CALIFORNIA

[pow]

Cali in the LA and San Fran areas is full of flakes. In the smaller more rural areas people Generally have more common sense and are more like the "rest" of America. A few big fooled hearted cities ruin the state. Sad. Great place to visit never want to live there. Thanks for the info on the "blue dogs" and the great American cars they drive, it comes as no suprise, because all we hear about is LA and SF and all the progressive save the trees $h! from them.

Um, there are plenty of Angelenos who have common sense, and I think you'd be surprised by how much we are like the "rest" of America.

Turn off the Rush Limbaugh or whatever it is that's been "informing" your views, and you will discover hardworking, down to earth people who want the same things all Americans want.

Edited February 5, 2009 by empowah

[Croc]

Cali in the LA and San Fran areas is full of flakes. In the smaller more rural areas people Generally have more common sense and are more like the "rest" of America. A few big fooled hearted cities ruin the state. Sad. Great place to visit never want to live there. Thanks for the info on the "blue dogs" and the great American cars they drive, it comes as no suprise, because all we hear about is LA and SF and all the progressive save the trees $h! from them.

This is so amusing. Why are there so many "save the trees" people in LA (technically, they're in Santa Monica and Malibu, completely different municipalities)? Because LA has very few trees. It's a concrete jungle. Even fewer trees existed prior to the 1930s, when all the irrigation public works projects took place. In its natural state, LA is a semi-arid desert...and in its non-natural state, a concrete jungle.

I'm also not quite sure what constitutes a "flake," but I hope you don't watch movies or television, or buy any goods imported from Asia (so no shopping at Walmart) because those "flakes" are directly responsible for at least 90% of all US media, and nearly all Asian imports reaching your state. I also hope you aren't bemoaning the end of the Cold War, because the Southland was one of the primary headquarters for all the aerospace and defense contractors whose hard work kept America strong from the 1940s-early 1990s. When driving the freeways, I hope you don't pass through any stack interchanges, because those "flakes" at Caltrans invented those in 1952. In fact, most standardized freeway design and signage came from the Caltrans standards. In fact, you can blame those "flakes" in California for those red stop signs, too! Every other state originally used yellow (or white) with black lettering. Plus, this whole internet and technology revolution is due to all those "flakes" up in Silicon Valley. Heck, even Google is headquartered there! Those damn "flakes," ruining CA for everyone else...

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Um, there are plenty of Angelenos who have common sense, and I think you'd be surprised by how much we are like the "rest" of America.

Turn off the Rush Limbaugh or whatever it is that's been "informing" your views, and you will discover hardworking, down to earth people who want the same things all Americans want.

Of course there are plenty. They just don't make up the majorities.

[loki]

Of course there are plenty. They just don't make up the majorities.

or at least the ones that get elected or hired into Gov positions...

[Blake Noble]

What kills me is the way that the southern senators are fighting the bail-out and the buy American provisions. Senator McConnell from KY (aka Nissanland) is against helping the American manufacturers.

ok so Kentucky is actually Toyota-land...

I'll let your ignorance, ya know, speak for you.

Could someone please tell me when California has always held unwavering support for Detroit Inc.? Because the last time I checked ...

When did ignorance become a point of view?

[pow]

Of course there are plenty. They just don't make up the majorities.

Right. So now the majority of Angelenos have no common sense...

As a fellow Kentuckian just said, when did ignorance become a point of view?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Right. So now the majority of Angelenos have no common sense...

As a fellow Kentuckian just said, when did ignorance become a point of view?

How are you defining common sense? I'm defining it by people wanting an actually balanced state budget that doesn't tax us to hell compared to other states.

How are you defining it?

I'll admit, ive meet a lot of smart people from the LA area, and i've meet many smart people from the SF area... however given their voting record i am still quite leery of them.

Oh and just to argue semantics, most "common" sense isn't very common... what you refer to as common sense is obviously different than how i define it.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Croc]

How are you defining common sense? I'm defining it by people wanting an actually balanced state budget that doesn't tax us to hell compared to other states.

How are you defining it?

I'll admit, ive meet a lot of smart people from the LA area, and i've meet many smart people from the SF area... however given their voting record i am still quite leery of them.

Oh and just to argue semantics, most "common" sense isn't very common... what you refer to as common sense is obviously different than how i define it.

Waitaminute...you just admit that you've met A LOT of smart Angelenos, and MANY smart San Franciscans...yet because of the political party we collectively vote for you're convinced that the majority of people lack common sense, as defined by wanting a balanced budget and low taxes?

THAT IS--BY FAR--THE MOST ASININE THING I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS SITE!

Maybe people out here choose to tax themselves more to provide more social services for the most vulnerable populations? We have a lot of homeless people, and while some have undoubtably come from out of state, a large percentage of them are VETERANS. Why do we take care of them? Because the US Government didn't give a $h! about them when they were sent off off to Vietnam at 17, and it didn't give a $h! when they came back from the war because "they didn't win." Hardcore PTSD, schizophrenia, nerve damage, and a ton of other physical and psychological issues leave so many unable to get or hold a job. We vote for increased social programs BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

So many people have come to California to live "The Californian Dream," and while not everyone reaches it, so many of us recognize how fortunate we are to have, and with what material success we have earned, we do not have a problem "giving back" to the community.

You want to know why the budget isn't balanced? Because we'd really like to have free lunches for poor and vulnerable populations. We want to help the homeless acquire skills to work or at least have a place to stay the night inside. We want to fight against injustice so ALL of our friends and families can have the CHOICE whether to marry or not, instead of being denied that choice based on their or their partner's gender. We want to do our part to clean up the environment, so we vote for high speed rail to lessen freeway congestion and provide an alternative method to get between northern and southern California without dumping all that pollution in the air (by car, or by plane). We made it a priority in the 1970s to make sure ALL schools receive equal funding from the state. We also cap our property taxes at 1.25% of the sale price, and they cannot raise more than 1% of THAT per year because we don't want senior citizens taxed out of the homes they paid off decades ago.

We want to help out so many people of so many different walks of life that the limited funding resources can only go so far...and yet each group wants to ensure that their cause celebre isn't cut in the budget. Whether it's education, public safety, youth mentor programs, homeless training and housing, environmental preservation, historical preservation, or whatever "fluff program" we have that infuriates you so much.

Our budget is f@#ked because the economy is in the $h!ter, inflation has been rapid, costs have skyrocketed, and yet no one wants to concede "their" vulnerable population or legacy effort to be screwed over as part of necessary budget cuts while other causes--in their eyes lesser--still hang in there.

So, what's the common sense solution there? What do we defer? Infrastructure maintenance? Nope, that's pretty dangerous to do--look at New Orleans and Minneapolis. Cut homeless welfare programs? Oh, that's a toughie...even more will be on the streets relying on petty crime just to make it through another day. Cut education funding? Hmmm...and potentially jeopardize the future of our youth? Sell state assets to make up the shortfall? Well shoot, what do we do next year? Raise taxes? Possibly...but the middle class has been dwindling for years now, and we don't want it to be impossible for our kids to live in the same town they grew up in.

So please, tell me, since you have all the "uncommon common sense" answers!

[Intrepidation]

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

So, what's the common sense solution there? What do we defer? Infrastructure maintenance? Nope, that's pretty dangerous to do--look at New Orleans and Minneapolis. Cut homeless welfare programs? Oh, that's a toughie...even more will be on the streets relying on petty crime just to make it through another day. Cut education funding? Hmmm...and potentially jeopardize the future of our youth? Sell state assets to make up the shortfall? Well shoot, what do we do next year? Raise taxes? Possibly...but the middle class has been dwindling for years now, and we don't want it to be impossible for our kids to live in the same town they grew up in.

So please, tell me, since you have all the "uncommon common sense" answers!

First off, i should probably clear up my statement. I have meet a lot of smart people from the LA and the Bay area, however given the LA AND BAY AREA >>overall<< voting records, i remain leery of people form there that i do not know personally. Not the ones that i do know, for they are all fine people and will likely go far in this world.

As to our budget problems, you nailed the argument on the head right there. We have backed ourselves into a political corner. The only way out is to freeze budgets and wait out the storm until our budget balances once more (which will never happen in this state). OR we could raise taxes, but we already have high rates... how much higher do you want to go? Alternatively we could cut programs, but it looks REALLY bad to cut welfare programs and stuff like that.

So what do we do?

And as for the Middle Class... you realize that the only reason the middle class was even still expanding was due to more and more dual income earner households right? Now has that really been worth the extra hours worked? Has it REALLY been worth the boom in childcare industries? Has that had any negative impact upon the family structure? Who knows, i certainly don't. Point of the matter is, we want to ATTRACT business in times of recession, not drive it away!

But anyways... as to the budget problem, the point stands that if we had not started any of those entitlement programs in the first place (oh and went to the federal minimum wage standards instead of CA's one) then our budget wouldn't be so out of whack... and more people would be employed... and dont go blabbering about the standard of living cause you know damn well making $4.95/hr is a hell of a lot better than $0.00/hr.

Face it, California has been in debt for a while now... and it is partially because of the way our tax code works, taxing profits is not a very steady way of generating revenue... that being said, its fairly stupid to tax corporations who aren't making profits.

And while that may be great that SF and LA likes to create entitlement programs for poor people, but there are a LOT of people that are NOT in those areas who would rather keep their own money in their own communities, if we want to help the poor we do so through charities, not through the government. There are still lots of people who view the government as the enemy, being grossly inefficient and very leery of increased government control of our lives. It is for people like us that donating to charity to hell the needy seems a far better option... or lacking the financial ability to do so, to volunteer for charity work!

The RIGHT THING TO DO, is to instill VALUES into people. To make PEOPLE responsible for their own actions. To instill in people that it is GOOD to do CHARITY work. To Volunteer every once in a while and help the needy find jobs or whatever. Shoveling that responsibility onto the government doesn't make people take more responsibility for their actions, it makes them take LESS responsibility for their actions. That is one of the great unintended consequences of these entitlement programs. A society who has lost these values becomes increasingly subjected to the nanny state and RELIANCE UPON THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING, and the ultimate and final form of the nanny state is a 1984ish scenario... i would rather not continue on the path towards that.

A government that is NOT in debt is NOT tying up money in the economy and therefore there is MORE money IN the economy to create jobs for people and therefore do NOT need these entitlement programs. Plus, large government debts (which means they are spending it somewhere) tend to create MORE inflation which just makes things worse (although its great cause when you pay back your creditors, they have essentially lost money on the deal if you keep inflation higher than your interest rate).

Now unemployment and other various temporary safety net programs are okay i suppose, after all everyone hits a snag in the road every once in a while... but tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit are a joke, creating massive marginal rates in the areas when it is phased out and discouraging people to take promotions because, in the end, they gain no financial benefit from it due to these programs.

Liberals are quick to say that us conservatives are heartless, evil and greedy. But they fail to see that we are not. Republicans tend to donate far more time and money to charities than do their Democrat counterparts. We do not enjoy seeing homeless people. But we seek to aid them through WORK. Through JOBS. There are many in the community who feel we should help these poor souls, and so they do. But they do not do it through the government! They do it by forming an organization, a charity, and seeking donations from people to help take care of the needy... to help them get back on their feet. These organizations are running on tight budgets usually and are generally far more efficient in providing services than the government could ever be. It is organizations like these that should be promoted through the government. Re-write the tax code for special deductions for charitable contributions to charities who help the poor and needy (hell lets just give a special credit for people who make these kind of charitable contributions... or maybe even a credit for volunteering say 50 hours a year at a charity!). This should be the role of government in helping the needy - encouraging the citizenry to be active in charities

I saw a poll that asked a simple question that was to the tune of "If you spouse (or parents or something, i dont remember) is sick, do you feel like it is your responsibility to take care of them?" Republicans responded with somewhere around 60-75% saying Yes, it was their responsibility. Less than 50% of Democrats took the same view. Now if that is not reflective of the differences in who should take care of who... then i don't know what is.

We keep giving up our liberties, our freedoms, to the government. We continually risk becoming a nanny state and losing self-responsibility for ourselves and for others. It is not patriotic to pay taxes to have the government take care of people. It is PATRIOTIC for ALL OF US to help those people back on their feet through active volunteering yourself, or through donating to a charity who can do the job. It is OUR patriotic duty to stay vigilant against large overbearing governments that weigh down upon its general citizenry And yes, you could certainly place what has happened over the last 8 years in the Security State (a form of the police state) within this category, as well as Iraq. IT IS ALL OF OUR PATRIOTIC DUTIES TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT IS NOT LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DICTATE HOW WE SHOULD LIVE OUR LIVES OR SPEND OUR MONEY. What is best, in my opinion, is for you and your country is to maintain a free and prosperous state... not a debt laden state where no one takes responsibilities for their own actions.

::edit:: haha wow, i didn't realize i typed so much. Anywho i'm sure its probably a bit muddled since i didn't proofread it and its essentially just a stream of thought. I apologize for the aggressive stance i have taken, it's not that i have any great disdain for the welfare programs, or the good intentions behind them. its just that i don't feel they are the best route our nation can take to helping those people.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[Cory Wolfe]

I don't care about all this bickering... I know I want to move to southern Cali one of these days.

[Croc]

The RIGHT THING TO DO, is to instill VALUES into people. To make PEOPLE responsible for their own actions. To instill in people that it is GOOD to do CHARITY work. To Volunteer every once in a while and help the needy find jobs or whatever. Shoveling that responsibility onto the government doesn't make people take more responsibility for their actions, it makes them take LESS responsibility for their actions. That is one of the great unintended consequences of these entitlement programs.

And where didn't you learn that humans are by nature selfish? None of these entitlement programs would EVER have been made if everyone did what they're supposed to. See, here's what happens: Let's say you should give X amount of money to help out disadvantaged group A, but you aren't required to do so. You want to, you have every intention of doing so, but then you see that big shiny toy at the mall and just HAVE TO HAVE IT, so you donate amount Y, which is significantly less than X because that was the only way you could get said toy for YOU and YOUR LIFE versus some random, nebulous person out there you do not know and will never know. THAT'S HOW HUMAN NATURE WORKS. And if this mortgage crisis hasn't taught you that by far a huge number of people SUCK at managing THEIR OWN budgets, what makes you think that even by "instilling values" (not even going into whether or not this is a measurable goal) you can somehow get a grossly financially incompetent populace to manage a CHARITY BUDGET that they pay regularly to? And even then...what's to say the people with the greatest needs are even being served? Say $100 is donated to charity privately. What if 70% of the private charities are for the homeless, while the mentally ill get 30%? But the mentally ill need $35 to function even remotely effectively. And the homeless really only need $60 to be adequately aided. That's why the government does what it does.

This should be the role of government in helping the needy - encouraging the citizenry to be active in charities

How do you suggest a government do this? What are the performance measures? How are they to be evaluated? How is this an actionable, executable goal? It just isn't.

I saw a poll that asked a simple question that was to the tune of "If you spouse (or parents or something, i dont remember) is sick, do you feel like it is your responsibility to take care of them?" Republicans responded with somewhere around 60-75% saying Yes, it was their responsibility. Less than 50% of Democrats took the same view. Now if that is not reflective of the differences in who should take care of who... then i don't know what is.

And I once saw a poll that 80% of Republicans believed Iraq had an ongoing nuclear arms program after we invaded Iraq. It's called sampling, statistical significance, and how the question was even worded in the first place. Find it. The phrasing of the question is sooooo easy to manipulate in order to manipulate the entire survey.

We keep giving up our liberties, our freedoms, to the government. We continually risk becoming a nanny state and losing self-responsibility for ourselves and for others. It is not patriotic to pay taxes to have the government take care of people. It is PATRIOTIC for ALL OF US to help those people back on their feet through active volunteering yourself, or through donating to a charity who can do the job. It is OUR patriotic duty to stay vigilant against large overbearing governments that weigh down upon its general citizenry And yes, you could certainly place what has happened over the last 8 years in the Security State (a form of the police state) within this category, as well as Iraq. IT IS ALL OF OUR PATRIOTIC DUTIES TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT IS NOT LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DICTATE HOW WE SHOULD LIVE OUR LIVES OR SPEND OUR MONEY. What is best, in my opinion, is for you and your country is to maintain a free and prosperous state... not a debt laden state where no one takes responsibilities for their own actions.

What are you talking about? How is providing for social welfare giving up freedoms, liberties, and personal responsibility? I'm just as responsible for my own actions now as I would be if I didn't pay taxes for any of these things. But have you noticed? It's awfully hard to get a job without a physical address. If you're homeless, how do you get work? If you don't get work, how do you get a place to rent? It's an awfully vicious cycle. And what about people who have schizophrenia, and who may stop taking their meds, or who cannot afford their meds? What about them? Surely you can't be on a personal responsibility soapbox for people who are not of sound mind!

And honestly the government does NOT tell you how to spend your money. You are free to shop wherever you want if you can afford to do so. Like it or not, taxes are a necessity. The Articles of Confederation failed for a very fundamental reason. Taxes are the price to pay for living in this country; if you want to go live somewhere where there are no taxes, then you will more than likely be off the grid in some developing nation, in a rural area...and when someone barges into your house demanding $10,000 or they will shoot you, there will be no 9-1-1 to call, no one to take any information, and possibly not even any statute to charge them under...assuming what law enforcement exists isn't bought and paid for--or worse--complicit in the whole thing.

I don't care about all this bickering... I know I want to move to southern Cali one of these days.

Lesson #1: The state is called "California." "Cal" refers to Cal-Berkeley, and "Cali" refers to tourists. "SoCal" is the "Southland," which is LA-OC and San Diego...as well as the "Inland Empire" of the inland counties (particularly Riverside and Imperial Counties). "NoCal" is what Southlanders derisively call the North, and "NorCal" is what those who live upstate call themselves. And don't ever say "Frisco" as you are liable to alienate everyone within earshot. Oh, and if you ever call it "The OC" you will be mocked. It's just "OC," unless you are being explicitly ironic.

Aaaaand I hope you get to make it out here. Something tells me you'd really love it.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Croc

[ocnblu]

Ugh, Viper, after reading that, are you sure?

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

And where didn't you learn that humans are by nature selfish? None of these entitlement programs would EVER have been made if everyone did what they're supposed to. See, here's what happens: Let's say you should give X amount of money to help out disadvantaged group A, but you aren't required to do so. You want to, you have every intention of doing so, but then you see that big shiny toy at the mall and just HAVE TO HAVE IT, so you donate amount Y, which is significantly less than X because that was the only way you could get said toy for YOU and YOUR LIFE versus some random, nebulous person out there you do not know and will never know. THAT'S HOW HUMAN NATURE WORKS. And if this mortgage crisis hasn't taught you that by far a huge number of people SUCK at managing THEIR OWN budgets, what makes you think that even by "instilling values" (not even going into whether or not this is a measurable goal) you can somehow get a grossly financially incompetent populace to manage a CHARITY BUDGET that they pay regularly to? And even then...what's to say the people with the greatest needs are even being served? Say $100 is donated to charity privately. What if 70% of the private charities are for the homeless, while the mentally ill get 30%? But the mentally ill need $35 to function even remotely effectively. And the homeless really only need $60 to be adequately aided. That's why the government does what it does.

Yes... and the way to teach people to be responsible is not to bail them out. You don't teach people anything by saying "oh boy you screwed up bigtime, but i'll take care of it." You teach people stuff by saying, YOU screwed up. YOU deal with it, and learn from your mistakes. The Government also had a large rule in how it dictated lending standards during the period... don't put blame solely on the financial industry.

And if you are arguing that a charity will be less efficient in delivering proper ratios of aid than the government... well then i am truely at a loss since the government is the king of giving disproportionate aid.

How do you suggest a government do this? What are the performance measures? How are they to be evaluated? How is this an actionable, executable goal? It just isn't.

heavy Tax code revisions STRONGLY encouraging charitable contributions. Evaluations can be conducted just like any other survey assessing effectiveness.

And I once saw a poll that 80% of Republicans believed Iraq had an ongoing nuclear arms program after we invaded Iraq. It's called sampling, statistical significance, and how the question was even worded in the first place. Find it. The phrasing of the question is sooooo easy to manipulate in order to manipulate the entire survey.

I am aware of how statistics works. These were same questions asked to everyone. The numbers are well outside the margin of error and are several standard deviations away from each other.

What are you talking about? How is providing for social welfare giving up freedoms, liberties, and personal responsibility? I'm just as responsible for my own actions now as I would be if I didn't pay taxes for any of these things. But have you noticed? It's awfully hard to get a job without a physical address. If you're homeless, how do you get work? If you don't get work, how do you get a place to rent? It's an awfully vicious cycle. And what about people who have schizophrenia, and who may stop taking their meds, or who cannot afford their meds? What about them? Surely you can't be on a personal responsibility soapbox for people who are not of sound mind!

Hmm... permanently disabled and mentally ill people fit into my definition of people who do deserve help as they... well can't provide for themselves. However, to say that giving up YOUR earned cash to the government is not giving up liberties... then i dont know what to say. YOU earned it, YOU should be able to spend it the way you see fit. As i said, i dont mind the temporary unemployment until people can get back on their feet... but really this can be accomplished through churches and other charitable organizations, but failing that i suppose the government can be the "lender of last resort" in these situations.

And honestly the government does NOT tell you how to spend your money. You are free to shop wherever you want if you can afford to do so. Like it or not, taxes are a necessity. The Articles of Confederation failed for a very fundamental reason. Taxes are the price to pay for living in this country; if you want to go live somewhere where there are no taxes, then you will more than likely be off the grid in some developing nation, in a rural area...and when someone barges into your house demanding $10,000 or they will shoot you, there will be no 9-1-1 to call, no one to take any information, and possibly not even any statute to charge them under...assuming what law enforcement exists isn't bought and paid for--or worse--complicit in the whole thing.

Of course taxes are a necessity. The question is HOW much is a necessity? Defense spending, infrastructure spending, emergency/police spending, and educational spending are all vital to the country... what else is ACTUALLY a necessity that without our country would fall apart? I hardly think entitlement programs fall into that category... perhaps people have forgotten that keeping strong family ties is beneficial during hard times? Your FAMILY used to be your safety net, and i don't understand why people are so depending on the government for safety nets... if i ever fall onto hard times i can always rely on my family to be there and help me get through it. Now granted if you have no family you must seek other organizations... or once again... perhaps the government as a "lender of last resort."

Lesson #1: The state is called "California." "Cal" refers to Cal-Berkeley, and "Cali" refers to tourists. "SoCal" is the "Southland," which is LA-OC and San Diego...as well as the "Inland Empire" of the inland counties (particularly Riverside and Imperial Counties). "NoCal" is what Southlanders derisively call the North, and "NorCal" is what those who live upstate call themselves. And don't ever say "Frisco" as you are liable to alienate everyone within earshot. Oh, and if you ever call it "The OC" you will be mocked. It's just "OC," unless you are being explicitly ironic.

Aaaaand I hope you get to make it out here. Something tells me you'd really love it.

SoCal and NorCal generally despise each other (dating back to water rights and LA... long story). There is a very large valley in the middle of the state where a sizable portion of the nations food is grown... these are amongst the most conservative areas of the state along with the central cost... The middle part of California kinda takes a mix of SoCal and NorCal mannerisms but isn't really part of either per say... i don't even know how to classify it. A lot of the states Oil is around this area. We use different formulated fuels so our gasoline is more expensive... but its worth it given the large amounts of smog that would be generated by densely populated regions of the state (which just flows down into the central valley creating awful air quality). Most of the oil that is extracted in California is not all that useful for gasoline (it would require soo much refining that it would not make economic sense to do it)... it is heavy crude oil. That being said, California represents the forefront of oil extraction techniques. We have developed ever advancing tools to extract that last ounce of oil out of the ground. there are large amounts of depleted reserves in California by general extraction methods, so technology always advances to continue scraping the bottom of the barrel... which benefits the rest of the nation because these oil companies can use these techniques elsewhere to provide more affordable fuel. You will see a lot of domestic vehicles (especially trucks) in this area of the state compared to other parts.

If you are seeking a large city then LA, the bay area, or Sacramento are your best bets... Suburbs are your best bets for somewhat affordable housing... they all have awful traffic. Fresno is a large city... but... its kinda lame... doesn't have that large city feel to it even though it is pretty big.

if you are seeking a small sedate town, there are a bunch of them scattered along the central coast... most of them are very nice and a lot of people like to retire in these areas so they are somewhat sleepy little towns.

NorCal generally has more beautiful landscaping and is green more often. SoCal has that characteristic "California gold" (Hueeellll Houser's California GOld! lol) color most of the year. It is generally green and quite pretty during the spring however.

All in all, California is a beautiful state that offers all the geographic regions you could possibly want... Mountains to the east, Desert to the south, green rainy stuff to the north, and BEAUTIFUL coastal areas from the central coast down to San Diego. The only reason i exclude NorCal from the coastal regions is cause its just too cold up there and the beaches are all rocky. But the coastal regions up north are very beautiful too, kinda woody and pristine... just they are no good to actually GO TO the beach.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[ocnblu]

Maryland is also a very diverse state, geographically. Mountains in the west, Baltimore/Annapolis/DC suburbs, the beautiful Chesapeake Bay, the quiet, moneyed, historic Eastern Shore communities, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean beaches. And it's pretty temperate compared to Brookville, PA.

I wouldn't mind visiting California for a week, but that's it, and I have relatives in the Sacramento area.

EDIT: Viper, I don't want this to sound like an attempt to hold you back in any way. You should know I wish the best for you, li'l bro. All I'm saying is, this is a big country, and there is excitement and opportunity to be found in a lot of places.

Edited February 5, 2009 by ocnblu

[trinacriabob]

I wouldn't mind visiting California for a week, but that's it, and I have relatives in the Sacramento area.

Where? Just curious. There are 2 million people and it covers 4 counties. It goes from Davis (puke) in the West to the Sierra foothill towns in the East.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I don't care about all this bickering... I know I want to move to southern Cali one of these days.

I might make that move as well.

[Justin Bimmer]

+1 Croc FTW

Charities also have "vigs" where they take their cut to run the "program" sometimes is a CRAZY percentage.

I live in a conservative area of California. We have double digit unemployment, we are the most economically divided big city in America, and if it was true that Republicans give out tons of money to charity, then I don't see it here very much. Most of them only support the Childern's Hospital.

Also, all our Police really care about anymore is DUI.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

+1 Croc FTW

Charities also have "vigs" where they take their cut to run the "program" sometimes is a CRAZY percentage.

I live in a conservative area of California. We have double digit unemployment, we are the most economically divided big city in America, and if it was true that Republicans give out tons of money to charity, then I don't see it here very much. Most of them only support the Childern's Hospital.

Also, all our Police really care about anymore is DUI.

Dude, you live in the Central Valley. The economies of the Central valley are mixed at best with still large leanings on agriculture and oil... which are very cyclical industries (well agriculture is). And even though Fresno is a large city, it still has underpinnings in agriculture... plus it is not a terribly well off economic area since it lacks the centralization and large scale commerce of the Bay Area and LA. Nay, Fresno is merely just a large city... i don't really even understand how it came to be so large, there really is nothing around that area... other than the fact that its cheap to live there.

Fresno also has a lot of gang problems... not as bad as LA... but pretty bad.

And all i stated was Republicans tended to donate more to charity. Significant changes to the tax codes would still be required in order to encourage far more contributions.

[daves87rs]

[Intrepidation]

Ugh, Viper, after reading that, are you sure?

+1

[Z-06]

Can we share?

[Intrepidation]

*hands out popcorn*

[Z-06]

[Croc]

Yes... and the way to teach people to be responsible is not to bail them out. You don't teach people anything by saying "oh boy you screwed up bigtime, but i'll take care of it." You teach people stuff by saying, YOU screwed up. YOU deal with it, and learn from your mistakes. The Government also had a large rule in how it dictated lending standards during the period... don't put blame solely on the financial industry.

Sorry, I just fail to see how you can say the mentally ill "screwed up," or a Vietnam Veteran who was exposed to Agent Orange, or the woman with three kids whose husband was just killed in a car crash and now needs to be the sole breadwinner for her grieving family. It just isn't so black and white--life happens, and sometimes it isn't anyone's "fault."

And if you are arguing that a charity will be less efficient in delivering proper ratios of aid than the government... well then i am truely at a loss since the government is the king of giving disproportionate aid.

Charities are just that--charity. The aid people (and those organizations) get is completely dependent on the goodness of the public's hearts. How's the Salvation Army doing these days? Has this recession hit them hard? When you're dealing with a government program, the money coming in might fluctuate with a boom or bust cycle, but it never just stops. Also, the government makes sure ALL of their programs get funding, not just the trendy cause like a Children's Hospital.

heavy Tax code revisions STRONGLY encouraging charitable contributions. Evaluations can be conducted just like any other survey assessing effectiveness

What do you mean, a "survey"? There's no proof of claims there! Terrible, unreliable data source! If you've worked with public surveys before, you should know that people LIE to look better. It's like all those surveys of public transit: "I think it's a great idea, I'd take the train!" Then it's built and none of those people take the damn train.

I am aware of how statistics works. These were same questions asked to everyone. The numbers are well outside the margin of error and are several standard deviations away from each other.

How do you know all the technical standard deviation information, but can't even replicate the actual question? Also, it doesn't matter that it was the same question--sociological biases and weasel words may have been used to influence the responses of one group of people versus another. I'd also like to know what research group conducted the survey, what the sample size is (because that is really more important than SD and MoE), who was asked, and how the survey was even conducted.

But I have to tell you my BS detector is pinging when you don't know/can't find the questions or any really relevant information, but just KNOW that the disparity between the groups was so statistically significant that it proves Republicans have more "familial values" than Democrats...which I think is a load of horse&#036;h&#33; anyway. If you want to make a ridiculous claim, then have a damn good source to back it up.

Hmm... permanently disabled and mentally ill people fit into my definition of people who do deserve help as they... well can't provide for themselves. However, to say that giving up YOUR earned cash to the government is not giving up liberties... then i dont know what to say. YOU earned it, YOU should be able to spend it the way you see fit. As i said, i dont mind the temporary unemployment until people can get back on their feet... but really this can be accomplished through churches and other charitable organizations, but failing that i suppose the government can be the "lender of last resort" in these situations.

And all of these programs were created because there was a societal need, and charities were not being effective. Hence, "lender of last resort." You can't really live off government aid...it's bare bones and inadequate. But at least it's something, which for many people is more than nothing.

Of course taxes are a necessity. The question is HOW much is a necessity? Defense spending, infrastructure spending, emergency/police spending, and educational spending are all vital to the country... what else is ACTUALLY a necessity that without our country would fall apart? I hardly think entitlement programs fall into that category... perhaps people have forgotten that keeping strong family ties is beneficial during hard times? Your FAMILY used to be your safety net, and i don't understand why people are so depending on the government for safety nets... if i ever fall onto hard times i can always rely on my family to be there and help me get through it. Now granted if you have no family you must seek other organizations... or once again... perhaps the government as a "lender of last resort."

Get outside your bubble. What about abusive families? What if the family has mostly died out, either through natural causes or tragedy? What about people whose parents freaked out over their sexuality and threw them out of the house with nothing at 18--or did they just "screw up" by telling their parents too soon? What if your family has alcoholism or drug addiction?

Families aren't everyone's safety net. They can't be. If yours is, then you're fortunate--but not everyone has that same luck.

If you are seeking a large city then LA, the bay area, or Sacramento are your best bets... Suburbs are your best bets for somewhat affordable housing... they all have awful traffic. Fresno is a large city... but... its kinda lame... doesn't have that large city feel to it even though it is pretty big.

if you are seeking a small sedate town, there are a bunch of them scattered along the central coast... most of them are very nice and a lot of people like to retire in these areas so they are somewhat sleepy little towns.

NorCal generally has more beautiful landscaping and is green more often. SoCal has that characteristic "California gold" (Hueeellll Houser's California GOld! lol) color most of the year. It is generally green and quite pretty during the spring however.

All in all, California is a beautiful state that offers all the geographic regions you could possibly want... Mountains to the east, Desert to the south, green rainy stuff to the north, and BEAUTIFUL coastal areas from the central coast down to San Diego. The only reason i exclude NorCal from the coastal regions is cause its just too cold up there and the beaches are all rocky. But the coastal regions up north are very beautiful too, kinda woody and pristine... just they are no good to actually GO TO the beach.

Ehhhhh Sacramento I would NOT classify in the same league as LA or SF. San Diego for sure belongs in there with LA and the Bay Area, though. Fresno is the largest city in the US that has no interstate* freeway in it. Suburbs are definitely NOT what you're looking for BV. By "affordable housing" you want a detached single-family home with a pool, deck, garage, 3-4 bedrooms and 3-5 baths, all for under $1million, then yes--but you get a looooong commute. Not what I'd ever be interested in, that's for sure.

I've never understood the gripes about traffic. LA traffic is much better than Chicago's--yet LA has a much higher population.

As far as the scenery goes...Orange County is beautifully green. If the political and social climate were different there, I'd love to live there. B-E-A-UTIFUL! But SD and LA counties are both very scenic, too--just in different ways.

ETA:

*Correction

Edited February 7, 2009 by Croc

[toyoguy]

I remember when people said Nissan made a huge mistake moving their headquarters.

[regfootball]

Look at how fast Nissan high tailed it out of there.

I want someone to clarify exactly how many auto related jobs are in CA....what i want to know is HOW MANY AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANTS are in california. I don't need to know if some doofus has his feet up in his office in the Lexus or Mazda building, or if some subservient American is taking whippings in the dark room from the guys sent over from Kia in Korea when they didn't meet sales targets.

I know GM has the NUMMI plant where they build the chick wagons (Vibe/Matrix). CA is 'the largest auto market'. What I want to know is, what percentage of the cars they consume are MADE IN CALFORNIA.

Seems rather stupid from a business perspective to consume all those cars and not build any of them there. That is an imbalance that the Pelosis of the world should feel embarassed and negligent about.

Edited February 5, 2009 by regfootball

[Justin Bimmer]

Ehhhhh Sacramento I would NOT classify in the same league as LA or SF. San Diego for sure belongs in there with LA and the Bay Area, though. Fresno is the largest city in the US that has no freeway in it. Suburbs are definitely NOT what you're looking for BV. By "affordable housing" you want a detached single-family home with a pool, deck, garage, 3-4 bedrooms and 3-5 baths, all for under $1million, then yes--but you get a looooong commute. Not what I'd ever be interested in, that's for sure.

Fresno is the largest city in America not on an Interstate, we still have freeways, we have 4! LOL!

Also, you can get the house being described with a 20 min commute in Fresno, the only problem is that you need to have a job. The only real good jobs in Fresno are teacher, college professor, government employee, doctor, or lawyer, or some type of self-employed professional services type.

Also, on a side note, thanks to Croc, the company that does that "birds eye view" is going to be getting some business from the law firm I work at because their photos are so good.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Sorry, I just fail to see how you can say the mentally ill "screwed up," or a Vietnam Veteran who was exposed to Agent Orange, or the woman with three kids whose husband was just killed in a car crash and now needs to be the sole breadwinner for her grieving family. It just isn't so black and white--life happens, and sometimes it isn't anyone's "fault."

Yes life does happen... as for our veterans, that is a failure of our Federal government and they are a worthy cause to give aid to, even if that means the state has to set in.

I would not be opposed to giving families who have lost their sole breadwinner some aid for a limited amount of time, but they cannot become dependents of the state.

Charities are just that--charity. The aid people (and those organizations) get is completely dependent on the goodness of the public's hearts. How's the Salvation Army doing these days? Has this recession hit them hard? When you're dealing with a government program, the money coming in might fluctuate with a boom or bust cycle, but it never just stops. Also, the government makes sure ALL of their programs get funding, not just the trendy cause like a Children's Hospital.

This is certainly true. But what needs to be assessed is how does all the government bureaucracy and inefficiencies affect government programs vs charitable ones? How much is needed to donate to achieve goals? These are not short term ideals, and in the meantime government intervention may very well be necessary, but if we continue solely on the course of government aid... then i fear our nation will lose much of its values as the government continues to become our sole caregivers.

What do you mean, a "survey"? There's no proof of claims there! Terrible, unreliable data source! If you've worked with public surveys before, you should know that people LIE to look better. It's like all those surveys of public transit: "I think it's a great idea, I'd take the train!" Then it's built and none of those people take the damn train.

How about if i replaced the word with assessment? Auditing the charity if you will.

How do you know all the technical standard deviation information, but can't even replicate the actual question? Also, it doesn't matter that it was the same question--sociological biases and weasel words may have been used to influence the responses of one group of people versus another. I'd also like to know what research group conducted the survey, what the sample size is (because that is really more important than SD and MoE), who was asked, and how the survey was even conducted.

Hmm... you know i think i was getting 2 reports mixed up. Here's the one i was thinking about http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/718/republicans-happier but its not the one that had the tidbit about the taking care of a spouse... so i apologize and retract that statement until such a time i can find it. Still, Republicans are happier!

And all of these programs were created because there was a societal need, and charities were not being effective. Hence, "lender of last resort." You can't really live off government aid...it's bare bones and inadequate. But at least it's something, which for many people is more than nothing.

No, these programs were created due to New Deal and 60s Entitlement programs. They are largely partisan projects that have had mixed results at best. And i'm not even really arguing against what you are mentioning... I am arguing against continuious of welfare programs, against the Earned Income Tax credit (surely there must be a better way of working the tax code than WRITING a check to someone just cause they earned less than such and such money a year! that kinda kills incentive to prosper in a way).

Get outside your bubble. What about abusive families? What if the family has mostly died out, either through natural causes or tragedy? What about people whose parents freaked out over their sexuality and threw them out of the house with nothing at 18--or did they just "screw up" by telling their parents too soon? What if your family has alcoholism or drug addiction?

It's surely a tragic incident, but are you honestly telling me that you have no friends who would be there for you in a time of need until you can get back on your feet? Do you not keep a rainy day fund? Now i am not going to make an argument for parents who throw their kids out at 18, because that would be really tough and unfair for the kid.

Families aren't everyone's safety net. They can't be. If yours is, then you're fortunate--but not everyone has that same luck.

I fully agree with you, i know several dysfunctional families who are more of a headache to deal with than just to ignore. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who falls on bad time has to rely on the government now does it? And once again if they HAVE to, make it for a limited time, or make those people have to do community service in exchange for their unemployment (setting aside time to look for jobs of course!). If they are at least, in some way, providing a service to the community then it would be far more acceptable in my view than if they were just straight up given a check.

Ehhhhh Sacramento I would NOT classify in the same league as LA or SF. San Diego for sure belongs in there with LA and the Bay Area, though. Fresno is the largest city in the US that has no freeway in it. Suburbs are definitely NOT what you're looking for BV. By "affordable housing" you want a detached single-family home with a pool, deck, garage, 3-4 bedrooms and 3-5 baths, all for under $1million, then yes--but you get a looooong commute. Not what I'd ever be interested in, that's for sure.

Fresno is the largest city not on an INTERSTATE highway. Although really... come on... the 99 is just the more inland route of I5... i mean it only exists after it breaks off the I5, and then it merges back into the I5. And i must admit, i hate large cities and prefer suburbs so i am biased in that regard.

I've never understood the gripes about traffic. LA traffic is much better than Chicago's--yet LA has a much higher population.

Hows that even an argument? You know, i don't know why poor people gripe about being poor, they sure make a lot more than people in Liberia! But seriously, gridlock sucks during rush hour.

[Z-06]

[Satty]

No, thats Detroit, nowhere near CA.

[trinacriabob]

Ehhhhh Sacramento I would NOT classify in the same league as LA or SF. San Diego for sure belongs in there with LA and the Bay Area, though. Fresno is the largest city in the US that has no freeway in it. Suburbs are definitely NOT what you're looking for BV.

As far as the scenery goes...Orange County is beautifully green. If the political and social climate were different there, I'd love to live there. B-E-A-UTIFUL! But SD and LA counties are both very scenic, too--just in different ways.

Correct, Sacramento suffers from a huge inferiority complex, as do a lot of inland towns. It's mostly those in the coastal metros that do the "highbrow" thing - "oh, so you live in (insert name of inland Ca city)....hmmmm" One way to split either a Bay Area or Sacto commute is to live toward Napa/Fairfield. It's under 60 miles to either. Still, that's far.

Disagree on the OC comment...most all of CA is kind of brownish, except when the hills are "John Steinbeck" green during the well-defined rainy season, at which point they are stunning. Even the Sierras are brown/gray looking at aerial maps of the US.

If BV were to move in CA, he would probably be unhappy in one of the less expensive inland towns such as a Sacto, Fresno or the Inland Empire (San Bernardino/Riverside). It's very tough right now to "have your cake and eat it, too" in California, even with the declining home prices.

[Justin Bimmer]

California is known as "The Golden State" not for the metal in the ground but because the grass dies every year and turns golden brown.

I hope nobody is getting pissed off over this thread. I am really enjoying it. This debate just demonstrates how politically diverse California really is.

[Satty]

So if I throw a bunch of California grass in the air and let it rain down upon me, I'm taking a golden shower?

[deftonesfan867]

So if I throw a bunch of California grass in the air and let it rain down upon me, I'm taking a golden shower?

Might wanna make sure that "grass" is legal to possess in Mizery

[Satty]

This state is dumb. I went to go get some Sudafed, which requires giving the pharmacist a photo id, filling out some paperwork and getting run through the computer. After he sold it to me, I told him that I'm not making meth, I just needed my coke fix. He didn't find it as funny as I did.

[Justin Bimmer]

Satty, if it is official California grass from may until October then yes.

[Sixty8panther]

California is both wicked awesome and super-LAME at the same time.

[gm4life]

First off, i should probably clear up my statement. I have meet a lot of smart people from the LA and the Bay area, however given the LA AND BAY AREA >>overall<< voting records, i remain leery of people form there that i do not know personally. Not the ones that i do know, for they are all fine people and will likely go far in this world.

As to our budget problems, you nailed the argument on the head right there. We have backed ourselves into a political corner. The only way out is to freeze budgets and wait out the storm until our budget balances once more (which will never happen in this state). OR we could raise taxes, but we already have high rates... how much higher do you want to go? Alternatively we could cut programs, but it looks REALLY bad to cut welfare programs and stuff like that.

So what do we do?

And as for the Middle Class... you realize that the only reason the middle class was even still expanding was due to more and more dual income earner households right? Now has that really been worth the extra hours worked? Has it REALLY been worth the boom in childcare industries? Has that had any negative impact upon the family structure? Who knows, i certainly don't. Point of the matter is, we want to ATTRACT business in times of recession, not drive it away!

But anyways... as to the budget problem, the point stands that if we had not started any of those entitlement programs in the first place (oh and went to the federal minimum wage standards instead of CA's one) then our budget wouldn't be so out of whack... and more people would be employed... and dont go blabbering about the standard of living cause you know damn well making $4.95/hr is a hell of a lot better than $0.00/hr.

Face it, California has been in debt for a while now... and it is partially because of the way our tax code works, taxing profits is not a very steady way of generating revenue... that being said, its fairly stupid to tax corporations who aren't making profits.

And while that may be great that SF and LA likes to create entitlement programs for poor people, but there are a LOT of people that are NOT in those areas who would rather keep their own money in their own communities, if we want to help the poor we do so through charities, not through the government. There are still lots of people who view the government as the enemy, being grossly inefficient and very leery of increased government control of our lives. It is for people like us that donating to charity to hell the needy seems a far better option... or lacking the financial ability to do so, to volunteer for charity work!

The RIGHT THING TO DO, is to instill VALUES into people. To make PEOPLE responsible for their own actions. To instill in people that it is GOOD to do CHARITY work. To Volunteer every once in a while and help the needy find jobs or whatever. Shoveling that responsibility onto the government doesn't make people take more responsibility for their actions, it makes them take LESS responsibility for their actions. That is one of the great unintended consequences of these entitlement programs. A society who has lost these values becomes increasingly subjected to the nanny state and RELIANCE UPON THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING, and the ultimate and final form of the nanny state is a 1984ish scenario... i would rather not continue on the path towards that.

A government that is NOT in debt is NOT tying up money in the economy and therefore there is MORE money IN the economy to create jobs for people and therefore do NOT need these entitlement programs. Plus, large government debts (which means they are spending it somewhere) tend to create MORE inflation which just makes things worse (although its great cause when you pay back your creditors, they have essentially lost money on the deal if you keep inflation higher than your interest rate).

Now unemployment and other various temporary safety net programs are okay i suppose, after all everyone hits a snag in the road every once in a while... but tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit are a joke, creating massive marginal rates in the areas when it is phased out and discouraging people to take promotions because, in the end, they gain no financial benefit from it due to these programs.

Liberals are quick to say that us conservatives are heartless, evil and greedy. But they fail to see that we are not. Republicans tend to donate far more time and money to charities than do their Democrat counterparts. We do not enjoy seeing homeless people. But we seek to aid them through WORK. Through JOBS. There are many in the community who feel we should help these poor souls, and so they do. But they do not do it through the government! They do it by forming an organization, a charity, and seeking donations from people to help take care of the needy... to help them get back on their feet. These organizations are running on tight budgets usually and are generally far more efficient in providing services than the government could ever be. It is organizations like these that should be promoted through the government. Re-write the tax code for special deductions for charitable contributions to charities who help the poor and needy (hell lets just give a special credit for people who make these kind of charitable contributions... or maybe even a credit for volunteering say 50 hours a year at a charity!). This should be the role of government in helping the needy - encouraging the citizenry to be active in charities

I saw a poll that asked a simple question that was to the tune of "If you spouse (or parents or something, i dont remember) is sick, do you feel like it is your responsibility to take care of them?" Republicans responded with somewhere around 60-75% saying Yes, it was their responsibility. Less than 50% of Democrats took the same view. Now if that is not reflective of the differences in who should take care of who... then i don't know what is.

We keep giving up our liberties, our freedoms, to the government. We continually risk becoming a nanny state and losing self-responsibility for ourselves and for others. It is not patriotic to pay taxes to have the government take care of people. It is PATRIOTIC for ALL OF US to help those people back on their feet through active volunteering yourself, or through donating to a charity who can do the job. It is OUR patriotic duty to stay vigilant against large overbearing governments that weigh down upon its general citizenry And yes, you could certainly place what has happened over the last 8 years in the Security State (a form of the police state) within this category, as well as Iraq. IT IS ALL OF OUR PATRIOTIC DUTIES TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT IS NOT LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DICTATE HOW WE SHOULD LIVE OUR LIVES OR SPEND OUR MONEY. What is best, in my opinion, is for you and your country is to maintain a free and prosperous state... not a debt laden state where no one takes responsibilities for their own actions.

::edit:: haha wow, i didn't realize i typed so much. Anywho i'm sure its probably a bit muddled since i didn't proofread it and its essentially just a stream of thought. I apologize for the aggressive stance i have taken, it's not that i have any great disdain for the welfare programs, or the good intentions behind them. its just that i don't feel they are the best route our nation can take to helping those people.

Can I just say THANK YOU. I could not have said it any better myself.

[gm4life]

This is so amusing. Why are there so many "save the trees" people in LA (technically, they're in Santa Monica and Malibu, completely different municipalities)? Because LA has very few trees. It's a concrete jungle. Even fewer trees existed prior to the 1930s, when all the irrigation public works projects took place. In its natural state, LA is a semi-arid desert...and in its non-natural state, a concrete jungle.

I'm also not quite sure what constitutes a "flake," but I hope you don't watch movies or television, or buy any goods imported from Asia (so no shopping at Walmart) because those "flakes" are directly responsible for at least 90% of all US media, and nearly all Asian imports reaching your state. I also hope you aren't bemoaning the end of the Cold War, because the Southland was one of the primary headquarters for all the aerospace and defense contractors whose hard work kept America strong from the 1940s-early 1990s. When driving the freeways, I hope you don't pass through any stack interchanges, because those "flakes" at Caltrans invented those in 1952. In fact, most standardized freeway design and signage came from the Caltrans standards. In fact, you can blame those "flakes" in California for those red stop signs, too! Every other state originally used yellow (or white) with black lettering. Plus, this whole internet and technology revolution is due to all those "flakes" up in Silicon Valley. Heck, even Google is headquartered there! Those damn "flakes," ruining CA for everyone else...

Croc face it, Cali is hardly what I consider in the LA and SF area at least what I consider average America. It is people who care way to much about image, themselfs and one-upping each other. Sorry. I have visited a few times and its very clear to me. People in those large cities in many cases couldn't be any more rude and in-love with themselfs. These are the very people that buy Toyota's and Lexus products, because GM and Ameircan goods are for "hicks". The culture I was raised in is very different from Hollywood and the San Fransico values. I was raised in a different time, when people introduced themselfs and shook hands, and hoe was a garden tool. Once again pop culture, bull&#036;h&#33; and lies have helped ruin GM because all American cars suck right? And it has ruined the minds of many folks especially in large cities like LA. Sadly some good folks live in areas like SF and LA and are stuck with all the jerks.

Is being a traditional American a bad thing? Since when is buying an American product or GM cars a bad thing? Since when is thinking people should take responsiblity for their actions a bad thing? Hell since when are teaching childern moral values and right from wrong a bad thing? Call me a traditionalist, Church go-er (most weekends), and my belief that goverment creates problems wrong. Call me a "hick", redneck, old-fashioned republican fine, but those were values far and long before people were pushed to buy hybrid cars and the media starting dumping on the big three for making only large and gas hog vehicles.

Should I not be proud of who I am and what I belief in? Should I not be proud of how I was raised? I can't take to much more of this pop culture &#036;h&#33;, because if Cali is progressive then that is NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO BE.

[gm4life]

Um, there are plenty of Angelenos who have common sense, and I think you'd be surprised by how much we are like the "rest" of America.

Turn off the Rush Limbaugh or whatever it is that's been "informing" your views, and you will discover hardworking, down to earth people who want the same things all Americans want.

Rush is not my source for news. He is someone who comments on things you know? Same for Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck. Although I watch/listen to many of them when I get the chance its not news. New is what is on CNN and FOX. I am sure I would discovery some hard working people in LA and SF but not nearly as many I would discovery throughout other areas in the US.

I find it funny how we come to defend these people in Cali whom really don't care for American cars because they aren't trendy enough, and aren't exclusive enough or green enough. Toyota/Lexus products based on my visits to LA are VERY common and you have to look for a Chevrolet or Ford. And afterall we are a GM FORUM, so I find that interesting. Not that is all about what you drive, but driving American to me is a small sign of patriotism.

I've spoke my part. Now I am done.

Edited February 6, 2009 by gm4life

[Cory Wolfe]

Ugh, Viper, after reading that, are you sure?

Why?

Personally, I think all this bickering is silly. I see nothing wrong with living in California. What's the issue here besides the back and forth with politics. I'm sure living in California is like living in any other part of the country, except for the obvious difference in location. It's not that different...

[Sixty8panther]

Ricer Civic:

Well said.

Your thoughts on charity reminded me of an interesting factoid:

Republicans &/or conservatives are MORE willing to contribute to charity

and DO put their money where their mouth is MORE often than Liberals.

Liberals want to take all the responsibility (weather it be personal,

corporate or otherwise) out of peoples lives.... so people are FORCED to

"do the right thing" except the problem is (one anyway) these $hitbag

politicians are, more often than not, hypocrites.

Ted Kennedy wants to tell you how to live your life, but God forbid if

the view in his vacation home on the Cape is tarnished by some windmills

4-miles away that would help the state of Mass produce green-power.

Then there's Al Gore, he'll gladly burn 10,000 gallons of 120 octane at

$12/gallon just so he can travel around the world telling people that driving

an 8-passenger Cadillac Escalade that gets 14mpg is a sin.

F**k 'em all I say!

[Robert Hall]

'themselfs' is not a word. Can we buy gm4life a spell checker?

[cletus8269]

Then there's Al Gore, he'll gladly burn 10,000 gallons of 120 octane at

$12/gallon just so he can travel around the world telling people that driving

an 8-passenger Cadillac Escalade that gets 14mpg is a sin.

F**k 'em all I say!

dont forget al's electric bill a few years back. $1100 a month

[Sixty8panther]

Great point.

Why the F*** doesn't Al Gore have a windfarm on his propertie(s)?

Maybe the state of california can chip in for a Veggie-conversion &

giant, thruster-mounted-catalitic converters for his Leer Jet.

[gm4life]

'themselfs' is not a word. Can we buy gm4life a spell checker?

You smart ass. I always enjoy you Moltar.

[Robert Hall]

You smart ass. I always enjoy you Moltar.

Thanks.

[Robert Hall]

dont forget al's electric bill a few years back. $1100 a month

Wow...my electric bill in Phoenix in the summer is only about 1/3rd of that.. $350-450/mo is common, with the A/C running 24/7 in July-August...

[Croc]

I am sure I would discovery some hard working people in LA and SF but not nearly as many I would discovery throughout other areas in the US.

I really don't know what you're talking about, here. People definitely work harder--by far--out here than anywhere else I've been in the US, with the possible exception of NYC. You have to--one job doesn't pay the household rent. Now, maybe people seem more laid-back and less maniacly-stressed, but that's just the attitude out here.

I find it funny how we come to defend these people in Cali whom really don't care for American cars because they aren't trendy enough, and aren't exclusive enough or green enough. Toyota/Lexus products based on my visits to LA are VERY common and you have to look for a Chevrolet or Ford. And afterall we are a GM FORUM, so I find that interesting. Not that is all about what you drive, but driving American to me is a small sign of patriotism.

Why is "funny"? I'm going to defend myself and my friends when you make it personal about where we live...just because of the dominant cars in CA? You're really admitting to being that superficial? Newsflash: the foreign hybrids are greener, and they were on the market first. The Volt isn't out yet, and GM dismissed hybrids as a short-lived "trend," hence why the "hybrids" they currently offer are so half-assed. GM's handling of the EV1 irritated some people, and then you have the massive Asian populations out here--so many of them "buy Asian." And when someone tells me of an American luxury brand that actually competes with Mercedes-Benz and BMW model-for-model and not just is able to compete when it feels like it on certain models, then I'd bet you it would do well out here. I see plenty of CTSs every day. Basically: when the cars are best in class, they do well out here. When they're half-assed, they sit on lots. It's pretty simple.