RealGM

We have an election in two weeks for our new Mayor to replace Bill White.

The candidates are.....um...

crap, I know there are some candidates.

OK, just typed "who's running for mayor in Houston" in Google and the response I got was "how the hell am I supposed to know that?"

Anyone feel strongly one way or the other? I'm probably going with Locke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_mayoral_election,_2009

Candidates

* City Councilman Peter Brown (Democratic)
* Charles Cupp (Independent)
* Former City Attorney Gene Locke (Democratic)
* Education Trustee Roy Morales (Republican)
* City Controller Annise Parker (Democratic)
* Luis Ullrich (Independent)
* Amanda Ulman (Socialist Workers)

Luis Ulrich? Nah. Lars Scola!

Without knowing any of these people, I'm going to throw my non-vote behind Amanda Ulman. I believe she has the best policies for guiding HOU into the next stage of history.

In addition, I seriously doubt any of the other candidates are qualified to smash the Dictatorship of the Bourgeiousie and help create the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

jove, you raise a very interesting point. Would you care to elaborate? I'd like to know more about this Lars Scola.

See, I have this thing.

1. It's hard to know what issues are even being looked at.
2. It's hard to know whether those issues are actually important or distractionary.
3. It's impossible to know whether the candidate will actually follow through even on what they're saying they'll do - as politicians have a long history of not doing so - , much less what they'll do on all the stuff that isn't talked about
4. What kind of financial shape is this city actually in? From reading blogHouston, it's falling in around our ears, which still places us in the top quartile of the U.S. right now. Does anyone have a remote idea?
5. Given 1-4, what's the point?

I was at a conference last week and met this smoking hot asian chick who's doing social media for Locke AND Brown. She told me without even a hint of irony. But she was hot, so I kept my mouth shut.

(Has anyone else seen the current Houston Press cover?) It's pretty funny, with a box for a check mark beside each candidate's name.

"Black Guy.
Rich White Guy.
Lesbian.
Hispanic Republican."

Me? I'm voting for the only one who can read AND didn't hire the same operatives as his opponents.

I'm down with the lesbian.

Seems like a pretty good plan.

(I don't know a ton about her, but smarter people than me say she's the real deal.)

P.S. - When are the local republicans going to quit thinking Houston's Hispanics will vote for any damn fool named "Rodriguez". They've tried it several times. It never works. Personally, I find it insulting and more than a little racist - and I'm not even Hispanic.

Well the great thing about Democrats in Texas is you don't have to worry about them being dumbass liberals. It's an election for mayor though. Who really cares.

I see a bunch of socialists and one former military. I go with former military.

fisterkev wrote:I see a bunch of socialists and one former military. I go with former military.

If, in under 10 seconds, you can verbally and accurately define "socialism", I will hand you my voter registration card and wish you the best of luck.

But you can't.

So please. Pretty please. In the name of an educated America...go be stupid somewhere else. (The "Off Topic" board, perhaps? You'll feel right at home.)



***Edit: OK. Maybe that was too mean. I'll own that possibility. So allow me to re-phrase my response, in the form of a couple of questions:

- Did you drive on a paved road today?
- Did your trash get picked up in the last week?
- Have you ever been to a professional sporting event in Houston?
- Have you ever called the police or fire department?

If the answer to any of these is "YES", then please do the world 1 of 2 favors. (Your choice) :
1. Quit listening to Fox News.

...or...

2. Start wearing a shirt identifying yourself as a socialist.


Because you ARE ONE.

If, in under 10 seconds, you can verbally and accurately define "socialism"

Short version? How does this sound: An economic system that sets goals for equal outcomes regardless of inputs as its highest goal. You can say that in 10 seconds, can't you?

You can keep your voter registration card. Disenfranchisement is largely a tool of the left nowadays - your buddies at ACORN and the NBP have been pretty busy the last few cycles.

- Did you drive on a paved road today?

Yes, paid for with my taxes and with my consent. I avoided the toll roads, though - not into double whammies.

- Did your trash get picked up in the last week?

Yes, again paid for with my taxes. Used to be with a private company, but that function was taken over by the local govt while I was in Iraq... Without my consent.

- Have you ever been to a professional sporting event in Houston?

Yes, in a stadium that was paid for with my taxes. Without my consent.

- Have you ever called the police or fire department?

Sure, and they are also paid for with my tax money. With my consent.

Your point is of course that these are all publicly funded infrastructures, organizations, and activities, and that they are constructed / run / carried out for the common good. It is of course a function of government to conduct such activities... or some of them at least. It is generally accepted that emergency services and roads are the province of government, while public sporting stadiums and trash services are more debatable (the trash ran just fine and probably cost much less when the private company did it, and the stadium should probably have been funded by the organizations that actually utilized it). There are some things that government should do, and there are some that it should stay away from.

The question with government is always what is its role? How much should it take on? Is a given activity the province of government, or private industry? Or was your point that we either have socialism or - what - anarchy?

I work for the government and understand its nature. It always seeks to enlarge and entrench itself. Libs like you think it has all the answers, and fail to understand that unless it is restrained to the basic roles of creating a physically secure environment (and yes building roads falls in there, too) it generally creates more problems than it solves.

Anyway, none of this is relevant. Socialism is about outcomes, particularly equality in outcomes regardless of input. This equates to redistribution of wealth in economic spheres; we consent to a small amount of this with any government - the Founders understood fully that it was necessary if there is to be any government. They also understood that too much was a bad thing, as it sapped industry and innovation when those who are industrious and innovative are punished in order to reward those who are not. The fact that we accept some amount of government intervention does not make us socialists, unless one has a very skewed definition of socialism (which is probably uyour problem); a non-socialist will try and find a happy medium. A socialist will end up ruining his land.

Are you a college student?

1. Quit listening to Fox News.

Sorry dude, don't really watch TV anymore. But if I did actually get my news from TV I surely would go to FOX. They all suck nowadays, but FOX is the least bad.

Do you get all of your news from HuffPo and Daily Kos, I wonder? Yes, very balanced there...

2. Start wearing a shirt identifying yourself as a socialist.
Because you ARE ONE.

Blah, blah, blah. Did it feel good to type that, or what?

A socialist would vote for any of the above except for the candidate I intend to vote for. And no, I'm not a Hispanic...

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

Yeah, you can stop there. (Because if I push you any further, your honest (frighteningly antiquated) motivations will become apparent enough to push this useful thread into the nether-regions of "Off Topic".

You did your part.

Thanks for scaring all the sane folks.



P.S. - As to your oft-repeated "without my consent" refrain:

Which of those social(ist) services are you ready to reject? Pick one. Lets see who agrees with you.

One thing I like about Houston's Mayoral politics as opposed to most elections is that the Party of the cadidate isn't really that important. As long as you are pragmatic, business-minded and don't treat the office like your own personal stepping stone then you should be fine.

I definitely lean towards the right side of the spectrum, but at this point Locke has my vote, just as White had my vote last time. Give me an administrator, not an activist. I don't think that voting for either of them makes me a "socialist" as the term is thrown around these days.

No, my friends, I am very much a capitalist. I love money. I love keeping my money and I love spending my money. In fact, my love for money runs so deep that I would be more than willing to take your money, and you would not have to worry as I would love your money like it was my own money, and I would spend it accordingly, with love...rich, hot capitalist love.

In fact...I have a great idea. I think that everyone here should send me a dollar...no, make that ten dollars. Yeah, send me ten dollars and once you see how loved that ten dollars is feel free to send me ten more. If everyone does that then life will be better for all of us. Mostly me, that is true, but think of the wonderful positive vibes and good karma you'll all get in the deal! That alone is worth sending me your money...and your worldly possessions. You don't need those - you only need my love. You don't need to think - I'll do it for you....

Aw Dammit!!!! I just done gone started another damned cult! Boy, the Feds sure are going to be mad at me! I promised them no more cults or money-making schemes based loosely upon randomly selected Bible verses.

Sorry about that, fellas!

(but don't let that stop you from sending those checks, now!)

Yeah, you can stop there. (Because if I push you any further, your honest (frighteningly antiquated) motivations will become apparent enough to push this useful thread into the nether-regions of "Off Topic".

"Honest motivations"? Antiquated? Desiring limited government is "antiquated"? And frightening? Go ahead. Push.

Off topic? My initial comment was about voting for the military guy (which I suspect also offended you, as i know you Kossacks dislike the military) over any leftists, and you respond with a nonsensical post insinuating that I don't know what socialism is. You left the rails here first, not me. I just followed you.

Thanks for scaring all the sane folks.

Heh. Are these the same sane folks who daydream about getting piss-drunk and pissing all over a tree in front of little kids at a public park? Yeah, I remember that one.

Which of those social(ist) services are you ready to reject? Pick one. Lets see who agrees with you.

Ah, so the test of a good policy is how many people agree with it? Really?

Dude, this is a basketball site, it is going to lean heavily left. I am not in this to get agreement, I just want to throw a little logic on the fire.

fisterkev wrote:Off topic? My initial comment was about voting for the military guy (which I suspect also offended you, as i know you Kossacks dislike the military) over any leftists, and you respond with a nonsensical post insinuating that I don't know what socialism is. You left the rails here first, not me. I just followed you.

When did "Kossack" [sic] become a synonym for socialist? Dude, cossacks were tsarist horsemen of the Caucasus region. Not socialist at all!

I'm assuming you just picked whatever Russian-sounding word you knew and hoped that it was socialist. Be more careful next time, tovarisch.

By the way, don't forget that REAL socialists (not the people that FOX news calls "socialist," but real ones) LOVE the military. Why? Remember Mao's dictum that power comes from the barrel of a gun? Yeah.

Let's not forget the lessons of 1917 or 1949. Or even 1848, for that matter! Revolutions don't just "happen." They are created by armed militants. Hell, Marx himself wrote about and advocated a violent overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class over a hundred and fifty years ago. This stuff isn't new.

Listen, I understand that you probably hate the working class (look up "false consciousness"). Wonderful. Still, even the most staunch supporters of capitalism who dwell at the highest echelons of society at least understand the basics of the class struggle. If you're gonna dole out the hate, at least learn about what you're criticizing so you won't seem foolish to the more educated folk on the board.

Pozhaluista!

When did "Kossack" [sic] become a synonym for socialist? Dude, cossacks were tsarist horsemen of the Caucasus region. Not socialist at all!

I'm assuming you just picked whatever Russian-sounding word you knew and hoped that it was socialist. Be more careful next time, tovarisch.

LOL, "Kossack" refers to a denizen of the Daily Kos, which is most certainly a far leftist and socialist blog sit, and Ribalding most certainly is a denizen of that site. So you be more careful nexst time, 'kay?

By the way, don't forget that REAL socialists (not the people that FOX news calls "socialist," but real ones) LOVE the military. Why? Remember Mao's dictum that power comes from the barrel of a gun? Yeah.

No, REAL socialists hate the *US military* because it has spent so much time thwarting their global aims over the past 60 years. What, you think the jacka*ses protesting outside of recruiting stations are libertarians? Hit up an antiwar protest in uniform and see how popular you are.

Let's not forget the lessons of 1917 or 1949. Or even 1848, for that matter! Revolutions don't just "happen." They are created by armed militants

They are created by thugs with guns. Not armies. No surprise a brainwashed college student wouldn't know the difference.

Listen, I understand that you probably hate the working class (look up "false consciousness"). Wonderful.

I *am* working class, you yahoo. You may not realize it, but I've been where you are right now, and I know from personal experience what's going through your skull. I went to college, too. I was a pretty hardcore lib (dare I say, socialist) too when I finished up my education. It took a decade of living in the real world to wash all of the garbage they shoved into my brain in school away. You're being taught things about the real world by people who don't have much experience living in it, but you don't know any better. When you get out you can start your real education and learn about all of the societies that socialism has destroyed throughout the ages (hint, it didn't actgually start with Marx, it's been around for a long time). There's a reason you find lots of young leftists and fewer older ones, and why you will find so many conservatives who are former leftists but almost no leftists who are former conservatives...

I'm not going to be lectured by some kid who's never done anything but sit around his dorm room getting high and daydreaming about how the working man won't take it for much longer. Get a real job, get a family, pay some taxes, and *then* we'll talk about class struggle. I know alot more about it than you do - or at least enough to know that if you seek to destroy those who create jobs and create wealth then you will end up with neither.

Check back with me in a decade (assuming you've got a real job by then) and tell me if you like the tax rates you're paying.

Man, fister. You're funny.

It looks like we're going to go around in circles (again), so there's no point in prolonging this off-topic disaster for too much longer. I just wanna point out a couple of things before this thread gets totally out of hand:

You mentioned people protesting outside of recruiting stations. No, most of them AREN'T socialist (if you understand what this means). They are either Democrats or anarchists. Again, there's a HUGE difference between socialist, Democrat, and anarchists. One of the major points of contention is the necessity and role of government as well as the military. Look into it. Really.

Who said anything about armies being involved in the revolutions I cited? When you bother looking up "false consciousness," why not add "militant" to the query?

Anyway, we both know that the company we keep as well as our experiences influence our world view. Nope, probably not that many aging leftists in the US military, hence your fantastic claims.

Finally, I LOVE the fact that you assume I'm some pot-smoking college kid with nothing better to do than hang out in my dorm room. Stereotypes are seldom correct, but we can go this route if you insist, bubba.

You mentioned people protesting outside of recruiting stations. No, most of them AREN'T socialist (if you understand what this means). They are either Democrats or anarchists. Again, there's a HUGE difference between socialist, Democrat, and anarchists. One of the major points of contention is the necessity and role of government as well as the military. Look into it. Really.

I love it, really... You guys just can't get past the "you just don't understand" defense? Go to ANY antiwar protest of ANY sort and you will find very little difference between the so-called "Democrats", socialists, and anarchists. Peas in the same pod, and for good reason.

Anyway, we both know that the company we keep as well as our experiences influence our world view. Nope, probably not that many aging leftists in the US military, hence your fantastic claims.

":Fantastic"? Perhaps you should re-read the post, as you did not appear to understand the rather simple concept I wrote about? Leftists tend to turn into conservatives through life experience, but conservatives do not tend to turn into leftists. Ask yourself why.

Finally, I LOVE the fact that you assume I'm some pot-smoking college kid with nothing better to do than hang out in my dorm room. Stereotypes are seldom correct, but we can go this route if you insist, bubba.

I'd bet money I'm pretty close. Possibly recently graduated? Do you have a real job yet? Married, kids? Mortgage? How much do you give Uncle Sam every paycheck?

I make the assumption because at least as far as you've written you fit the stereotype perfectly. I'm sure there is some variance from it (there always is, of course) but on balamnce hardcore leftists are usually hardcore leftists because they'd rather whine about doing things than actually do them, and pot-smoking college kids without real jobs fit that bill perfectly.

And yes, this conversation will go round and round, and eventually end up both nowhere and back at its starting point... It always does.

fisterkev wrote:I love it, really... You guys just can't get past the "you just don't understand" defense? Go to ANY antiwar protest of ANY sort and you will find very little difference between the so-called "Democrats", socialists, and anarchists. Peas in the same pod, and for good reason.

Like Ribalding suggested earlier, turn off FOX news. Think for yourself for once. Mommy Beck and Daddy Hannity aren't gonna be around forever to tell you what to believe.

fisterkev wrote:":Fantastic"? Perhaps you should re-read the post, as you did not appear to understand the rather simple concept I wrote about? Leftists tend to turn into conservatives through life experience, but conservatives do not tend to turn into leftists. Ask yourself why.

No, I understood the concept, but it truly is fantastic; i.e., existing only in fantasy. People become "leftist" as they realize what's REALLY going on in the world and shed the dream world that they've been pacified to live in, thanks to the wonders of tv, schools, religion, etc. Hey, people sometimes do come to their senses in this world.

fisterkev wrote:I'd bet money I'm pretty close. Possibly recently graduated? Do you have a real job yet? Married, kids? Mortgage? How much do you give Uncle Sam every paycheck?

I make the assumption because at least as far as you've written you fit the stereotype perfectly. I'm sure there is some variance from it (there always is, of course) but on balamnce hardcore leftists are usually hardcore leftists because they'd rather whine about doing things than actually do them, and pot-smoking college kids without real jobs fit that bill perfectly.

WAYYY off, Bubba. I've been outta college for a loooong time; am married, have a mortgage like most responsible people.

What? You're wrong?!? I guess that sometimes you can't "go with the gut" and gotta rely on whatever brains you've got left after last night's drinking binge and / or bar fight.

Anyway, this is getting old.

Like Ribalding suggested earlier, turn off FOX news.

And as stated earlier, I don't watch much TV anymore. Are we not tracking, or are you calling me a liar? And thinking for myself... this from a college student?

People become "leftist" as they realize what's REALLY going on in the world and shed the dream world that they've been pacified to live in, thanks to the wonders of tv, schools, religion, etc. Hey, people sometimes do come to their senses in this world.

Show me an old leftist and I'll bet you cash that that individual was a leftist for the better part of their life. Some people are just idiots and never wake up.

Show me a conservative and there's a decent chance that that person is a reformed leftist - likely went to college and was trained in the leftist modes of thinking, and has since seen the light. Taxes and families have a way of doing it. Life calls.

So, do you hate the concept of God, too? Most commies do, no surprise there.

WAYYY off, Bubba. I've been outta college for a loooong time; am married, have a mortgage like most responsible people.

I call BS on you. I believe that you are a college student or recently graduated. Ribalding has the mark of a veteran about himself - grad student or recent graduate, literature major or something, probably waiting tables until he can write something relevant or get a teaching gig... But he's been around long enough to hold his own in an argument, and he is a wordsmith, even if he's wrong. You? You're an amatuer. A kid with little real world time. Maybe I'm off, but I doubt it in this case.

A Google on your screen name brings up lotsa gaming site registrations by someone living in Houston. I'm to believe that you have time for a real job, family, mortgage, *and* online gameplay day and night? I think not. My wife sure as heck wouldn't stand for it...

(yes, we Neanderthal conservatives know how to use Google )

Anyhoo... what was this thread about again? Talk about derailing... Oh Yeah! I'm voting for the Hispanic guy.

I don't deserve to vote. I can't even bother reading this thread, let alone do research on just one candidate.

I don't like the old lady that calls our museums and stadiums "useless." She wants to stop the Dynamo stsdium from being built, even though $70 of the $80 million will be paid for by AEG and it would create more than $10 million back easily.