http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAKL1GBDI5.DTL

Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 13, 8:44*am, sf > wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI....
>
> Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>
> --
>
> Never trust a dog to watch your food.

The council will most likely pass it over his veto. They have the
votes to do so.

On Nov 13, 8:44*am, sf > wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI....
>
> Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>

It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
Cohiba pls.

On Nov 13, 10:44*am, sf > wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI....
>
> Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>
I can understand "micro-managers, crackpots," but child haters? Come
on.

--Bryan

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:08:03 -0800 (PST), ImStillMags
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 8:44*am, sf > wrote:
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
> >
> > Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> > micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Never trust a dog to watch your food.
>
> The council will most likely pass it over his veto. They have the
> votes to do so.

He probably wouldn't have made the gesture of vetoing it if he wasn't
going somewhere else, but I'm glad he made the gesture.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 8:44*am, sf > wrote:
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
> >
> > Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> > micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
> >
>
> It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
> take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
> non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
> feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
> Cohiba pls.

I heard that on the radio yesterday, but I thought it was a ban on
smoking in apartments, condominiums and townhouses - not detached
houses. Who is going to enforce the law in this day of cutbacks? My
guess is that it will be put at the bottom of the pile of all the
other unenforced laws already on the books.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 13, 1:54*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>
> > wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 8:44 am, sf > wrote:
> > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
>
> > > Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> > > micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>
> > It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
> > take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
> > non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
> > feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
> > Cohiba pls.
>
> I heard that on the radio yesterday, but I thought it was a ban on
> smoking in apartments, condominiums and townhouses - not detached
> houses. *Who is going to enforce the law in this day of cutbacks? *My
> guess is that it will be put at the bottom of the pile of all the
> other unenforced laws already on the books.
>
>
You read his post wrong. It doesn't apply to detaches houses. A
better thing would be to have apartment buildings designated from the
get go.

--Bryan

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:57:06 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 1:54*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
> > > take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
> > > non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
> > > feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
> > > Cohiba pls.
> >
> > I heard that on the radio yesterday, but I thought it was a ban on
> > smoking in apartments, condominiums and townhouses - not detached
> > houses. *Who is going to enforce the law in this day of cutbacks? *My
> > guess is that it will be put at the bottom of the pile of all the
> > other unenforced laws already on the books.
> >
> >
> You read his post wrong. It doesn't apply to detaches houses. A
> better thing would be to have apartment buildings designated from the
> get go.
>

Agreed that apartments should be designed and *built* better; and
you're right, I misread.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:04:32 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 10:44*am, sf > wrote:
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
> >
> > Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> > micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
> >
> I can understand "micro-managers, crackpots," but child haters? Come
> on.
>
They'd never get elected if they said it publicly, but oh yeah. Child
haters. I don't remember what they call themselves (I think they have
their own newsgroup too), but they're the ones who call the rest of us
with children "breeders" in a very derogatory voice.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:06:29 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

> There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> in California...

Those are usually retirement communities for crotchety old people.
Eventually we'll have housing for younger people that bans children
too... if they don't apply for federal funds to build the joint.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 13, 4:12*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:06:29 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> > in California...
>
> Eventually we'll have housing for younger people that bans children
> too.
>
>
That's a bad thing??

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:57:04 -0800 (PST), itsjoannotjoann
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 4:12*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:06:29 -0600, Omelet >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> > > in California...
> >
> > Eventually we'll have housing for younger people that bans children
> > too.
> >
> >
> That's a bad thing??

Depends on who you're talking to.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 13, 7:39*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:57:04 -0800 (PST), itsjoannotjoann
>
> > wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 4:12*pm, sf > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:06:29 -0600, Omelet >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> > > > in California...
>
> > > Eventually we'll have housing for younger people that bans children
> > > too.
>
> > That's a bad thing??
>
> Depends on who you're talking to.
>
>
Anybody.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:01:47 -0800 (PST), itsjoannotjoann
> wrote:

> On Nov 13, 7:39*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:57:04 -0800 (PST), itsjoannotjoann
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 4:12*pm, sf > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:06:29 -0600, Omelet >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> > > > > in California...
> >
> > > > Eventually we'll have housing for younger people that bans children
> > > > too.
> >
> > > That's a bad thing??
> >
> > Depends on who you're talking to.
> >
> >
> Anybody.

Wow. Interesting.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 03:45:48 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

> Watch the film "Endgame".
>
> It's a documentary. Non-fiction.

I don't think I could take it yet. The Cheney years are still too
close (and scary) for me to be dispassionate while viewing.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Nov 13, 8:44*am, sf > wrote:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
>>
>> Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
>> micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>>
>
> It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
> take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
> non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
> feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
> Cohiba pls.

**** that. time for second amendment remedies!

your pal,
sharron

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:09:15 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:04:32 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 13, 10:44*am, sf > wrote:
>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
>>>
>>> Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
>>> micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
>>>
>> I can understand "micro-managers, crackpots," but child haters? Come
>> on.
>>
> They'd never get elected if they said it publicly, but oh yeah. Child
> haters. I don't remember what they call themselves (I think they have
> their own newsgroup too), but they're the ones who call the rest of us
> with children "breeders" in a very derogatory voice.

maybe so, but i don't think they are the force behind banning toys in happy
meals. they'd just as soon the little buggers choke.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:11:12 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> It's already the law in Santa Clara County, which seems determined to
> take the crown as the Nanny State leader. Now you cannot smoke in your
> non-detached home (applies in unincorporated areas only). I guess they
> feel the lower classes should not be smoking anyways. Light up my
> Cohiba pls.

Are there even any unincorporated areas of Santa Clara county?
Maybe some areas of Hwy 9 or Stevens Creek Damn, or maybe the
marshes/ponds. But do those areas even have any apartments or
duplexes?

Nothing like a law that applies to nobody just to grandstand.

-sw

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:44:37 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

> they'd just as soon the little buggers choke.

That be true.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Bryan > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 10:44*am, sf > wrote:
> > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1/13/BAKL1GBDI...
> > >
> > > Now that he's Lt. Gov. elect, he's not pandering to the
> > > micro-managers, crackpots and child haters on the Board of Stoops.
> > >
> > I can understand "micro-managers, crackpots," but child haters? Come
> > on.

> There is more than one "all adult" housing development and trailer park
> in California...

So if you prove you live in one of these places, you can get a toy with
your Happy Meal?

:-(

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA