On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:56:30 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 9/22/15 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:41:57 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 9/22/15 1:09 PM, wrote:

In addition to other very liberal objectives Patrick proposed and pushed
for some extremely restrictive gun laws in a state that already has very
restrictive laws regarding firearms. There were several that
he proposed or endorsed ranging from a limit of one gun purchase per
month, a long waiting period and the imposition of a large tax on
ammunition ... all in an attempt to discourage private gun ownership.
Fortunately, even in liberal Massachusetts, his proposals were soundly
rejected.



Good to know. It is really not unusual for a northeastern democrat
tho. What else?



Right, because nothing is more important than...guns.

Except maybe abortion and neither are a reason to select a
presidential candidate.

What is (s)he going to do about Putin, Assad, Netanyahu and the rest
of the bomb throwers in the world?
How will they stimulate the economy and what are they doing about the
debt?
How are they going to deal with the fact that we are rapidly running
out of water?

Those are the issues that are going to doom my grand children if they
are not dealt with.


Perhaps the Libertarian candidate of your choice will have the answers
to the pressing issues you raise.

Oh, wait.


I am not sure there is a libertarian candidate yet but they would
definitely be better on the money issues. The foreign policy is more
likely to be better.
I am not sure there is an answer to the water problem but a free
market solution is likely to be better than regulation. If the water
is too expensive to sprinkle on the lawn, people will stop watering
their lawns. The real problem is going to be agriculture and those
"blooming deserts:" in California are likely to go away. It is not
quite as bad in the mid west but they are still depleting the Ogallala
aquifer and that is fossil water, just like the deep water in
California that they have pretty much used up.
We are not getting that water back.

One statement in last month's Scientific American is definitely true.
"Water flows toward money".
When Jerry Brown implored his rich democrats in Southern California to
conserve water, the actual usage WENT UP.
The answer is to make them pay through the nose for it. Water rates
should go up exponentially as usage goes up.
Basic drinking and bathing water should be fairly cheap but when you
start getting over a couple thousand gallons a month, the rate should
start going nuts.