Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

To all Californians (you too LL!)

Dave Zeeman
Master Procrastinator
Join date: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,025
11-10-2003 08:37
Looks like you're going to get a very COLD winter! (Just watch the intro movie)

:D
_____________________
llToggleDaveZeemanIntelligence(FALSE);
Philip Linden: Zeeman, strip off the suit!
Dave Zeeman - Keeping Lindens on their toes since v0.3.2!
Pituca FairChang
Married to Garth
Join date: 17 May 2003
Posts: 2,679
11-10-2003 10:08
Great one Dave!!
_____________________
Misnomer Jones
3 is the magic number
Join date: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,800
11-10-2003 11:42
:(I didnt vote for him!:(

It's only funny if you don't live here. "Controlled logging" is already looking like a go even though studies show it could cause worse fire hazards. No money is being added to pay for it either. If you've ever been to, say, Muir Woods you'd see the raised paths built to keep feet from compressing the land and damaging root structures. But logging won’t damage other trees.. noooo.

Besides it's not the trees that are even the issue.. Just like terrorists and Iraq don’t equate. California is chaparral country. Chaparral is the biggest problem in California when it comes to fire.
_____________________
Garoad Kuroda
Prophet of Muppetry
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 2,989
11-10-2003 20:59
I'm no expert on the issue but having raised paths to prevent walking people from "compressing the ground" does seem a bit...excessive to me. In my experience trees are those big hard plant thingys that can break and raise concrete blocks if they grow into them. And how many people among the countless trees are really walking around all day out there? I don't think we could find enough people willing to go out there and stomp the forest ground and have some kind of effect, even if we wanted to..

I mean the environment has to be protected and everything but sometimes people can go too far, and then the law of diminishing returns takes effect (sorry for the lame economics reference). Hopefully if the ones really running the government over there aren't total bone heads (IOW aren't all holywood actors?), maybe the republican influence (if there is one) will balance stuff out better and help the economy out. CA is pretty politically extreme (by US standards), and everyone knows it. Have some more optimism!
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
11-18-2003 16:59
From: someone
Originally posted by Garoad Kuroda
..maybe the republican influence (if there is one) will balance stuff out better and help the economy out.


bleh. please. like pete wilson was any good for this state. before you start flaming, i wasn't saying that davis was good for the state either, its just that wilson was the last republican and he did no good either.

From: someone
..CA is pretty politically extreme (by US standards), and everyone knows it. Have some more optimism!


bull puckey. CA is by no means extreme. we're ahead of the curve, which seems to take the rest of the country years to catch up on (except the east coast urban centers). As far as 'by US standards'... I agree. CA needs to secede from the union! of course, there may be a few states that might want to come along with us! ;)
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
11-18-2003 17:04
The Republican influence hasn't been good for the economy in the past 50 years.... why should that change now?

Granted, Arnie isn't your classic supply-side right wing idealogue.... but still....
Garoad Kuroda
Prophet of Muppetry
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 2,989
11-18-2003 17:55
Heh, well I don't want to get into a political debate, but...Arnold isn't that conservative.

By US standards, CA is extreme....not by world standards, true. But what works in Europe might not work over here; there's alot of differences to consider.

The "Republican influence" thing can be argued both ways. But still I'm not into heavy political debates on an SL forum. :cool: Maybe light ones if they don't get too pushy but I'm already sensing tension.

Part of my opinion on CA (which I'm not claiming to be perfect) has to do with the current situation in the state. The "most liberal" state in the country is doing pretty bad economically, from my point of view.

Oh, and after the recent political "shows" in CA and Florida (we'll throw them in there too), I'm not sure much of the country would mind them leaving. lol
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
11-18-2003 18:03
garoad, i dont wanna get into it either, but a little light discussion on it couldnt hurt. personally, im socially liberal and fiscally conservative. problem is, with traditional party boundaries, they dont mix well... like water and oil.

i want a government that manages its expenses as well as a business does while providing the services we expect. i do not like when a government tries to apply laws/regulations that have a moral bend on them. to me, that's not the governments role. besides, morality is very hard to pin down as the definition is different from one person to another.

i dont want to step on anyone's toes, but i am getting really tired of a few right wing extremists trying to apply thier moral code to all of us. phatooie.

live and let live.
Garoad Kuroda
Prophet of Muppetry
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 2,989
11-18-2003 18:26
Weird, I get the same impression from the "left" that you do from the "right"--just with different issues. In my mind right wing usually means less government (lower taxes), and left wing the opposite....although that isn't always the case.

I don't like the "moral code enforcement" either myself, although I'm fairly socially conservative personally. I guess I tend to take the same approach socially as I do economically--stay out of other people's business. Few things piss people off more than being told what to do or what not to do.

I think Republicans seem a little too focused on getting into people's social lives, and Democrats seem too focused on getting into people's financial lives. But we (meaning anyone talking about politics) really shouldn't generalize so much...it's bad. lol

Out of those two choices (bleh), I tend to favor the Repub side, because I think they leave us alone more. But again I'm generalizing... there are some Republicans I'm not too fond of.

As far as right wing extremists....they are there, but don't let them effect you too much. Everyone knows they're wacko...maybe it's just that the "conservative" wacko extremists are more visible than the "liberal" wacko extremeists. But nobody really listens to the extremists on either end. lol
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
11-18-2003 18:39
Garoad.. I gotcha on that.. but I'll probably always lean to the left! ;)

Being that I share my life with a member of the same sex, instead of the opposite sex, the Republican party (at least socially) looks like more of a threat to me.

I'm not here to convert anyone, to further the gay agenda (whatever that is), or any of that other bull that people talk about. I want to go to work, play SL, take my car on fast drives and basically be left alone.

So, as you see, from my viewpoint, the right is more of a threat than the left. If it wasn't for thier close ties to religion, and strict moral guidelines, they wouldn't seem so bad to me. ;)

I guess its all relative to your personal situation. For you, they offer more, for me, they do not.
Garoad Kuroda
Prophet of Muppetry
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 2,989
11-18-2003 18:58
I understand you there.

Just don't forget that the political stereotypes aren't always accurate...we really have to go on a case-by-case basis; there are usually exceptions. I know I have to remind myself of that sometimes. And I can certainly think of a few Republicans I'd like to publicly flog. :D