Recalled leaders in South Gate, CA, spent $2.1 million in final week, draining reserves.

l.a. times | Feb. 21, 03 | Richard Marosi

[Inspectorette]

I have to wonder about her first name. I don't know how old she is - she appears to be in her late thirties. If she was born in the US, I doubt that she would've been given so ethnic a name.

There's an immigration attorney in my neck of the woods who was born and raised here in California. His name was "Steve", baptized "Steven", but he changed it to "Esteban".

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Darn It! It is simply one more example as to how: "Our Diversity Is Our Strength!"(It is called La Mordida.)

[The Electrician]

No the difference is that most Democrats believe in the freedom to live one's life at their choosing without moral pundits telling them what to do.

LOL... Nope, most Democrats are just as moralistic as the folks that you deplore - it's just that they're often moralistic about different subjects. But the impulse to moralize and attempt to control others' lives is alive and well on the Demo/Commie side. Anti-smoking, anti-SUV, anti-private property, anti-truth, anti-you-name-it...

[Skybird]

Maybe the California Attorney General will investigate and prosecute this...

yeah, right...

[cajun-jack]

this is in kalifornicate....it could be a "he" with breasts lol

[dennisw]

This is Mexican style corruption and arrogance. There must be some grounds to prosecute these scum. Or maybe the DA and judges are bought off.

[dennisw]

A wack_a_doodle_do Aztec name.

Behind the Name: X
... XOCHILT f Spanish Variant of XOCHITL. XOCHIPILLI m New World Mythology Means "flower
prince" in Nahuatlan. He was the Aztec goddess of love, flowers, song, and ...
www.behindthename.com/nm/x.html - 10k - Feb 20, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

Xochilt Ruvalcaba

 

 

 

[Theo]

You have all the symptoms of being a RINO with an attitude....

[jimmyray]

No the difference is that most Democrats believe in the freedom to live one's life at their choosing without moral pundits telling them what to do. Republicans are the most close minded people on the planet. True Republicans anyways. I agree with most of what the Republicans stand for.. just not the idiotcy that reins from the Bible Belt.

freedom to live one's life = adultery, laziness, homosexuality, etc., but not including driving a SUV, smoking, etc.

idiotcy = idiocy

reins = hails, emanates(?)

Instead of establishing a valid thesis, you resort to name calling with no specifics - classic shrillness with poor grammar, no less.

What idiotcy :-) are you referring to?

[Brian Allen]

<< Is this kind of corruption being imported with out-of-control immigration? >>

In a word?

Yes.

Why the KKKli'toon criminal organization, under the stewardship of the world's then most dangerous dullard, Little-Boss Algoreleone himself, in return for their votes, even gave a million and a half of these turd world criminals citizenship.

Dunno why citizenship, though. They all vote, at least once and/or dead or alive, with or without it!

[Brian Allen]

<< ..... Democrats believe in the freedom to live their lives ..... >>

..... by using the power of government to coerce and to otherwise confiscate the the wealth of those who create and earned it and by squandering that upon themselves and upon their criminal henchmen, "suppliers," "contractors" and "voters."

Sorta like even more cravenly-gutless than usual Mafiosa.

But with neither the relative courage of the Mob's convictions -- nor its relative moral integrity.

[goody2shooz]

Ring-a-ping-ping!

I lived in South Gate for one year when I was child (February 1960 to February 1961).

Overwhelming majority of residents then were elderly folks who had bought their homes during the 20's, 30's and 40's. Sounds like things have gone more ethnic.

[RWG]

Gee, the Clintons are both natural-born citizens, and they make these chumps look like pikers...with legal and illegal moves behind the scenes or public lies, I did not have sex with that woman, these fools are animals in front of an audience.

[Almondjoy]

Hmmm... I don't see how that has to do with morality... but if you would like to think those are issues of morality you might want to pick up a dictionary. Regardless on issues such as anti-smoking or anti-SUV.. it tends more to be issues of not harming others. They take up issues they feel harm the enviroment.. harm people(smoking on airplanes) etc etc. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with those demo opinions but I will tell you they are certainly not moral issues.

[Almondjoy]

What is a RINO?

[Almondjoy]

It's not the role of government to punish people for being adulters.. lazy.. or homosexual. If that is your wish then you don't have God figured out at all. Might want to start using a little brain matter.. churn those wheels.. and form your own opinions. Then you might become enlightened.

[The Electrician]

but if you would like to think those are issues of morality you might want to pick up a dictionary

No, you're the one who ought to pick up a dictionary - do you understand that morality refers to the battle between right and wrong, between good and evil? That's exactly how the Demo/Commies frame their criticisms of Republicans and their values.

Shrill leftists preaching about the evils of capitalism, private property, SUV-driving and owning, etc. do it out of their own twisted view of "morality" and their desire to control the actions of others even though those actions do not cause harm to others.

But even if you were to ascribe benevolent intentions to those Dem moralists (which I can't - I've been on the receiving end of too much unreasoning, incoherent, knee-jerk hatred from radical lefties), you're trying to draw a distinction without a difference. Sorry - no dice. If you were fair you would have to acknowledge that the "Republican moralists" that you deplore believe (for example) that having an affair is not a victimless "crime", therefore they fit very easily under the "pass" that you are trying to give to the Democrat moralists whom you evidently support.

[Almondjoy]

You really have no idea what your talking about. How can you assume I support anything? Have you asked me my opinions? Do you have my life on videotape or something? This is truly scary.. I think I better report you to the police for stalking. Clearly you assume everything.. and you know what they say about assuming... Yeah I figured you would get that to. Anyways you obviously don't know what morality is.

As you clearly point out... "do you understand that morality refers to the battle between right and wrong" I do understand the difference of right and wrong. But right and wrong does refer to the difference of opinion.. for instance if I should watch sportcenter at 9pm or if you would choose to read a book. Morality is as you say "between good and evil". Therefore, capitalism, private property, SUV-driving cannot fall under this catagory. These things may be wrong.. but they certainly aren't evil.

Since you choose to pick out affairs as your topic of choice. You believe it's not a victimless crime... hmmm DUH.. obviously someone is getting heartbroken in this situation.. but your trying to tell me the gov't should punish me for that? No.. I answer to God on that.. not to you.

[The Electrician]

Since you choose to pick out affairs as your topic of choice. You believe it's not a victimless crime... hmmm DUH.. obviously someone is getting heartbroken in this situation.. but your trying to tell me the gov't should punish me for that? No.. I answer to God on that.. not to you.

Gosh, it's clear that you don't have a clue about what you're discussing. You seemingly didn't understand a word that I've written. You are the one who brought up the topic of affairs. I merely pointed out that there are people who do not believe that an affair is 'victimless' - clearly the victims of an affair could be one or two spouses, children, etc. And, since the litmus test that you applied in your earlier post to distinguish between the 'good' moralizers on the Demo side and the 'bad' moralizers on the Republican side was whether or not there were victims, it was a perfectly valid point to bring up.

It hardly seems worthwhile continuing this discussion when you refuse to even acknowledge the legitimate points that I have made, and instead you have fallen into the moralizing trap that you falsely accuse me of pursuing. But I seem to have hit a real nerve. Are you currently having an affair? Is that why you are apparently unable to discuss these concepts rationally and dispassionately without resorting to silly attacks, questioning assumptions that you impute to me yet which I have not made, using childish, sarcastic remarks such as "I think I better report you to the police for stalking", etc.?

Are you denying that there is a widespread view among leftists that the Republican views that they deplore are evil? Are you denying that their rhetorical posturing is 'moralizing'? Then either you aren't tuned in to what passes for political discourse on the left, or you are in denial of the obvious.

Go back and read what I wrote before you try to put words into my mouth. I never said that the government should punish you for having an affair. I never claimed that you must answer to me.

[Theo]

... probably best to ignore people like "Almondjoy." He's here to get people riled up, and if we don't respond, maybe he'll go away. There's so much good information and exchange here at FR, but Almondjoy's not adding anything to the discussion....