Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI would suggest getting a assesor’s parcel map which is available from the county recorder’s website for $2.
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/parcelmap/search.aspx
The plot map should have dimensions on it. Using the dimensions, you should be able to calculate the lot sq footage for yourself. (Hopefully it won’t be too irregular of a shape.)
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI would suggest getting a assesor’s parcel map which is available from the county recorder’s website for $2.
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/parcelmap/search.aspx
The plot map should have dimensions on it. Using the dimensions, you should be able to calculate the lot sq footage for yourself. (Hopefully it won’t be too irregular of a shape.)
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]
The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]
The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]
The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]
The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]
The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.
Participant[quote=flu]The irony is the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions…I wonder which candidate the banks will be pushing for next election…[/quote]
I would think the banks would push for Obama to be re-elected. After all, he’s pretty much given them what they want. You don’t think they’re seriously threatened by his pronouncements of tough legislation do you?
Participant[quote=flu]The irony is the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions…I wonder which candidate the banks will be pushing for next election…[/quote]
I would think the banks would push for Obama to be re-elected. After all, he’s pretty much given them what they want. You don’t think they’re seriously threatened by his pronouncements of tough legislation do you?
Participant[quote=flu]The irony is the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions…I wonder which candidate the banks will be pushing for next election…[/quote]
I would think the banks would push for Obama to be re-elected. After all, he’s pretty much given them what they want. You don’t think they’re seriously threatened by his pronouncements of tough legislation do you?
Participant[quote=flu]The irony is the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions…I wonder which candidate the banks will be pushing for next election…[/quote]
I would think the banks would push for Obama to be re-elected. After all, he’s pretty much given them what they want. You don’t think they’re seriously threatened by his pronouncements of tough legislation do you?
Participant[quote=flu]The irony is the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions…I wonder which candidate the banks will be pushing for next election…[/quote]
I would think the banks would push for Obama to be re-elected. After all, he’s pretty much given them what they want. You don’t think they’re seriously threatened by his pronouncements of tough legislation do you?
ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
