Sen. Boxer Announces Her Retirement

[D1B]

About T-man? Yes

Since she's always on her racist by more than double digits she seems to be a very popular Sen.

In CA, whoever has the "D" behind their name gets the vote.

You said earlier she doesn't legislate for her constituents, why don't you consider that a good thing?

[travelinman67]

So California is bad because...liberals.

Yes.

Liberals are short-sighted. While quaint and a part of life, like teenagers, they should never be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of other people.

In CA, beginning with then Speaker Willie Brown, the CA Dems have methodically taken steps to ensure that the Republican party can never again control the legislative branch, and further, entrenched extremist left bureaucrats throughout state govt. The purpose of the latter became apparent in the year following Gov Davis's recall when numerous state agencies came to a standstill, prompting incoming Gov Schwarzenegger to close several agencies.

The depth of damage resulting from this unconstitutional occupation is virtually limitless, and still continuing.

Most notable has been the elimination of oversight. Despite laws enchaptering budgetary, ethical, political, and criminal legislative oversight, the agencies enchaptered have largely been defunded, completely dissolved, or hijacked and used as weapons against anti-incumbency challengers (FPPC).
In effect, there is no more accountability for state government or state officials.

There are an unending number of anecdotes that illustrate the liberal's incompetence, but a favorite is the failed "no more car" welfare law. Stemming from infamous AB32, the so-callled "Sky is falling" Global Warming legislation championed by the leftislature as necessary to save the world (designed to eliminate carbon emissions, prepare for rising oceans, develop crops to withstand rising temperatures, and forge a social order compliant to the government), a smaller companion bill added a stipulation that poor people who qualified for certain aid programs, welfare, medicaid, etc...

...would not qualify if they owned a motor vehicle.

The "logic" being that mass transit would provide ample means of transportation.

Really.

Yet, somehow, the 2/3 urban represented leftislature knowingly, or not, forgot that 1/3 of Californians either had NO access to mass transit or only minimal levels if mass transit (7 million people have NO mass transit).

Now, let me pause. If you DON'T think this creates a HUGE problem, you are:

A. A liberal
B. An idiot
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. The CA Leftislature
E. A Troll

For widower Grandma Hartley, in Long Valley, Placer County, who lives on $1,200/mo retirement, receives medicaid, owns a 1997 Buick, and travels 15 mi to the city twice/month for groceries and her doctors appointments, she either has to:

Sell her car
Sell her home
Move to a city with mass transit

Or

Lose her medical coverage

And in a state with the HIGHEST POVERTY RATE IN THE NATION...16%!!!



Obviously, a few people complained.

Though it took them two years to rescind the law, it was repealed in 2014.

For the millions of poor, disabled and elderly effected, it could have arguably been described as govt initiated abuse. For some, I will assert, it was the manifestation of the feared govt "Death Panel".

It's unlikely any study will be conducted to determine how many people lost their benefits and became homeless, starved, lost medical coverage and became ill or even died...

...as a result of this environmental extremist motivated, short-sighted, collectivist, liberalism.

I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As it does to the hormone-driven 15 year old.


Kalm,
Managing a society is infinitely complex. Our constitution rightfully places the emphasis on individualism, NOT collectivism. Every person has inalienable rights.

EVERY PERSON

Regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, who they love, their wealth (or lack of), WHERE THEY LIVE, or whether or not they disagree with you.

Liberals no longer practice this ethos.

They pay lip service to the disenfranchised, but only for the purpose of gaining their vote on election day. In practice, individual rights have been supplanted by "pop" policy collectivism.

For this reason alone, American liberalism has failed.

Yes, liberals are running California.

Yes, that is a PROBLEM that needs to be corrected.

[kalm]

So California is bad because...liberals.

Yes.

Liberals are short-sighted. While quaint and a part of life, like teenagers, they should never be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of other people.

In CA, beginning with then Speaker Willie Brown, the CA Dems have methodically taken steps to ensure that the Republican party can never again control the legislative branch, and further, entrenched extremist left bureaucrats throughout state govt. The purpose of the latter became apparent in the year following Gov Davis's recall when numerous state agencies came to a standstill, prompting incoming Gov Schwarzenegger to close several agencies.

The depth of damage resulting from this unconstitutional occupation is virtually limitless, and still continuing.

Most notable has been the elimination of oversight. Despite laws enchaptering budgetary, ethical, political, and criminal legislative oversight, the agencies enchaptered have largely been defunded, completely dissolved, or hijacked and used as weapons against anti-incumbency challengers (FPPC).
In effect, there is no more accountability for state government or state officials.

There are an unending number of anecdotes that illustrate the liberal's incompetence, but a favorite is the failed "no more car" welfare law. Stemming from infamous AB32, the so-callled "Sky is falling" Global Warming legislation championed by the leftislature as necessary to save the world (designed to eliminate carbon emissions, prepare for rising oceans, develop crops to withstand rising temperatures, and forge a social order compliant to the government), a smaller companion bill added a stipulation that poor people who qualified for certain aid programs, welfare, medicaid, etc...

...would not qualify if they owned a motor vehicle.

The "logic" being that mass transit would provide ample means of transportation.

Really.

Yet, somehow, the 2/3 urban represented leftislature knowingly, or not, forgot that 1/3 of Californians either had NO access to mass transit or only minimal levels if mass transit (7 million people have NO mass transit).

Now, let me pause. If you DON'T think this creates a HUGE problem, you are:

A. A liberal
B. An idiot
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. The CA Leftislature
E. A Troll

For widower Grandma Hartley, in Long Valley, Placer County, who lives on $1,200/mo retirement, receives medicaid, owns a 1997 Buick, and travels 15 mi to the city twice/month for groceries and her doctors appointments, she either has to:

Sell her car
Sell her home
Move to a city with mass transit

Or

Lose her medical coverage

And in a state with the HIGHEST POVERTY RATE IN THE NATION...16%!!!



Obviously, a few people complained.

Though it took them two years to rescind the law, it was repealed in 2014.

For the millions of poor, disabled and elderly effected, it could have arguably been described as govt initiated abuse. For some, I will assert, it was the manifestation of the feared govt "Death Panel".

It's unlikely any study will be conducted to determine how many people lost their benefits and became homeless, starved, lost medical coverage and became ill or even died...

...as a result of this environmental extremist motivated, short-sighted, collectivist, liberalism.

I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As it does to the hormone-driven 15 year old.


Kalm,
Managing a society is infinitely complex. Our constitution rightfully places the emphasis on individualism, NOT collectivism. Every person has inalienable rights.

EVERY PERSON

Regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, who they love, their wealth (or lack of), WHERE THEY LIVE, or whether or not they disagree with you.

Liberals no longer practice this ethos.

They pay lip service to the disenfranchised, but only for the purpose of gaining their vote on election day. In practice, individual rights have been supplanted by "pop" policy collectivism.

For this reason alone, American liberalism has failed.

Yes, liberals are running California.

Yes, that is a PROBLEM that needs to be corrected.

TL;DR.

My point is that you're all over the place here. You're arguing with yourself.

[BDKJMU]

Will miss Senator Boxer - one of the nation's finest. Wish it was Feinstein.


Hopefully California will elect another progressive - Sanders/Warren type would be great for the Country.

No CA will elect another left wing liberal.

[travelinman67]

Yes.

Liberals are short-sighted. While quaint and a part of life, like teenagers, they should never be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of other people.

In CA, beginning with then Speaker Willie Brown, the CA Dems have methodically taken steps to ensure that the Republican party can never again control the legislative branch, and further, entrenched extremist left bureaucrats throughout state govt. The purpose of the latter became apparent in the year following Gov Davis's recall when numerous state agencies came to a standstill, prompting incoming Gov Schwarzenegger to close several agencies.

The depth of damage resulting from this unconstitutional occupation is virtually limitless, and still continuing.

Most notable has been the elimination of oversight. Despite laws enchaptering budgetary, ethical, political, and criminal legislative oversight, the agencies enchaptered have largely been defunded, completely dissolved, or hijacked and used as weapons against anti-incumbency challengers (FPPC).
In effect, there is no more accountability for state government or state officials.

There are an unending number of anecdotes that illustrate the liberal's incompetence, but a favorite is the failed "no more car" welfare law. Stemming from infamous AB32, the so-callled "Sky is falling" Global Warming legislation championed by the leftislature as necessary to save the world (designed to eliminate carbon emissions, prepare for rising oceans, develop crops to withstand rising temperatures, and forge a social order compliant to the government), a smaller companion bill added a stipulation that poor people who qualified for certain aid programs, welfare, medicaid, etc...

...would not qualify if they owned a motor vehicle.

The "logic" being that mass transit would provide ample means of transportation.

Really.

Yet, somehow, the 2/3 urban represented leftislature knowingly, or not, forgot that 1/3 of Californians either had NO access to mass transit or only minimal levels if mass transit (7 million people have NO mass transit).

Now, let me pause. If you DON'T think this creates a HUGE problem, you are:

A. A liberal
B. An idiot
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. The CA Leftislature
E. A Troll

For widower Grandma Hartley, in Long Valley, Placer County, who lives on $1,200/mo retirement, receives medicaid, owns a 1997 Buick, and travels 15 mi to the city twice/month for groceries and her doctors appointments, she either has to:

Sell her car
Sell her home
Move to a city with mass transit

Or

Lose her medical coverage

And in a state with the HIGHEST POVERTY RATE IN THE NATION...16%!!!



Obviously, a few people complained.

Though it took them two years to rescind the law, it was repealed in 2014.

For the millions of poor, disabled and elderly effected, it could have arguably been described as govt initiated abuse. For some, I will assert, it was the manifestation of the feared govt "Death Panel".

It's unlikely any study will be conducted to determine how many people lost their benefits and became homeless, starved, lost medical coverage and became ill or even died...

...as a result of this environmental extremist motivated, short-sighted, collectivist, liberalism.

I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As it does to the hormone-driven 15 year old.


Kalm,
Managing a society is infinitely complex. Our constitution rightfully places the emphasis on individualism, NOT collectivism. Every person has inalienable rights.

EVERY PERSON

Regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, who they love, their wealth (or lack of), WHERE THEY LIVE, or whether or not they disagree with you.

Liberals no longer practice this ethos.

They pay lip service to the disenfranchised, but only for the purpose of gaining their vote on election day. In practice, individual rights have been supplanted by "pop" policy collectivism.

For this reason alone, American liberalism has failed.

Yes, liberals are running California.

Yes, that is a PROBLEM that needs to be corrected.

TL;DR.

My point is that you're all over the place here. You're arguing with yourself.

You attempted to deflect based on an "unfounded" criticism of liberalism.

I've explained my criticism.

Which specific part of my criticism do you disagree with, and why?

[travelinman67]

Time, L.A.Times suggest uber liberal extremist billionaire Tom Steyer as possible replacement...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciand ... eyer-boxer

True colors

[D1B]

Yes.

Liberals are short-sighted. While quaint and a part of life, like teenagers, they should never be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of other people.

In CA, beginning with then Speaker Willie Brown, the CA Dems have methodically taken steps to ensure that the Republican party can never again control the legislative branch, and further, entrenched extremist left bureaucrats throughout state govt. The purpose of the latter became apparent in the year following Gov Davis's recall when numerous state agencies came to a standstill, prompting incoming Gov Schwarzenegger to close several agencies.

The depth of damage resulting from this unconstitutional occupation is virtually limitless, and still continuing.

Most notable has been the elimination of oversight. Despite laws enchaptering budgetary, ethical, political, and criminal legislative oversight, the agencies enchaptered have largely been defunded, completely dissolved, or hijacked and used as weapons against anti-incumbency challengers (FPPC).
In effect, there is no more accountability for state government or state officials.

There are an unending number of anecdotes that illustrate the liberal's incompetence, but a favorite is the failed "no more car" welfare law. Stemming from infamous AB32, the so-callled "Sky is falling" Global Warming legislation championed by the leftislature as necessary to save the world (designed to eliminate carbon emissions, prepare for rising oceans, develop crops to withstand rising temperatures, and forge a social order compliant to the government), a smaller companion bill added a stipulation that poor people who qualified for certain aid programs, welfare, medicaid, etc...

...would not qualify if they owned a motor vehicle.

The "logic" being that mass transit would provide ample means of transportation.

Really.

Yet, somehow, the 2/3 urban represented leftislature knowingly, or not, forgot that 1/3 of Californians either had NO access to mass transit or only minimal levels if mass transit (7 million people have NO mass transit).

Now, let me pause. If you DON'T think this creates a HUGE problem, you are:

A. A liberal
B. An idiot
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. The CA Leftislature
E. A Troll

For widower Grandma Hartley, in Long Valley, Placer County, who lives on $1,200/mo retirement, receives medicaid, owns a 1997 Buick, and travels 15 mi to the city twice/month for groceries and her doctors appointments, she either has to:

Sell her car
Sell her home
Move to a city with mass transit

Or

Lose her medical coverage

And in a state with the HIGHEST POVERTY RATE IN THE NATION...16%!!!



Obviously, a few people complained.

Though it took them two years to rescind the law, it was repealed in 2014.

For the millions of poor, disabled and elderly effected, it could have arguably been described as govt initiated abuse. For some, I will assert, it was the manifestation of the feared govt "Death Panel".

It's unlikely any study will be conducted to determine how many people lost their benefits and became homeless, starved, lost medical coverage and became ill or even died...

...as a result of this environmental extremist motivated, short-sighted, collectivist, liberalism.

I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As it does to the hormone-driven 15 year old.


Kalm,
Managing a society is infinitely complex. Our constitution rightfully places the emphasis on individualism, NOT collectivism. Every person has inalienable rights.

EVERY PERSON

Regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, who they love, their wealth (or lack of), WHERE THEY LIVE, or whether or not they disagree with you.

Liberals no longer practice this ethos.

They pay lip service to the disenfranchised, but only for the purpose of gaining their vote on election day. In practice, individual rights have been supplanted by "pop" policy collectivism.

For this reason alone, American liberalism has failed.

Yes, liberals are running California.

Yes, that is a PROBLEM that needs to be corrected.

TL;DR.

My point is that you're all over the place here. You're arguing with yourself.

He's in a rage. He's blinded by hate and oblivious to his flawed logic.

[Ivytalk]

So long to "Brooklyn Babs" Boxer. Don't let the Senate door hit you in the azz on the way out, honey.

[kalm]

TL;DR.

My point is that you're all over the place here. You're arguing with yourself.

You attempted to deflect based on an "unfounded" criticism of liberalism.

I've explained my criticism.

Which specific part of my criticism do you disagree with, and why?

Yet somehow, miraculously, you and a few others have managed to do well under the iron grip of California liberalism. (FWIW, managing a business in Washington State is no picnic either).

Question: If the US was founded on individualism and not the collective, how do corporations have personal rights?

[Wedgebuster]

A great example of what ails our country, displayed right here, on this very board, on this very thread.

We awe the world with our level of hate among ourselves, those voted out of power vow to burn down our country to soothe their butt-hurt, without regard to the sacrifices of our forefathers.

Partisanship trumps patriotism. We are doing to ourselves what no other power could do to us, just as it has been predicted.

We are doing this to ourselves.

[D1B]

A great example of what ails our country, displayed right here, on this very board, on this very thread.

We awe the world with our level of hate among ourselves, those voted out of power vow to burn down our country to soothe their butt-hurt, without regard to the sacrifices of our forefathers.

Partisanship trumps patriotism. We are doing to ourselves what no other power could do to us, just as it has been predicted.

We are doing this to ourselves.

Yep. Nice work conks. Smfh

[AZGrizFan]

A great example of what ails our country, displayed right here, on this very board, on this very thread.

We awe the world with our level of hate among ourselves, those voted out of power vow to burn down our country to soothe their butt-hurt, without regard to the sacrifices of our forefathers.

Partisanship trumps patriotism. We are doing to ourselves what no other power could do to us, just as it has been predicted.

We are doing this to ourselves.

Yep. Nice work conks. Smfh

[D1B]

Yep. Nice work conks. Smfh

[travelinman67]

You do understand you PROVE my argument by refusing to debate?

You, Cappy, Densedawg, sitting alone at the end of the bar snickering at everyone that comes in...

...earning the village idiot jacket.

Good for you.

[D1B]

You do understand you PROVE my argument by refusing to debate?

You, Cappy, Densedawg, sitting alone at the end of the bar snickering at everyone that comes in...

...earning the village idiot jacket.

Good for you.

You want me.

[SDHornet]

You attempted to deflect based on an "unfounded" criticism of liberalism.

I've explained my criticism.

Which specific part of my criticism do you disagree with, and why?

Yet somehow, miraculously, you and a few others have managed to do well under the iron grip of California liberalism. (FWIW, managing a business in Washington State is no picnic either).

Question: If the US was founded on individualism and not the collective, how do corporations have personal rights?

If you are in the right industry you can do great here.

[Ibanez]

Just about lost my dinner...evening liberal local news suggested frontrunner for her seat was uber crook, CA AG Kamala Harris.

I blew my colon when she was elected AG...

...L.E. HATES HER. When she was San Francisco D.A. she refused to prosecute pedophiles, and refused to seek the death penalty because she personally opposed it. She has been a bad nightmare, and the fact the Dem machine is grooming her, bodes poorly for California.

Other names mentioned were Antonio Villargosa and Gavin Newsom.

When one co-anchor suggested a Republican, the other anchor laughed and shook his head.

Wake up America.

How is she bad for not seeking a penalty she didn't agree with it? Republicans are just as guilty of that as liberals are.

[Ibanez]

A great example of what ails our country, displayed right here, on this very board, on this very thread.

We awe the world with our level of hate among ourselves, those voted out of power vow to burn down our country to soothe their butt-hurt, without regard to the sacrifices of our forefathers.

Partisanship trumps patriotism. We are doing to ourselves what no other power could do to us, just as it has been predicted.

We are doing this to ourselves.

I've been saying this for years. Both parties with their, "my way or the highway", approach to governing is reckless, dangerous and will eventually be our undoing.