Politics: Too much bitching, not enough doing.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:43 am

It's easy to bitch, moan and complain. Here's somebody that is actually putting his money where his mouth is to solve the problem:

An eccentric, globetrotting multibillionaire who doesn't own a home in California â€” or anywhere, for that matter; he says he has little use for owning things â€” is about to breathe life into efforts to shake up Sacramento.

Nicolas Berggruen will give at least $20 million to a group of Californians who long to restructure state government so it is more responsive to voters, more responsible with public funds and ready to reposition the state to meet the challenges of today's economy.

Full Story Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 0918.story

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:30 am

A likely story.

knowmad · Post by **knowmad** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:58 am

from the Original Article

The members he has chosen for the Think Long Committee for California run the ideological gamut. Reaganite George Schultz and Bush administration veteran Condoleezza Rice will weigh in, as will Democrats Willie Brown and Gray Davis. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad will also serve on the committee. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a guest at the first meeting.

for a man of action he sure expects a lot out of the usual lipflappers.
Perls before swine. $ rarely solves problems that concern can fix. And being a non-materialist he can't really justify substituting cash for influence.

Lobbyist are not men of action, they are hired gunslingers.

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:22 pm

knowmad wrote:from the Original Article
The members he has chosen for the Think Long Committee for California run the ideological gamut. Reaganite George Schultz and Bush administration veteran Condoleezza Rice will weigh in, as will Democrats Willie Brown and Gray Davis. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad will also serve on the committee. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a guest at the first meeting.
for a man of action he sure expects a lot out of the usual lipflappers.
Perls before swine. $ rarely solves problems that concern can fix. And being a non-materialist he can't really justify substituting cash for influence.

Lobbyist are not men of action, they are hired gunslingers.

Just another example of complaining and bitching. It's easy to throw mud and say what's wrong with what he's trying to do. Why not comment on what's right and good about it?

Or better yet, show us what you are personally doing to fix the problem.

JK

Box Burner · Post by **Box Burner** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:21 pm

Giving the money into the hands of anyone currently in office is just throwing it away.

Want to make a real difference? Everyone can participate and you do not have to be rich. It's simple. Do not vote for a democrat or a republican, or anyone who has held an office as a democrat or repblican, for the next 5 elections. Do not stop voting, just vote for someone else. If evryone did that you would see real change. And better government too.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:27 pm

Which problem in particular? You ever think that maybe California is TOO responsive to the voters? Maybe our system of ballot propositions is the problem?

knowmad · Post by **knowmad** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:43 pm

jkisha wrote:
knowmad wrote:from the Original Article
The members he has chosen for the Think Long Committee for California run the ideological gamut. Reaganite George Schultz and Bush administration veteran Condoleezza Rice will weigh in, as will Democrats Willie Brown and Gray Davis. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad will also serve on the committee. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a guest at the first meeting.
for a man of action he sure expects a lot out of the usual lipflappers.
Perls before swine. $ rarely solves problems that concern can fix. And being a non-materialist he can't really justify substituting cash for influence.

Lobbyist are not men of action, they are hired gunslingers.
Just another example of complaining and bitching. It's easy to throw mud and say what's wrong with what he's trying to do. Why not comment on what's right and good about it?

Or better yet, show us what you are personally doing to fix the problem.

JK

I personally am helping with this problem by A) standing firm in my Disbelief in the Political proses as a whole. B) contributing little as possible ($) to causes that embrace a means or an end defined by or measured by $. C) Staying away from Californians and their hippy-dippy logic spewing let's-change-the-system-from-within compromising drivel.

And no. I will not be applauding what he is doing be cause it is just Lobbyist plain and simple. money for influence; nothing good or right about it. EVAR![/b]

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:42 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:Which problem in particular? You ever think that maybe California is TOO responsive to the voters? Maybe our system of ballot propositions is the problem?

Yup, definately thought about that, and I agree. It's definately a problem. That's why, as much as most people hate it, we have ELECTIVE government. People we send to congress to represent us all. Rull by the masses, as I believe is proven by CA prop system, just is not a good alternative.

JK

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:41 pm

It's strange, methinks, that the "California Republic" is printed on the flag, but it strives to be a democracy. Representative democracy might sound like a good compromise, but then you get what we endure today: the SF Bay area and the LA basin run the whole scene in Sacramento.

Anytime a billionaire sponsors a political pow wow, there is a reason. When one person contributes $250k to uphold a law which cripples industry and productive enterprise, that is influencing an agenda.

George Soros speaks with his pocket book too. It has gotten him no less than FOUR visits to the White House in the past two years. These individuals have great influence because of the $$$$$$$$$$ they possess.

The problem is, all individuals should have equal opportunity for an audience with the powers that be. All individuals should be equal in the eyes of the government. All individuals do not have $billion$.

If this guy has ONE Billion, $20M is 2% of his total worth. That is equivalent to a person worth $100k giving $2k. Sorry JK,,,, BFD. I'm sure he gets a nice deduction for that too.

And yeah I've contributed my time and effort to certain movements. It does not give me any more or any less freedom of speech. Whether it is bitching or speech-making, we all have EQUAL rights to do it. Unfortunately, those with money go to the front of the line and preclude the concerns of the common man.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:05 pm

it always comes back to the money, IMHO.

those in power have it
Those who seek power want it

Those who have it, have power
those who spend it, get power

the rest of us are just entertainment.
and, from time to time, enough of us, pool our resources, and, overturn those there...but, it ends up in the same place.

IMHO, it's human nature, and, to think otherwise, is delusional.

one of "the founders" had it so right, in calling for a revolution, every few years.
Also, IIRC, a "constitutional convention" was also intended to happen fairly regularly.........

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:40 pm

Trishntek wrote:It's strange, methinks, that the "California Republic" is printed on the flag, but it strives to be a democracy. Representative democracy might sound like a good compromise, but then you get what we endure today: the SF Bay area and the LA basin run the whole scene in Sacramento.

Anytime a billionaire sponsors a political pow wow, there is a reason. When one person contributes $250k to uphold a law which cripples industry and productive enterprise, that is influencing an agenda.

George Soros speaks with his pocket book too. It has gotten him no less than FOUR visits to the White House in the past two years. These individuals have great influence because of the $$$$$$$$$$ they possess.

The problem is, all individuals should have equal opportunity for an audience with the powers that be. All individuals should be equal in the eyes of the government. All individuals do not have $billion$.

If this guy has ONE Billion, $20M is 2% of his total worth. That is equivalent to a person worth $100k giving $2k. Sorry JK,,,, BFD. I'm sure he gets a nice deduction for that too.

And yeah I've contributed my time and effort to certain movements. It does not give me any more or any less freedom of speech. Whether it is bitching or speech-making, we all have EQUAL rights to do it. Unfortunately, those with money go to the front of the line and preclude the concerns of the common man.

I agree with ALMOST everything you said here.

Unfortunately it sounds like you have gotten so jaded that you don't believe that there are at least some people with lots of money that are willing to spend it with completely altruistic motives.

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:46 pm

ygmir wrote:it always comes back to the money, IMHO.

those in power have it
Those who seek power want it

Those who have it, have power
those who spend it, get power

the rest of us are just entertainment.
and, from time to time, enough of us, pool our resources, and, overturn those there...but, it ends up in the same place.

IMHO, it's human nature, and, to think otherwise, is delusional.

one of "the founders" had it so right, in calling for a revolution, every few years.
Also, IIRC, a "constitutional convention" was also intended to happen fairly regularly.........

Yes money is the problem right now with our political system. They seem to believe too much in the golden rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Campaign finance reform will be the only hope of fixing the system. As I have said in other posts, it should be one person, one vote. Not one dollar one vote.

The only thing that gives the 'average' person an advantage is their numbers. So, if a large majority of the constituency banded together and participated in a revolution of phone calls, letters and marches on Washington, you better believe the "people" would prevail. Even though multi-millionaire corporations and individuals might have the ear of congress, the people have the vote.

If "the people" are stupid enough to believe all the ridiculous TV campaign adds, rather than taking the time to study the issues and the candidates, "the people" deserve the government they get.

JK

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:49 pm

I hate crap like this. I will quote it because it is likely to disappear. It is from The Hill IT is just more corrupt political crap by more corrupt politicians, this time Boxer.

[quote]
Barb Boxerâ€™s Indian tribe take
By Rick Manning - 10/30/10 08:55 AM ET

For the past 10 years Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has been playing a game that would make Jack Abramoff blush, a game that can best be described using the language of â€œGet Smartâ€™sâ€

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:58 pm

awh c'mon.....you know, Boxer, let alone any democrat, would never do anything like that..........

Of course, we all know the republicans would, though (no, really).

they're all corrupt, liars, cheats.........most get in, because, they see a path to fame and fortune, and, since most can't make it at "real" jobs.....that's where they head........

*turns cynicism knob down*

Thecatman · Post by **Thecatman** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:30 pm

I have never seen so much slander in political ads then this mid-term election season.

Especially between Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.
This afternoon while on the home from the cat show in Reno, we saw a new Camaro with Florida licence plate and a "Dump Reid" sticker on it.
While I agree with those sentiments, what business is it of some tourist from Florida to stick their nose in Nevadas election?

Thecatman · Post by **Thecatman** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:33 pm

It just seems like the whole country is engrossed in Nevadas senate election.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:44 pm

ygmir wrote:awh c'mon.....you know, Boxer, let alone any democrat, would never do anything like that..........

Of course, we all know the republicans would, though (no, really).

they're all corrupt, liars, cheats.........most get in, because, they see a path to fame and fortune, and, since most can't make it at "real" jobs.....that's where they head........

*turns cynicism knob down*

I believe this is the root of the Chronicle not endorsing Boxer. That is a totally Democratic Party supporting paper and it seemed odd at the time that they would not endorse Boxer. This would explain it.

EmilyD · Post by **EmilyD** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:15 am

geekster wrote:I hate crap like this. IT is just more corrupt political crap by more corrupt politicians, this time Boxer.

-snip-

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall

Thanks for this disturbing information Geekster. Like the Sonoma Assemblyperson mentioned in the Press Democrat article: "Despite it all, Huffman plans to vote for Boxer.
â€œI would regard this as an anomaly,â€

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:20 am

It just seems like the whole country is engrossed in Nevadas senate election.

Well, why not? Everyone sees it as an election cycle where no matter your party affiliation of candidate preferences that end result is that ou'll leave that booth wanting to take a shower.

Nowhere is this more apparent than Nevada. The state is nothing more than a dog fight where EVERYONE is gonna get shit kicked on them regardless of what party they support.

Call me an elitist but but right now I'm thinking that there are some states where the vote really shouldn't count. Nevada is one of them.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:56 am

[quote="EmilyD"]

Thanks for this disturbing information Geekster. Like the Sonoma Assemblyperson mentioned in the Press Democrat article: "Despite it all, Huffman plans to vote for Boxer.
â€œI would regard this as an anomaly,â€

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:05 am

Put more clearly:

This country is on hard times and that is going to require hard decisions. The decisions that position things best for the future may not be the most popular choice right now.

Given that scenario, I would rather have someone in the position of Senator that has been through such a situation and succeeded. I do not want someone who will take the popular position that prolongs the pain over someone who can make some hard choices for the long term benefit. (even at the cost of her job in the short run, as happened at HP).

In short: "If you have to eat a shit sandwich, don't nibble." -- Sean's wife.

"My esoteric doctrine, is that if you entertain any doubt, it is safest to take the unpopular side in the first instance. Transit from the unpopular, is easy... but from the popular to the unpopular is so steep and rugged that it is impossible to maintain it. -- Lord Melbourne

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:18 am

EmilyD wrote:
geekster wrote:I hate crap like this. IT is just more corrupt political crap by more corrupt politicians, this time Boxer.

-snip-

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall

Thanks for this disturbing information Geekster. Like the Sonoma Assemblyperson mentioned in the Press Democrat article: "Despite it all, Huffman plans to vote for Boxer.
â€œI would regard this as an anomaly,â€

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:32 am

ygmir wrote:
EmilyD wrote:
geekster wrote:I hate crap like this. IT is just more corrupt political crap by more corrupt politicians, this time Boxer.

-snip-

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall

Thanks for this disturbing information Geekster. Like the Sonoma Assemblyperson mentioned in the Press Democrat article: "Despite it all, Huffman plans to vote for Boxer.
â€œI would regard this as an anomaly,â€

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:41 am

yeah, I'm sure we would get a few "looneys".......on both sides.

but, I'd bet, we'd get many more, who, would go, just to do what needs doing.
Especially, if the "mood" was; all are getting ousted, and, it's a "clean slate" as such........all new faces.
And, they'd drown out the extremes, IMHO.

especially, if we put in term limits.........so they'd know, it's not a "career".

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:02 am

In response, but not especially to answer or rebut, Geekster's post on the Boxer story:

Here's a little true store in the life of me and my partner:

I'm a coffee drinker, my partner is not. It was time to buy a new coffeemaker and I wanted desperately to buy this rather pricey Cuisinart coffeemaker, which was met with some objection by my partner. Well, I immediately started presenting all of the features and advantages of the coffeemaker to justify my reasons for wanting to buy it over many of the less expensive models my partner was in favor of getting.

I thought that one of my best arguments in defense of this expensive coffeemaker was that it came with a gold filter that would never need replacement and would save us money over the life of the machine; and I actually believed there was some truth to this logic.

He finally relented and we got the Cuisinart. I made the first pot of coffee. (actually, this model didn't have a pot or carafe, it stores the coffee internally and dispenses it one cup at a time, but I digress). Sadly, I discovered that the gold filter doesn't do a good job of filtering the coffee and leaves residue both in the coffeemaker and in the last cup of coffee. I, of course, never mentioned this to my partner.

Then, when shopping at Ralph's the other day, I put a box of filters in the cart, and my partner immediately commented that he thought we wouldn't need to be buying filters anymore. To which, I had to explain that the filter didn't work as well as I had thought that it would.

Draw whatever conclusions you want from this story--it's something that happened between two people on a relatively simple issue with people having the best intentions at heart. Imagine the unexpected consequences on more difficult issues that can involve and impact thousands if not millions of people.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:09 am

yeah, 'cause Boxer and her son had no idea he'd make 8 mil. from her tactics, and as EmilyD says:

EmilyD wrote:I too am voting for Boxer. I am disappointed by this story but I'd also assume that any person who's been in government as long as Boxer has would make a mistake now and then

yeah, I can see that as a "mistake"......and, luckily, I bet it's the only one.

and, saying "others" do that, and worse, (IMHO), does not excuse it.

I know.....cynical bastard, me

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:39 am

Isotopia wrote:
It just seems like the whole country is engrossed in Nevadas senate election.
Well, why not? Everyone sees it as an election cycle where no matter your party affiliation of candidate preferences that end result is that ou'll leave that booth wanting to take a shower.

Nowhere is this more apparent than Nevada. The state is nothing more than a dog fight where EVERYONE is gonna get shit kicked on them regardless of what party they support.

Call me an elitist but but right now I'm thinking that there are some states where the vote really shouldn't count. Nevada is one of them.

So you like the status quo? Really? I'm for voting all of them OUT!

edit: fucking elitist,,,,, jus' sayin'

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:01 am

If we would expect as much from our children growing up as we seem to expect from our politicians, we'd be throwing them all out too!

(think about it.)

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:09 am

jkisha wrote:If we would expect as much from our children growing up as we seem to expect from our politicians, we'd be throwing them all out too!

(think about it.)

JK

yeah, because our politicians are young, inexperienced and need us to help them learn about life.

I'd say, most of us do expect a lot from our children............we may not get it, but, do expect it.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:15 am

jkisha wrote:If we would expect as much from our children growing up as we seem to expect from our politicians, we'd be throwing them all out too!

(think about it.)

JK

Expectations,,,, from politicians should be nothing more than protecting our liberty by keeping gubmint out of our lives and do it within the tax revenues actually received.

This tweaking the economy, healing little Johnny's booboo, dictating what, how and when to learn and making sure granny has her pacemaker are not what I EXPECT from a politician.