> 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: