Judge Says Dancing Not Constitutional Right

[MudInYerEye]

Jack is right. NYC has become a playground for the candyassed. It's a bitter disappointment.

 

[John in Covina]

Please permit me to dance.

Now I didn't mean to knock L.A., but one must admit that it is the sort of place where people go to fine restaurants in shorts and flip-flops. It's a casual town, which is great for L.A. But in the last ten years, that casualness has overtaken NY. Regards, Senator Jack

*******
It's true, there are plenty of places that offer fine dining in a casual atmosphere, but there are plenty of Very cool, trendy, social places people can't get in if poorly dressed and there are still restaurants that require a gentleman to wear a jacket and even places where you still need to wear a tie with that jacket. It's all there, it may not be what it was back in the day, but very few things are like they were back in the day. That's why people need to support the hold outs that keep these traditions alive. If you want stuffy we got it, prententious, by the bag load. Trendy and hip yup, historical and solid, yup. Calfornia is not just what you see on TV and it's not what's in line for a ride at Disneyland. We are a tourist destination, and that spells casual, but it also spells bucks, big bucks. When tourist travel is down, you see it in the economy. When it is up, man it's great.

Anyway, out here it seems that there are a lot of clubs that are specifically for dancing, I have no clue if they need a permit for dancing.

I need to go to the Pacific Dining Car one of these days, my friends tell me it's great.

 

[jamespowers]

These days, the immigrants (and I mean that as immigrants from other states) are the ones supporting the measures to turn this city into their hometown. They want Wal-Mart, and Starbucks, and they want to walk down sidewalks at the grand pace of a half-mile an hour. (Really, does anyone hustle any more?) They want to move to the 'hip' section of the city with its bars and restaurants but then they want quiet at 10 p.m. Guiliani sold out the soul of the city to give it to them.

fftopic: Oh you poor baby! I am glad New York is getting its comeuppance for all the years from 1942 onward that commenced with them exporting beatniks, hippies and their "gritty" lifestyle to California. Before WWII in this area, we were a rural community of people with mom and pop stores, people could leave their doors unlocked all day long and nothing disappeared. Even if something did disappear, you knew exactly who did it and where to look for your stuff. Everyone knew their neighbors and they watched out for each other---even if they really didn't like each other.
Then came the disconnected New Yorkers with their "citified" ideas and disconnect from their neighbors. They didn't want to know who lived near them. They were only interested in Hedonism at its highest. They turned the Bay Area into New York by bringing all their ideas, stores and paranoia with them. They had no interest in living here without bringing New York with them---crime and all. Gee, thanks for ruining my hometown. :rage:
Don't complain when the boomerang comes back to bite you. You can have Boxer and Feinstein back anytime you want them too.

Regards,

J

 

[John in Covina]

Hey Neighbor!

fftopic: Before WWII in this area, we were a rural community of people with mom and pop stores, people could leave their doors unlocked all day long and nothing disappeared. Even if something did disappear, you knew exactly who did it and where to look for your stuff. Everyone knew their neighbors and they watched out for each other---even if they really didn't like each other. Then came the disconnected New Yorkers with their "citified" ideas and disconnect from their neighbors. They didn't want to know who lived near them.

**************
One of the things in Southern California is that people move a lot, I mean all the time. There is a whole segement of society that must move about every 2 to 3 years, others 4-5, and so on. The feeling is you get to know your neighbors and they move. Also here in Southern California, people sue their neighbors all the time, which is not the best circumstances to socialize over.
In the 6 years we have lived on this block we have had 13 families move in and that is only 9 houses.

Now where I live we have a block association that conducts the neighbor hood watch with 2 big get togethers a year. We give our Avocados to the neighbors on each side and chat. Our neighbor across the street brings her Pomeranian dog Kybah for play dates with our Dachshundt Max. Our neighbor two houses down brought over a friend from around the block that did some tile work for us. It is also different dynamics. In a new neighborhood, new homes, people move in and raise a family, kids go to school together and there is connection for that dynamic. But an older neighborhood, gets a different mix of old folks and families and people that are shifting in and out. It is different.

It's funny, I think of how much it's changed since the 60's and other people are complaining that the 60's were the problem, or 50's or 40's.

 

[Feraud]

fftopic: Oh you poor baby! I am glad New York is getting its comeuppance for all the years from 1942 onward that commenced with them exporting beatniks, hippies and their "gritty" lifestyle to California. Before WWII in this area, we were a rural community of people with mom and pop stores, people could leave their doors unlocked all day long and nothing disappeared. Even if something did disappear, you knew exactly who did it and where to look for your stuff. Everyone knew their neighbors and they watched out for each other---even if they really didn't like each other.
Then came the disconnected New Yorkers with their "citified" ideas and disconnect from their neighbors. They didn't want to know who lived near them. They were only interested in Hedonism at its highest. They turned the Bay Area into New York by bringing all their ideas, stores and paranoia with them. They had no interest in living here without bringing New York with them---crime and all. Gee, thanks for ruining my hometown. :rage:
Don't complain when the boomerang comes back to bite you. You can have Boxer and Feinstein back anytime you want them too.

Regards,

J

Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol lol
With respect to our Western folks we will not ship 'em out your way..

 

[jamespowers]

Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol lol
With respect to our Western folks we will not ship 'em out your way..

They were actually lured out here by jobs, initially at Kaiser Shipyards, sun and open space. They ran out here in droves. Houses were built on top of each other to accomodate the influx. After the war they stayed but they missed the big city so they brought all of the stuff they missed.
Please don't ship more out here! We did our share in accepting those that came here already and they have multiplied like rats. Seven Million? That's nothing. We have FIFTEEN MILLION! Fortunately we are getting rid of them via Oregon, Nevada and Washington. Some even go back to New York. Woo Hoo! lol

Regards,

J

 

[MudInYerEye]

Wow. New York hippies and beatniks were interested in working in Bay Area shipyards beginning in 1942 and eventually ruined San Franscisco.

 

[Senator Jack]

Well, we'll take responsibility for the beats, but not for the 'hippies' that emulated them. (and quite terribly at that)

I recall an episode of 'All in the Family' where Gloria and Meathead are going to move to California.

'You know what goes on in California,' asks Archie. 'It's like God tilted the country and all the loose nuts ended up over there.' lol

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[jamespowers]

'You know what goes on in California,' asks Archie. 'It's like God tilted the country and all the loose nuts ended up over there.' lol

Yep, all the nuts came out from New York and the east. fftopic:

 

[jamespowers]

Wow. New York hippies and beatniks were interested in working in Bay Area shipyards beginning in 1942 and eventually ruined San Franscisco.

Not during the war. It was after that that they decided to sit around in the sun, smoke dope and recite ridiculous poems. Peace and Love dude.

 

[MudInYerEye]

Eventually somebody is going to post a serious argument that the world is flat on the Fedora Lounge.

 

[John in Covina]

Eventually somebody is going to post a serious argument that the world is flat on the Fedora Lounge.

************
The Flat Earth Society has that covered. I am just wondering if they dance at Flat bars.

 

[Feraud]

Eventually somebody is going to post a serious argument that the world is flat on the Fedora Lounge.

You mean it ain't?

 

[Lincsong]

Did we New Yorkers really do that? How exactly did we manage to export our "undesirables" out West? Did they go willingly or were they lured by tales of "sun and surf"? This is a serious question because I am wondering if we can do something similar again. I estimate NYC has approximately 7 million idiots too many. lol lol
With respect to our Western folks we will not ship 'em out your way..

Well, I've got to put my nickel in the juke box on this one. I'm a native Californian and I've lived in Illinois, Hawaii and Florida. The Northeasterners who came to Cali in the '60s were like Babs Boxer. (Sorry Powers, Dianne Feinstein is a homegrown San Francisco weed, as is Jerry Brown and Earl Warren. But, on the plus side, Tom McClintock was Westchester born, so we can't label too much on New York). Always complaining, stirring up the pot and regulate, regulate, regulate. Prior to 1965, in California, even a housekeeper and janitor could buy a modest house. But, then all the wack jobs from the Northeast came with their welfare mentality. "Oh we were so poor in Bed-Stuy and Southie. Dad sold rags from a pushcart, grandpa shined shoes in Newport, my car broke down on Highway 66 in New Mexico, blah blah blah". Yeah, we had sun and surf out here, but we also had low taxes and low regulations. The Northeasterns brought the snow and rain with them. Then the welfare mentality came and whammo; Move to California, if you can't find a job in a month we'll give you enough welfare to live better than the housekeeper and janitor.

Now, when I lived in Florida, (Central) the Northeasterners I knew were escaping the high taxes and regulations in the Northeast. A huge majority were tired of paying income taxes to local, state and federal governments. Plus the high property taxes that came with living in Westchester County, or Long Island. (Side note, San Francisco has a local income tax ala Northeastern mentality) In California we have a 10% top income tax rate that kicks in a $42,0000 a year, sales taxes that run from 7%-8.25% depending on county and tax tax tax.

Personally, I like New Yorkers, they are way too uptight, but tend to have a unique sense of humor. And, like I've always said; I'll talk to anyone who will listen. I just wouldn't want to live under their mentality.

But, let's not live in a narcissictic world either. The farmers around San Francisco and San Jose in the '40s were very eager to get ag subsidies and get paid for not growing crops. They too would rather take a government hand-out than spend their own money. Too many people on both coasts vote for who will give the biggest subsidy and not the most freedom. Present Administration included.

 

[John in Covina]

Free money

One thing is whenever you're handing out free money, you'll always run out of money before you run out of takers.

Sounds like NYers were the new Oakies!fftopic:

 

[jamespowers]

Sorry Powers, Dianne Feinstein is a homegrown San Francisco weed.

You're right. Sorry my mistake but New York can still have her.

But, let's not live in a narcissictic world either. The farmers around San Francisco and San Jose in the '40s were very eager to get ag subsidies and get paid for not growing crops. They too would rather take a government hand-out than spend their own money.

That may be so but at least they were being subsidized to work rather than just sitting there and we as taxpayers actually get a small benefit for that money spent in the form of lower produce. Wheee!

Regards to all,

J

 

[Lincsong]

That may be so but at least they were being subsidized to work rather than just sitting there and we as taxpayers actually get a small benefit for that money spent in the form of lower produce. Wheee!

Paying someone not to grow crops is not subsidizing someone to work?:eusa_doh: That's subsidizing someone to sit there and do nothing. We as taxpayers do not get a small benefit in the form of lower produce, it's like saying raise my taxes $100 per year so that I may save $40 a year on food. I'm still out $60. In Hawaii the fools slap their excise tax on food, but at the end of the year they have a "tax credit" of $60. Big stinking deal!:rage:

 

[jamespowers]

Paying someone not to grow crops is not subsidizing someone to work?:eusa_doh: That's subsidizing someone to sit there and do nothing. We as taxpayers do not get a small benefit in the form of lower produce, it's like saying raise my taxes $100 per year so that I may save $40 a year on food. I'm still out $60. In Hawaii the fools slap their excise tax on food, but at the end of the year they have a "tax credit" of $60. Big stinking deal!:rage:

See now that is not what I was referring to as a subsidy. A subsidy to me would be to supplement what the farmer makes so he can pay his bills before his crops come in. Sort of a stopgap measure that he can repay when the crops come in. Paying someone not to produce does not make sense unless there is a crop rotation scheme being furthered that would prevent a 1930s dustbowl type problem. That is unlikely now though. Modern crop practices can keep soil fertile and prevent soil nutrients from being depleted by rotation of crops on a specific parcel. You just can't keep planting tomatoes in a given area for decades without depleting the soil nutrients faster than you can replace them---even with modern fertilizers. Corn is such a crop that really sucks nutrients out of the soil.

Regards,

J

 

[Lincsong]

See now that is not what I was referring to as a subsidy. A subsidy to me would be to supplement what the farmer makes so he can pay his bills before his crops come in. Sort of a stopgap measure that he can repay when the crops come in.

What about paying a farmer in San Jose to grow alfalfa when the climate of the area doesn't allow for it without huge amounts of water? Or paying some farmer in South Dakota to grow sugar beets?

Paying someone not to produce does not make sense unless there is a crop rotation scheme being furthered that would prevent a 1930s dustbowl type problem. That is unlikely now though. Modern crop practices can keep soil fertile and prevent soil nutrients from being depleted by rotation of crops on a specific parcel. You just can't keep planting tomatoes in a given area for decades without depleting the soil nutrients faster than you can replace them---even with modern fertilizers. Corn is such a crop that really sucks nutrients out of the soil.

This is old knowledge. As old as the Model T. The farmers that caused the Dustbowl knew they were depleting the soil but they continued to use the same methods. But, they didn't care. All they wanted was to get as much money out as quick as they could. So trying to hide welfare as a way to rotate crops is ridiculous. The farmer is no dummy, why work if the government is going to pay me not to work? Those who adhered to the scheme of depleting the soil were weak and they deserved the be run off the land. Let the stonger, smarter farmers survive. The weak ones can go into another line of work. Modern farming techniques allow us to get more crops out of less land using less water. Rotating crops is still necessary, but it is not the only way to increase production. Anyway rotating crops is part of the business of running a farm. Why subsidize someone for this? He's going to figure the cost of his product anyway.