he won't get it and will reply with nonsense.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>> realize your point was trivial. >>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>> is pointless. >> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was?
> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > responses
you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
lol.
--
What is sacred has changed in this culture. The Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ are not sacred anymore, while Jews and the Holocaust and homosexuality have become sacred.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>>>> You need to just read. > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > >>> is pointless. > >> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was?
> > Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > > responses
> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> lol.
See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, he wouldn't understand and could not have the ability to have a real conversation.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>>>> is pointless. >>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? >>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd >>> responses >> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
>> lol.
> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world,
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
-- There are so many posts in government service that it is frightening just to think about them.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > >>>>> is pointless. > >>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > >>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > >>> responses > >> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> >> lol.
> > See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > > Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world,
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>>>>>> is pointless. >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd >>>>> responses >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>> lol. >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
-- no liberty was more central (to the founding fathers) than the people's liberty to govern themselves under rules of their own choice.
- Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
the right in the people to participate in the legislature is the foundation of liberty and of all free government.
- Delaware Constitution, Declaration of Rights (1776)
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing in Maine being an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > >>>>>>> is pointless. > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > >>>>> responses > >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>> lol. > >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > > >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > > >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > > >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > > >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > > >>>>>>> is pointless. > > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > > >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > > >>>>> responses > > >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > > >>>> lol. > > >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > > >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > > > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
> > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> The point already being shared of course.
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > > > >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > > > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > > > >>>>>>> is pointless. > > > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > > > >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > > > >>>>> responses > > > >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > > > >>>> lol. > > > >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > > > >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > > > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > > Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > > > > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
> > > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > The point already being shared of course.
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > Astonishing > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > > >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > > > > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > > >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > > > > >>>>>>> is pointless. > > > > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > > > > >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > > > > >>>>> responses > > > > >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > > > > >>>> lol. > > > > >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > > > > >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > > > > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > > > Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > > > > > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
> > > > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > The point already being shared of course.
> > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > > Astonishing > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> The point just proven by your last post.
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > > > Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > > > > > >>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > > > > > >>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > > > > > >>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > > > > > >>>>>>> is pointless. > > > > > >>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > > > > > >>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > > > > > >>>>> responses > > > > > >>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > > > > > >>>> lol. > > > > > >>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > > > > > >>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > > > > > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > > >> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > > > > Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > > > > > > Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it.
> > > > > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > > > > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > > > The point already being shared of course.
> > > You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > > > Astonishing > > > that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
> > The point just proven by your last post.
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > "point".
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? >>>>>>>>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd >>>>>>>>>>> responses >>>>>>>>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>>> lol. >>>>>>>>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed >>>>>>>>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, >>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with >>>>>>> Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it. >>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>> The point already being shared of course. >>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>> Astonishing >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>> The point just proven by your last post. >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >> "point".
> I have done it, you didn't comprehend it.
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
-- Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointless. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > >>>>>>>>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > >>>>>>>>>>> responses > >>>>>>>>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>>>>>>> lol. > >>>>>>>>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > >>>>>>>>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > >>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>>>> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > >>>>>>> Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it. > >>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>> The point already being shared of course. > >>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > >>>> Astonishing > >>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>> The point just proven by your last post. > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > >> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > >> "point".
> > I have done it, you didn't comprehend it.
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > "point".
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 9, 5:29 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd >>>>>>>>>>>>> responses >>>>>>>>>>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>>>>> lol. >>>>>>>>>>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed >>>>>>>>>>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, >>>>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with >>>>>>>>> Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it. >>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>> The point already being shared of course. >>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>>>> Astonishing >>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>> The point just proven by your last post. >>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >>>> "point". >>> I have done it, you didn't comprehend it. >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >> "point".
> and you just proved my point.
You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point".
-- In our age it is not sex that raises its ugly head, but love.
> Jaybyrd wrote: > > On Nov 9, 5:29 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>> On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointless. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd > >>>>>>>>>>>>> responses > >>>>>>>>>>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>>>>>>>>> lol. > >>>>>>>>>>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed > >>>>>>>>>>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, > >>>>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>>>>>> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with > >>>>>>>>> Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it. > >>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing > >>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>>>> The point already being shared of course. > >>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > >>>>>> Astonishing > >>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". > >>>>> The point just proven by your last post. > >>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > >>>> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > >>>> "point". > >>> I have done it, you didn't comprehend it. > >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > >> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > >> "point".
> > and you just proved my point.
> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". > Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his > "point".
It's not an issue of courage, since I've already done it and you've admitted that. I'm making the point by showing that you continue to respond by cut-and-paste and can't think through an issue. That is the point at this point. The next time you give the same cut and paste answer, that will show the true point, that jaros can't read or think.
Jaybyrd wrote: > On Nov 10, 11:29 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Jaybyrd wrote: >>> On Nov 9, 5:29 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>> On Nov 8, 4:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 8, 10:46 am, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 6:35 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 10:43 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 6:58 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 4:45 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:23 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 11:41 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:40 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:58 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 12:25 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:53 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:11 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 5:09 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaybyrd wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, StephenJ <sjar...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 11:24 am, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The budget in California is crippled for the same reason it gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crippled elsewhere: legislators who insist on spending more than their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed revenues permit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for much of their budget their hands are tied because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like saying that when i make up my household budge, my hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "tied" by the amount of the wife's salaries. True, but not very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful. It just means that i can't spend more than that, unless i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to wade out into the waters of debt, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people got what they voted for. The people are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govenment. My point is still valid: you should not govern through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still? You haven't demonstrated the validity of that point. Perhaps if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you invoked some arguments about the value of deliberation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea that We the People contribute to our own budget problems in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> California isn't new. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know that the people of california have used the referendum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to restrict taxing ability and enact new services. But, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't change the fact that these are merely constraints the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislature faces and it is their duty to work within those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they don't, well, their fault eh? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with my point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It must have everything to do with it. If your 'point' is literally that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state shouldn't govern by referendum, well that's a trivial point that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one would disagree with, and in fact no state has ever tried to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. With all the hundreds of governmental decisions made every day, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would mean that every citizen must be permanently hooked up to voting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines and spend several hours a day casting votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we were talking about the specific issue of whether the use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referendums on stuff like gay marriage or tax policy makes sense, and as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i said originally, it has strengths and weaknesses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The gay thing inMainebeing an example of a strength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I said though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think you said? At this point, I'm not sure you know .. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all you have to do is go back and read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that and it's clear from your responses that you've either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgotten what you said or never had a clear idea of what you meant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. So this space reserved, go ahead and clarify: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to just read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given your history of not getting stuff it would be pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid to clarify? I'm guessing it's because you finally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize your point was trivial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows that trying to have a reasonable discussion with Jaros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is pointless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of re-stating what your 'point' was? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying even the most obvious statement to Jaros will result in odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responses >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lol. >>>>>>>>>>>>> See? Even if all the people of the earth got together and showed >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaros proof from all of the libraries of the world, >>>>>>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>>>> Not just "others" in RSFC. No one could have a real conversation with >>>>>>>>>>> Jaros. It's pointless. This thread continues to prove it. >>>>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". Astonishing >>>>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>>>> The point already being shared of course. >>>>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>>>>>> Astonishing >>>>>>>> that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his "point". >>>>>>> The point just proven by your last post. >>>>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>>>> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >>>>>> "point". >>>>> I have done it, you didn't comprehend it. >>>> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >>>> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >>>> "point". >>> and you just proved my point. >> You've also resorted to hiding behind the skirt of "others". >> Astonishing that "Jaybrd" can't muster the courage to re-state his >> "point".
> It's not an issue of courage, since I've already done it
where?
-- "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
|
