View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Gary Horton: Demand more from candidates

Posted: February 13, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 13, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I met up with Lee Rogers for lunch last week at the Tournament Players Club restaurant in Valencia. The Democratic candidate running to replace Howard “Buck” McKeon in this year’s election, Lee, many believe, is likely to be the new representative for our district.

Lee is inspiring, energetic and knowledgeable and made a great lunch companion to the TPC’s “awesometown” Curry Chicken Wrap. Really, the Curry Chicken Wrap is awesome.

Many SCVers first met Lee during his first run at McKeon 18 months ago, which ended up with the closest election McKeon has seen since he won grade school class president.

Lee surged so quickly in the polls that the otherwise comfortable and cozy McKeon necessarily acquiesced to a public debate, albeit with McKeon’s self-servingly restrictive debate venue and format.

Buck selected three moderators at that debate, and I’ll thank him here again for allowing me the privilege of that honor.

Modern American political debates have pretty much debauched into little more than redundant 30-second talking points (recall Sarah Palin’s “Mavericks” theme) than open give-and-take exposing the candidates’ actual views, strengths and weaknesses.

And while the McKeon–Rogers debate wasn’t freewheeling political cage fighting, it was the closest thing to honest back-and-forth in a controlled environment that most have seen in memory.

Again, it was wonderfully fun and rewarding to participate in that process.
The rub of the thing was, per McKeon’s directive, the debate was purposefully closed to the general public, and most SCVers never saw the lively back-and-forth between the two candidates.

They surely weren’t exposed to Lee Rogers effectively demonstrating he was arguably equal or better than McKeon as a candidate.

But Buck set the venue limitations, and Lee Rogers’ strong performance was effectively hidden away from the Joe and Jane Voters who would have been interested to see it.

So last election was a somewhat lost opportunity for 25th Congressional District voters. In place of revealing and beneficial discourse, our congressional election instead devolved into the low-brow American electioneering norm, with obnoxious fliers and “gotchas” forever firing off from both sides.

You and I so very depressingly know the modern American election routine, and regardless of sides, we wish we could experience something more constructive and informative — something more operationally democratic.

Congress runs for election perpetually, facing re-election and extinction every swift two years. They’ve got one year to do nothing in Washington before they’re soon forced to run in a bid to do nothing yet again.

Presidents don’t fare much better, with seemingly two years of usable time to attempt running the country before the world’s craziest election system drags them away from the duties of High Office with primaries one year followed by a general election the next.

Our candidate selection process has become as cerebral as “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” — only too often, not so much talent may be involved.

Across these extended months and seemingly never-ending campaigning years, we’re lambasted with dumb and dumber 30- and 60-second “paid for by ...” clips, Super PAC attacks, web bombs and never-ending calls for donations, direly warning that the polar circle will absolutely melt and surely dogs and cats will marry should we not donate big bucks this very second!

Thank Divinity for spam filters, but even these only shelter our tender minds from the most obvious of ploys.

At the peak of campaign repugnance, we Americans become united, regardless of politics, in the desire to drown the family TV in the family tub and drive over our own mailboxes.

“No more nonsense!” we recoil as our once well-functioning minds are reduced to mush in our warped process of electing America’s “best and brightest.”

We could be doomed.

But shy of drowning TVs in tubs, there’s a way out of our electoral nightmare, a way past the attack ads, and a way past the mauling mailers.

Insist on the real. Insist on valid, open conversation. Get to personally know, as closely as possible, those who would seek to speak for you and me.

The Signal hosted a “meet the candidates” event for 13 Santa Clarita City Council hopefuls. That’s a start.

Maria Gutzeit just hosted her own “Get to know Maria” event this past week, as others will also do so.
Get involved. Visit websites. Attend meetings. Cross aisles and hear the pros and cons from both sides, in their own words. Ask hard questions.

Demand more than mailers and attack ads from those who would represent you. McKeon literally no longer controls the debate. Push local news outlets and candidates themselves for frequent, open, and very public debates.

I know Lee Rogers is eager to take on anyone, anyplace, anytime — and as electable as Lee is, he’s a formidable challenge Republican newcomers are going to have to address or face getting squashed.

We have a great chance for openness this time around with the likely situation of candidates actually wanting to openly debate.

We can “move beyond the stupid” in our election process — locally, at least. Do, and demand more “real,” and tune out the rest.

Gary Horton is a Santa Clarita resident.

 

Comments

chico: Posted: February 13, 2014 6:42 a.m.

People cannot risk voting for any Democrat, for anything - they can't be trusted.




ricketzz: Posted: February 13, 2014 6:45 a.m.

Next time you attend a "closed" event that should be open, please forget to hang up your phone or something. Why doesn't the local radio advocate for the People and cover these things?


emheilbrun: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:03 a.m.

I'm sorry, but the only thing I can think about after reading this is to wonder if Gary's shirt had a collar when he had lunch at TPC.


chico: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:06 a.m.

People should demand their candidate follow the Constitution, like they swore to do when taking the position.

Because now the very individual who swore to protect the Constitution, is now the one violating it.

Do what you want, but any vote for any Democrat could be the one that prevents this lawlessness from being stopped.


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:30 a.m.

What happened to The Signal's rule about not using your column to endorse political candidates?

Oh wait...I keep forgetting that liberal Democrats are exempt from the same rules they demand of everyone else.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:35 a.m.

I'm voting for Tony Strickland.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 8:44 a.m.

"Cross aisles and hear the pros and cons from both sides, in their own words."

What a friggin hypocrite! I'm surprised you even know how to spell those words Gary considering you're the biggest partisan hack around. You, Charlie, and Kevin, make quite the threesome. In fact, I don't even know why the 3 of you write under your own names since it's the same BS.


projalice11: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:23 a.m.

Thanks Gary for your informative opinion column on Lee Rogers.

GO Lee Rogers


hepnerkid: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:51 a.m.

I'm with you Brian.


hepnerkid: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:58 a.m.

Chico has it right, you can't trust a lib. Send them to Congress and they immediately start having dreams of spending someone else's money which as we have seen is our nightmare. Libs believe in solving problems by throwing money at it, our money. And so far, all the problems they have solved have only been exacerbated. Consider the war on poverty. I'm sire that Gary and his ilk are puffed up with pride on how well that has worked.


CastaicClay: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Here comes the GleeOP club. What is the over/under this thread goes over 100 posts mostly with them patting themselves on the back?


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:53 a.m.

Gary,

Your heart is in the right place but without any media movement to get away from the mindless political theater that entertains most of those who’ve responded to you, the public that thinks has little chance to really get an idea of a candidate’s background beyond reciting ‘focus group tested’ slogans.

Buck’s ‘terms’ of ‘engagement’ reveals that once you’ve gone beyond his RNC rehearsed slogans, he’s done.

In any event, if the media continues to let misleading and often completely inept comments from either party simply ‘stand’ for the low info voters, our nation will continue its decline.

We know party line voting is a failure but just look at some of the remarks here about liberals. There’s no thinking . . . just a dislike of the ‘brand’.

And that’s the result of politicians using ‘marketing’ campaigns that simply discredit the brand without really understanding any of the positions even in the smallest detail.

Americans are getting what they ‘paid’ for in congress, now run by clowns that simple reciting ‘base’ beliefs and I guess hope that the media doesn’t call them on it.

Anyway, what do you see as the issues facing us and what do you believe are the solutions?

Can we get by the phase ‘less taxes’ and understand the consequences of what that means. For example, in public education, less taxes have meant overcrowded classrooms and a dropout rate that releases more than 1 student in 4 for the past 30 years into our economy unprepared.

Should we be spending $700 billion dollars on the defense industry to build weapons like the F35, currently costing $400,000,000.00 per aircraft, so it can fly over the long term unemployed in America?

These are types of question the media needs to look into beyond just the intentions. We know every politician has been for quality education yet the ‘results’, are unknown to the public since the media won’t spend the time to research and report same.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:59 a.m.

Gary,

Here’s a good example of brand bashing . . .

“hepnerkid wrote: Chico has it right, you can't trust a lib. Send them to Congress and they immediately start having dreams of spending someone else's money which as we have seen is our nightmare. Libs believe in solving problems by throwing money at it, our money. And so far, all the problems they have solved have only been exacerbated. Consider the war on poverty. I'm sire that Gary and his ilk are puffed up with pride on how well that has worked.

Indy: Count the slogans. See the unsubstantiated claims.

But consider the effectiveness of the RNC to address their ‘base’ that simply ‘follows’ without thinking . . .

That’s the media’s fault.

They have become lazy, like quoting clowns, making extremist into celebrities, then parading those folks in their articles about political theater that address no solutions, just intentions . . .

Sad that in 2014, we’ve got a media that is lost . . .


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:13 p.m.

"on the defense industry to build weapons like the F35, currently costing $400,000,000.00 per aircraft, so it can fly over the long term unemployed in America?"

You know Indy, you've been frequently caught lying or just making things up as you go along. Pulling "facts" out of your butt as they say. The above is a classic example. I've seen no data that shows each F35 costing anywhere near what you cite. In fact, the approximate cost is about 40% of what you say it is.

For a MBA, your research is sloppy and error prone to say the least. I don't know what's worse, that you do it on purpose or that you don't know any better and you hope nobody will fact check you. Perhaps your sources should be checked for accuracy assuming you have actual sources and aren't just fabricating. Even Fox News reports the number more accurately than our resident MBA from Cal State Northridge.

And finally, I make no judgment on the soundness of spending well over a trillion dollars on this airplane at approximately 160 million a copy. I'm inclined to be with you that it's cost and need should be scrutinized heavily.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:16 p.m.

"I met up with Lee Rogers for lunch last week at the Tournament Players Club restaurant in Valencia."

I saw Pete Rose at the Lazy Dog. The cocktails were excellent and their was a college basketball game on tv.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:45 p.m.

Indy said..."the public that thinks has little chance to really get an idea of a candidate’s background beyond reciting ‘focus group tested’ slogans."

Uh, Indy, you could go to the candidate's web site and read their position on issues. For a newcomer, there is of course no voting record, but with a little effort, voters can indeed educate themselves about a candidate.

It just takes a little work sometimes.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 1:14 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "on the defense industry to build weapons like the F35, currently costing $400,000,000.00 per aircraft, so it can fly over the long term unemployed in America?"

You know Indy, you've been frequently caught lying or just making things up as you go along. Pulling "facts" out of your butt as they say. The above is a classic example. I've seen no data that shows each F35 costing anywhere near what you cite. In fact, the approximate cost is about 40% of what you say it is.

Indy: Here’s an interesting article from the LA Times:

F-35 fighter jet struggles to take off
Two decades ago, officials wanted 648 F-22 fighter jets for $149 million per plane. Eventually, the military ended up with only 188 at a price tag of $412 million each. Before that, the Pentagon wanted 132 new B-2 stealth bombers at about $500 million per plane. It ultimately bought 21 at $2.1 billion each.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0612-fighter-jet-testing-20130612-dto,0,4701367.htmlstory#ixzz2tEqj9q3o

The ‘projected’ cost of the full implementation of the F-35 is estimated to be similar to the F-22 which is ‘over’ $400 million a plane . . .

So before you start spouting your mouth, why not do a simple internet serach and get the ‘facts’ in seconds.

17trillion wrote: For a MBA, your research is sloppy and error prone to say the least. I don't know what's worse, that you do it on purpose or that you don't know any better and you hope nobody will fact check you. Perhaps your sources should be checked for accuracy assuming you have actual sources and aren't just fabricating. Even Fox News reports the number more accurately than our resident MBA from Cal State Northridge.

Indy: What I find interesting is other than this self-absorbed diatribe you cite no sources yourself! You simply state that ‘I’m wrong’ with nothing to support your opinion.

And seeing Fox as a source for anything is just the outer bound of your thinking that relies upon ‘innuendo and speculation’ that forms the foundation of Fox ‘reporting’. Sorry, dude, you’ll have to do better.

And what was your degrees in?

17trillion wrote: And finally, I make no judgment on the soundness of spending well over a trillion dollars on this airplane at approximately 160 million a copy. I'm inclined to be with you that it's cost and need should be scrutinized heavily.

Indy: Again, the history of spending on new weapons which are not needed and just waste precious tax dollars is the insanity that you support.

Anyone that has seen the history of the pentagon just literally throwing away money on planes understands this.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 1:42 p.m.

I did do research Indy. I looked at 5 different web cites and all state the approximate cost was/is 160 million a copy although Wiki states it was between 160 and 400 million. Since it had such a variance, I discounted it. Unlike you I have no agenda, just a curiosity that caused my BS meter to go off on your 400 million a plane claim.

From your link:

"The per-plane cost estimates have climbed to $161 million today from $81 million in 2001, the GAO said."

This is exactly what I quoted. Where your sloppiness occurred perhaps is quoting the per plane cost of a the F22. Again, no matter what, you're either lazy, inaccurate, or just lying to make your point. You can't even quote your own link with any accuracy.

"Indy: What I find interesting is other than this self-absorbed diatribe you cite no sources yourself! You simply state that ‘I’m wrong’ with nothing to support your opinion."

Sorry Indy, I did a search and looked at the first 4 or 5 links I came across. Again, I did not have an agenda other that I thought your were incorrect. But, here you go, in order:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/05/so-how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost.html

http://r.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0LEVxzqOf1S61oAiCVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZzM0Ym82BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4NF8x/SIG=130g7rsei/EXP=1392355946/**http%3a//nation.time.com/2013/06/03/how-much-does-an-f-35-fighter-really-cost/

http://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-nearly-doubles-in-cost-but-you-dont-know-thanks-to-its-rubber-baseline/

http://whythef35.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-much-does-f-35-cost.html

I offer no support for any of these cites, they are just the first four I've come across and they in fact SUPPORT THE LINK YOU PROVIDED! Please note no Fox link, but I did a search on them and they too agree that it's about a 160 million a plane.

"And what was your degrees in?"

As I've said before you arrogant stuff shirt, I don't have one. I'm a college dropout. I'm not proud of it, but I'm not ashamed either. I've done very well in life despite not having a prestigious MBA from Cal State Northridge. Does anyone but you brag about such an "accomplishment"?

"Anyone that has seen the history of the pentagon just literally throwing away money on planes understands this."

I agree, but this is where your fiscal outrage ends. You ignore the other 78% of the budget and pretend that is all money well spent while money spent protecting your butt is a waste. If you really were an indy, you would be ranting against ALL types of spending from EVERY department. But you don't and that just makes you a partisan windbag like the author of this column.




Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 1:49 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Indy said..."the public that thinks has little chance to really get an idea of a candidate’s background beyond reciting ‘focus group tested’ slogans."

Uh, Indy, you could go to the candidate's web site and read their position on issues. For a newcomer, there is of course no voting record, but with a little effort, voters can indeed educate themselves about a candidate. It just takes a little work sometimes.

Indy: Sadly, I looked at the candidates sites when we last voted for a legislative seat.

Both candidates’ sites had wonderful list of recommendations from other politicians of their party, ideology positions, and intentions.

No mention of what they would actually do, however. Thus, I didn't vote for either one . . .

And the media just reprints the slogans, intentions, and ideology positions I guess feeling that the cost of ‘newsprint’ is too expensive to ask questions like:

What would you do to address the state’s drop out problem?
Why don’t our leaders tell us the cost of services like public education that’s about $9,000/student/year.
Why not give the voters a high level tally of what we spend in the state on various topic areas?
What regulations do you feel are real ‘job killers’?

All we actually get are recitals about ‘taxes being too high’, no connection to the cost of services or affordability, and almost nonstop ‘rants’ about party branding (it’s those evil liberals if you will . . . ).

This is why our state is so poorly run by politicians of both parties. It’s embarrassing.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:02 p.m.

"This is why our state is so poorly run by politicians of both parties."

The MBA fails to note the complete absence of one party and blames both instead. It's like the Germans blaming Costa Rica for their loss in WW2.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:03 p.m.

17trillion wrote: I did do research Indy. I looked at 5 different web cites and all state the approximate cost was/is 160 million a copy although Wiki states it was between 160 and 400 million. Since it had such a variance, I discounted it. Unlike you I have no agenda, just a curiosity that caused my BS meter to go off on your 400 million a plane claim.

Indy: Why ignore the history of the pentagon?

And like it or not you do have an agenda about spending ungodly amounts of money on defense systems that don’t address the world’s economic problems that create the unrest that our soldiers have to stick themselves in ‘harm’s way’.

17trillion wrote: wrote: This is exactly what I quoted. Where your sloppiness occurred perhaps is quoting the per plane cost of a the F22. Again, no matter what, you're either lazy, inaccurate, or just lying to make your point. You can't even quote your own link with any accuracy.

Indy: Your lack of critical thinking is embarrassing. Your march to discredit others is also pathetic. You ignore history at all of our peril just so you can make more snide remarks.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:11 p.m.

17trillion wrote: wrote: "And what was your degrees in?"

As I've said before you arrogant stuff shirt, I don't have one. I'm a college dropout. I'm not proud of it, but I'm not ashamed either. I've done very well in life despite not having a prestigious MBA from Cal State Northridge. Does anyone but you brag about such an "accomplishment"?

Indy: What puzzling to me especially regarding ‘self-made’ conservative businessman is their disdain for an actual formal education. Mocking those that have same seems a bit disingenuous doesn’t it?

I’ve helped many other businessmen I worked with in obtaining the type of skills to protect themselves in the industry I was in. Many thanked me for the help. Here I get your type of BS about my education from CSUN both in engineering and business. Interestingly, when their ‘money’ was on the line, their thankfulness was appreciated. And I didn’t care if they had degrees or not, helping them was the motivation.

I’ve also worked with people from Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, USC, among others and it was ‘me’ they asked for advice! So before you mock my school, you might want to consider the ‘results’ before going off on some rant . . .

17trillion wrote: "Anyone that has seen the history of the pentagon just literally throwing away money on planes understands this."

I agree, but this is where your fiscal outrage ends. You ignore the other 78% of the budget and pretend that is all money well spent while money spent protecting your butt is a waste. If you really were an indy, you would be ranting against ALL types of spending from EVERY department. But you don't and that just makes you a partisan windbag like the author of this column.

Indy: I want spending decisions based on reality and not on religious conservative beliefs or ideology.

And protecting my butt with hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful military spending isn’t ‘protecting’ at all since it ignores the economic drivers creating the unrest. Thus, while it may seem great to spending huge amounts of money on defense systems, without addressing the systemic causes of the conflicts we enter, we risk our youth for no good reason. That’s my main concern, protecting our young people . . .

In any event, I’ll entertain any spending issue you like to present . . . but when I see religious conservatives cutting off long term unemployment benefits to people ‘looking for work’, cutting food stamps to the poor using religious scripture as a foundation, and failing to keep the minimum wage consistent with inflation, I’ll start there.


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:14 p.m.

"Indy: Why ignore the history of the pentagon?"

Why are bananas yellow? WTF are you talking about? I've ranted on pentagon spending many times specifically having troops in rich countries that can afford to defend themselves like Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

"And like it or not you do have an agenda about spending ungodly amounts of money on defense systems that don’t address the world’s economic problems that create the unrest that our soldiers have to stick themselves in ‘harm’s way’."

I do? When you got your MBA, what class did you take that gave you the expertise and knowledge to make this claim about me, someone you don't even know? I'm a true fiscal conservative and I think virtually every aspect of the budget should be cut other than veterans affairs.

"Indy: Your lack of critical thinking is embarrassing. Your march to discredit others is also pathetic. You ignore history at all of our peril just so you can make more snide remarks."

I will take that as a victory Indy my good man! When you fail to contest the points I've made and fail to own up to your own BS, then I know victory is had once again against you. How pathetic that a college dropout can get one over on you so easily. You didn't pay a lot for that MBA did you?

And finally, what history am I ignoring? Were we talking about history? Did you fall and now you can't get up?


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:15 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "This is why our state is so poorly run by politicians of both parties."

The MBA fails to note the complete absence of one party and blames both instead. It's like the Germans blaming Costa Rica for their loss in WW2.

Indy: Complete non sequitur . . .

Both political parties are pending to the low info voters mainly on folklore, patriotism, religion and ideology.

As I noted, both legislative candidates provided really nothing but slogans to support their candidacies. Thus, neither got my vote.

I’d be careful listen to your conservative brethren here who are so far right that even a centrist looks like a ‘lefty’ to them!


17trillion: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:31 p.m.

"Indy: Complete non sequitur . . ."

Do you even know what the term means? Sheesh, you're not nearly as awesomely bright as you think you are. Should I print the definition for you?

"Both political parties are pending to the low info voters mainly on folklore, patriotism, religion and ideology."

Pending? Do you mean pandering? That's fine Indy except that one holds ALL the elected offices and super majorities in both houses and one has squat! So instead of ranting against both parties in California, why not rant against the one in power since we have no idea if the situation were reversed, it would be better, worse, or the same. Or do you have special powers that can also answer that question? Pending????

"I’d be careful listen to your conservative brethren here who are so far right that even a centrist looks like a ‘lefty’ to them!"

Gee thanks Indy. For a while I was so confused about my chosen and desired political direction. Baker, Tech, et al., thanks for creating my conservative direction. Here I thought my father was the biggest influence, but no! And finally Indy, you're about as centrist as the liar in the Whitehouse. He claimed that once too as I recall. Many of us laughed then as we do now with your "centrist" claim.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:36 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Indy: Why ignore the history of the pentagon?"

Why are bananas yellow? WTF are you talking about? I've ranted on pentagon spending many times specifically having troops in rich countries that can afford to defend themselves like Japan, Germany, and South Korea.

Indy: When we’re discussion issues here, feel free to expand them but please, don’t use past threads here that aren’t addressing the topic in this one. I’m addressing the outrageous overspending on a fighter jet that we don’t need. Those dollars could be spent better in other areas.

17trillion wrote: "And like it or not you do have an agenda about spending ungodly amounts of money on defense systems that don’t address the world’s economic problems that create the unrest that our soldiers have to stick themselves in ‘harm’s way’."

I do? When you got your MBA, what class did you take that gave you the expertise and knowledge to make this claim about me, someone you don't even know? I'm a true fiscal conservative and I think virtually every aspect of the budget should be cut other than veterans affairs.

Indy: I just read your remarks most of them focused on demeaning those that disagree with you.

And your remark about being a ‘fiscal conservative’ is at the heart of our nation’s problems. Cutting programs independent of need is ludicrous.

We need ‘intelligent’ budgeting not just blind cutting based on some ideology term.

17trillion wrote:"Indy: Your lack of critical thinking is embarrassing. Your march to discredit others is also pathetic. You ignore history at all of our peril just so you can make more snide remarks."

I will take that as a victory Indy my good man! When you fail to contest the points I've made and fail to own up to your own BS, then I know victory is had once again against you. How pathetic that a college dropout can get one over on you so easily. You didn't pay a lot for that MBA did you?

And finally, what history am I ignoring? Were we talking about history? Did you fall and now you can't get up?

Indy: I always find it funny when conservatives announce their ‘victory’! LOL

If it makes yourself feel good, great. At least you got something out of this exchange.

But there are lots more to come . . . combating conservative ideology that in many cases brutalizing people is one of my main concerns.

Feel free to present your views . . . devoid of the nonsense if possible. We can keep the debate more civil. But for those that like to ‘slice and dice’, well, it’s just as entertaining for me to debate in that manner as well . . .
whatever floats you boat!


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:48 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Indy: Complete non sequitur . . ."

Do you even know what the term means? Sheesh, you're not nearly as awesomely bright as you think you are. Should I print the definition for you?

Indy: What is really embarrassing about you is your lack of ability to actually think thru the problems we face . . . and rather than asking questions, you get right back to making remarks that are specious.

17trillion wrote: "Both political parties are pending to the low info voters mainly on folklore, patriotism, religion and ideology."

Pending? Do you mean pandering? That's fine Indy except that one holds ALL the elected offices and super majorities in both houses and one has squat! So instead of ranting against both parties in California, why not rant against the one in power since we have no idea if the situation were reversed, it would be better, worse, or the same. Or do you have special powers that can also answer that question? Pending????

Indy: Just love the Word autocorrect . . . really makes my day.

As far as party majorities goes, one of the major reasons the state of CA was suffering lack of services was that republicans had minorities plus 1 or 2 votes that stopped all the tax increases required based on ‘demand’ not ideology.

Thus, both parties are failing us . . .

We saw this recently when the unemployment department was understaffed. I let Brown know about it.

Same for the staffing issue with Covered CA where long wait times were hurting people wanting to sign up.

Shouldn’t be ‘me’ managing these folks . . . but if the dems wanted taxes to properly support programs, then the ‘fiscal conservative’ republicans start crying about taxes from ideology positions that only hurt folks here.


Indy: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:49 p.m.

17trillion wrote:"I’d be careful listen to your conservative brethren here who are so far right that even a centrist looks like a ‘lefty’ to them!"

Gee thanks Indy. For a while I was so confused about my chosen and desired political direction. Baker, Tech, et al., thanks for creating my conservative direction. Here I thought my father was the biggest influence, but no! And finally Indy, you're about as centrist as the liar in the Whitehouse. He claimed that once too as I recall. Many of us laughed then as we do now with your "centrist" claim.

Indy: Hey, don’t mind pointing out the obvious . . . many times between the rants of those you mentioned, they can’t see the ‘forest though the trees’.

That’s why I’m here to help you . . . including pointing out the clowns in GOP leadership positions that simply can’t think and just spout ideology to their base which solves nothing . . .

In any event, calling out the failures of conservatism is just part of the job I have here . . . you’re free to cite democrat failures and I’ll address them as appropriate. Like it or not, we live in conservative island here in CA where the republican voter registration has dropped to below 30%. I think that speaks for itself . . . as more and more voters become independent an no longer regard the ‘parties’ as having solutions for their future.


projalice11: Posted: February 13, 2014 3:00 p.m.

YEA FOR INDY.


therightstuff: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Indy: """you’re free to cite democrat failures and I’ll address them as appropriate."""

Translation for "address them as appropriate": If I don't have an answer, I will ignore your requests for evidence of my unsubstantiated claims or I will attack the poster's personal character when I have no defense against their facts. When all else fails, I will blame Fox News.

This is why the guest readers are laughing at you, Indy. And you're right, the fact that the state of California is controlled by Democrats does indeed speak for itself.

But hey, all is not lost. It appears your ocean of DNC talking points have won over the crazy BINGO lady. Congrats.


ricketzz: Posted: February 14, 2014 6:48 a.m.

If you take out your family edition of Mein Kampf and everywhere it says "Jew" you change it to "Liberal". That is the Radical Right's plan to destroy America and to pave the way for full on Fascism.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 14, 2014 7:24 a.m.

Indy the MBA asked:"Why don’t our leaders tell us the cost of services like public education that’s about $9,000/student/year.
Why not give the voters a high level tally of what we spend in the state on various topic areas?"

I (not an MBA) gave Indy a high level tally of what we spend...
Budget Summary - California State Budget - State of California
www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf

Indy, why do you appear so inept at using the internet for research?

As for the dropout rate, do some research. Look at dropout rates by race and ethnicity. Next look at out of wedlock births by race and ethnicity. Conclusions?


17trillion: Posted: February 14, 2014 8:03 a.m.

I don't know what Indy is even saying? Does anyone else other than the Bingo lady understand him? He lies about the cost of fighter jets, he blames auto correct for butchering a word, guest readers will note it's not the first time either, and I'm still convinced he doesn't know what "non sequitur" means.

In any event, you can judge the size of the victory over Indy by how many words he uses to attempt to rebut.




therightstuff: Posted: February 14, 2014 8:36 a.m.

Since no one else owns a family edition of Mein Kampf, ricketzz, we wouldn't know.


17trillion: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:58 a.m.

"If you take out your family edition of Mein Kampf and everywhere it says "Jew" you change it to "Liberal"."

You would think that perhaps a resident Jew here on the forum might be offended, rightly so, at the comparison of Republicans and a Jew hating monster responsible for 50 million deaths. But nooooo, since the writer supports leftism, all is forgiven, right Lois?

Can I get a "BINGO" on the Nazi/Republican comparison?


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 12:21 p.m.

"Gary Horton: Demand more from candidates"

Except when it comes to the Bozo in the White House, eh Gary.

What a freakin hypocrite.


hepnerkid: Posted: February 14, 2014 2:01 p.m.

Indy: I graduated from Cal State Fullerton with my masters in history. It took 12 years and I have never used it to earn a living. My Grandmother thought it would be a good idea so I went along. I had intended to teach college history but after being around "them" for too many years, I decided that I had enough. We had a term that was kicked around the department, "IDIOT SAVANT" or a little too smart for their own good or lacking common sense. Indy, you come off that way.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 2:20 p.m.

hepnerkid, I agree. The term we used when I was attending CSUN was "Educated Idiot".


ricketzz: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:08 a.m.

hepnerkid; I am probably as close to "idiot savant" as you'll find around here. The phrase means a person with obvious mental impairment who can amazingly perform a certain task like a virtuoso. Think Rain Man counting things.

The differently abled among us appreciate precision when throwing our cliche` around. Thank-you.


Indy: Posted: February 15, 2014 12:20 p.m.

hepnerkid wrote: Indy: I graduated from Cal State Fullerton with my masters in history. It took 12 years and I have never used it to earn a living. My Grandmother thought it would be a good idea so I went along. I had intended to teach college history but after being around "them" for too many years, I decided that I had enough. We had a term that was kicked around the department, "IDIOT SAVANT" or a little too smart for their own good or lacking common sense. Indy, you come off that way.

Indy: Yes, I took an engineering review course at CSF 40 years ago . . . great group of engineering professors there at that time.

I think the problem you have here, however, is more to do with the conservative ideology positions that are recited here but don’t hold up to reality.

As for common sense, that’s what made me successful in running my own business for about 20 years as well as working for ‘large’ companies for another 20.

I found most of the young degreed people lacked awareness of basic ‘day to day’ business matters although they did study the material.

I mentored them in the same way my former MBA professors mentored me in that they worked as professionals in their fields and taught my MBA courses at night at CSUN. So I really got the best of both worlds.

As I noted prior to, I use to mentor many businessman in my field who weren’t familiar with contract law, basic job costing and accounting. They were grateful since they were able to ‘defend’ themselves against some of the other abusive business people than ran into.

In any event, while history is very important, those that possess such knowledge but are unskilled in business, economics, management, and budgeting won’t be able to help us.

The biggest challenge we face today, however, is helping Americans that are bathed in ideology based recitals that don’t work in the modern world.

When you see ‘common sense’ from an ideology perspective that is different that the common sense in applied economics for example.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 15, 2014 1:42 p.m.

Indy the MBA said: "I think the problem you have here, however, is more to do with the conservative ideology positions that are recited here but don’t hold up to reality."

No Indy, what hepnerkid was saying is that you keep on claiming that your MBA gives you superior intellect, yet you're not smart enough to find the California budget on the internet.


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 2:07 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: No Indy, what hepnerkid was saying is that you keep on claiming that your MBA gives you superior intellect, yet you're not smart enough to find the California budget on the internet.

Indy: What a pompous and ignorant thing to say . . .

I’m beginning to wonder if you actually ‘graduated’ from CSUN since your logic skills are pathetic.

Your so blinded by your religious conservatism you can’t see the light of day . . .

If this type of nonsense you’re writing is what you see as ‘debate’ I’ll just ignore you except if I have to clarify any points you makes mistakes on.

PS - was that the response you're looking for? It appears so . . .


emheilbrun: Posted: February 16, 2014 3:03 p.m.

I'm blinded? Who's the MBA that had no idea where to find the state budget on the internet? And what does religious conservatism have to do with your ineptness in doing so? Pompous? Who's the MBA going around asking everyone else what their degrees are in?

And please clarify any points I "makes mistakes on". You are too damn funny!

You 'makes' me laugh.


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 3:45 p.m.

"And what was your degrees in?" - Indy

From another column thread: "…And why are you so curious about my educational background? Seems kind of creepy to me...in one of those weird, Internet-stalker sort of ways." - stevehw


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 4:42 p.m.

Congratulations, emheilbrun.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1779324_428914080575109_2122647841_n.jpg


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:52 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: I'm blinded? Who's the MBA that had no idea where to find the state budget on the internet?

Indy: Here again, just more nonsense from somebody that can’t even grasp the concept that we being discussed . . .

emheilbrun wrote: And what does religious conservatism have to do with your ineptness in doing so? Pompous? Who's the MBA going around asking everyone else what their degrees are in?

Indy: Again religious conservatives that can’t debate the topic just turn their angst to the people that show them that their ideology is failing.

emheilbrun wrote: And please clarify any points I "makes mistakes on". You are too damn funny!
You 'makes' me laugh.

Indy: You don’t make me laugh as much as I feel such embarrassment for somebody that doesn’t know business or economics and mocks those that do.


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:53 p.m.

technologist wrote: "And what was your degrees in?" – Indy

Indy: Again, this poster is one of the few that I guess again feels that his educational background would hurt tremendously on topics of business, management and economics.

We’ll just have to accept that as fact until disclosed otherwise.


Indy: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:55 p.m.

technologist wrote: Congratulations, emheilbrun.

Indy: In other words, the unknowing leading the unknowing . . .


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:42 p.m.

Keep pontificating to prop up your inflated ego, Indy. You're a paper tiger that represents no real challenge to this community as you lack gravitas.

You know it and so do we. --edited.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:59 p.m.

Indy, help me grasp the concept "that we being discussed".

Your embarassed for me?

Angst? I'm here because you are fun. I don't take you seriously enough for you to cause me angst.

Here's another challenge (that you won't respond to)...provide a quote of mine that justifies your statement that I don't know business or economics. Keep in mind, you're the one the said the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply every day. In fact, more than 4 days have gone by since you wrote that. Is the world's oil supply gone?



Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:11 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Angst? I'm here because you are fun. I don't take you seriously enough for you to cause me angst.

Indy: Sad, isn’t it that this guy with the important issue facing us is here for ‘fun’.

That fair enough but to mock those that seeking solutions for our societal problems is pathetic.

emheilbrun wrote: Here's another challenge (that you won't respond to)...provide a quote of mine that justifies your statement that I don't know business or economics. Keep in mind, you're the one the said the US uses 25% of the world's oil supply every day. In fact, more than 4 days have gone by since you wrote that. Is the world's oil supply gone?

Indy: And the guy ‘keeps on digging’ making his embarrassment all the more obvious . . . go back and read the post and the ‘context’ to get the real picture.


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:13 p.m.

technologist wrote: Keep pontificating to prop up your inflated ego, Indy. You're a paper tiger that represents no real challenge to this community as you lack gravitas.

Indy: This guy like many other religious conservatives here like to get the ‘last post’ such that they feel I guess empowered that their last ‘quick quip’ with no information, facts, context, or backstory on the issue nevertheless in the poster’s worldview sets the record straight? LOL

More embarrassment . . .


Indy: Posted: February 17, 2014 3:16 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Did Indy just say something?

Indy: Why yes . . .

The F-35: Mo’ Money, Fewer Jobs
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/2014/01/23/the-f-35-fighter-boondoggle-isnt-even-creating-jobs

A new report questions claims that the over budget F-35 program is creating jobs.

“Officially the most expensive weapons system in history, the cost of manufacturing the jets has increased a whopping 75 percent from its original estimate, and is now closing in on $400 billion. Over its lifetime, the F-35 program is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $1.5 trillion, between construction and maintenance of the jets, if they ever all materialize . . . “

And . . .

Mar 12, 2013, 1:36pm EDT Updated: Mar 12, 2013, 2:34pm EDT
FedBiz Talk
F-35 racked up $1.2 billion in cost overruns

Total investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037, the GAO reported, with an average annual funding requirement of $12.6 billion.

Indy: Let’s do the math . . . $1.5 trillion divided by 2,457 aircraft is: over $450 million per plane.

From what 17trillion previsiously wrote: "on the defense industry to build weapons like the F35, currently costing $400,000,000.00 per aircraft, so it can fly over the long term unemployed in America?"

17trillion wrote: You know Indy, you've been frequently caught lying or just making things up as you go along. Pulling "facts" out of your butt as they say. The above is a classic example. I've seen no data that shows each F35 costing anywhere near what you cite. In fact, the approximate cost is about 40% of what you say it is.

Indy: With a few minutes of searching on ‘f35 fighter over $400 million’ we can see that the numbers I’ve heard over the last year or two are indeed correct . . . yet the poster notes “just making things up as you go along.”

Doesn’t appear that way now does it . . .


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 8:04 p.m.

"More embarrassment . . . " - Indy

Indeed. If your posts were rational and defensible, you'd suffer less embarrassment.


ricketzz: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:10 a.m.

The F35 JSF is the biggest welfare program in the world.


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 3:14 p.m.

technologist wrote: "More embarrassment . . . " - Indy

Indeed. If your posts were rational and defensible, you'd suffer less embarrassment.

Indy: When this poster can’t defend his ideology . . . you get this type of ‘quick quip’!

I guess he does this to qualify for the best ‘pat on the back’ of the day . . . in this case, his own!

Sadly, the Tea Party is made up of people like this, libertarian market fundamentalist that simply reject the idea that government of ‘we the people’ can have an active role in managing our nation’s affairs.

This simply assumption fails immediately when we realize that ‘for profit’ companies have no ‘social contract’ with the public.

In any event, while I’m sure this quick quip is really directed at this conservative brethren that inhabit this site, it shows no insight, any type of intellectual honesty, or even just simple ‘common sense’.

And to cap it off, the poster simply refuses to disclose his education, again fearing that it may expose many of his remarks as being unfit in any discussion on business or economic issues.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 3:03 p.m.

More risible ad hominems, Indy. Categorizing for profit entities as lacking a "social contract" is revealing. Your weak assertions are indeed embarrassing.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 4:53 p.m.

An "engineer and MBA" that posts his own quote and ascribes it to me. You're a veritable feast of incompetence, Indy! :-D


Indy: Posted: March 9, 2014 3:01 p.m.

technologist wrote: An "engineer and MBA" that posts his own quote and ascribes it to me. You're a veritable feast of incompetence, Indy! :-D

Indy: Coming from someone that is afraid to disclose his education or lack thereof . . . jealousy is so unbecoming . . .


Indy: Posted: March 9, 2014 3:42 p.m.

technologist wrote: More risible ad hominems, Indy.

Indy: I always find it intersting when you expose the weaknesses in your ideology and those are either ‘strawmen’ or ‘ad hominems’. LOL

technologist wrote: Categorizing for profit entities as lacking a "social contract" is revealing.

Indy: Didn’t you read Adam Smith’s work?

technologist wrote: Your weak assertions are indeed embarrassing.

Indy: PYOTB


technologist: Posted: March 10, 2014 6:19 p.m.

"Indy: PYOTB" =

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy Posted: February 11, 2014 7:20 p.m.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/113798/



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...