- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Survey: In Big Shift, Californians Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling
(Public Policy Institute of California video)
Three months after a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Californians’ support for more drilling off their coast has plunged, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.
A solid majority of the state’s residents now oppose more offshore drilling (59 percent oppose, 36 percent favor) — a 16-point increase in opposition from last year (43 percent oppose, 51 percent favor).
The PPIC survey was conducted with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the 10th in a series about Californians and the environment.
In contrast to the shift in opinion on drilling, Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67 percent today, 66 percent in 2009) favor the state law (Assembly Bill 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or below for a minimum of one year. Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away, or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53 percent) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.
“Two crises — a major oil spill and a major recession — have affected Californians’ views on environmental policy in very different ways,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased. But events in the gulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here. In contrast, the lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven’t changed Californians’ overall view of AB 32. While support has declined somewhat since 2007, a solid majority still favors the law.”
Little Confidence in Federal Spill Response
Partisan divisions are stark in many of the environmental survey findings. On the question of allowing more drilling, Democrats (72 percent) and independents (64 percent) oppose it, while Republicans (64 percent) favor it.
Californians are more united in their low levels of confidence in the federal government’s handling of the oil spill. Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8 percent) or good amount (13 percent) of confidence in the government to make the right decisions in dealing with the spill. Fewer than one in five residents across political, regional and demographic groups express a great deal of confidence.
Residents also lack confidence in the federal government’s ability to prevent future spills. About three in 10 are very (7 percent) or fairly (21 percent) confident, 32 percent are not very confident and 37 percent are not confident at all.
Build More Nuclear Plants? Californians Divided
The question about oil drilling is one of four that PPIC asked about U.S. energy policies. On another issue — nuclear power — Californians are divided (49 percent oppose, 44 percent favor) about building more nuclear power plants at this time to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. On this question, too, partisan differences emerge: 57 percent of Democrats are opposed, while 67 percent of Republicans and half of independents (51 percent) favor building more plants now.
There is considerably more consensus on the two other policies. To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, overwhelming majorities favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar and hydrogen technology (83 percent), and favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country (83 percent). Strong majorities across parties, regions and demographic groups hold these views.
(This year we asked these energy policy questions in two ways. Half of our sample was asked the questions as we have in the past, with the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?” Half of the sample was asked the policy questions without this introductory phrase to test whether or not the framing of the question influenced responses. Results for the four questions asked with the introductory phrase and without it are similar.)
Will Action to Curb Warming Lead to Lost Jobs? Most Say No
Most Californians (54 percent) say global warming is already having an impact but are somewhat less likely to hold this view than they were last July (61 percent). Today, 28 percent say global warming’s effects will be felt sometime in the future — up six points since last year — while just 16 percent say they will never happen. Nearly three-fourths say global warming is a very serious (44 percent) or somewhat serious (29 percent) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last year but have declined since July 2007 (54 percent very serious, 28 percent somewhat serious).
Against a backdrop of state and national debates over climate change policies, Californians (76 percent) support government regulation of emissions from sources such as power plants, cars and factories, with 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans holding this view. Although a majority (67 percent) support the idea of AB 32, party divisions are strong: 80 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are in favor, but only 39 percent of Republicans share this view.
Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would affect employment. Forty-five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Most Democrats (57 percent) and half of independents (50 percent) foresee more jobs in California as a result of action on global warming. Forty-three percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs; half of Republicans say there would be more jobs (24 percent) or no effect on jobs (25 percent).
About half of Californians say the state (48 percent) and federal (52 percent) governments are not doing enough to address global warming. When it comes to ideas about state and federal actions to address global warming, strong majorities of Californians think the government should require: increased use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85 percent); industrial plants, oil refineries and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (81 percent); all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79 percent); and an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances (75 percent). They also favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less (77 percent). Support for all of these policies is similar to last year.
Most Californians (54 percent) have not heard of one policy being discussed, the cap-and-trade system of setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. After being read a brief description of the idea, 50 percent would support a cap-and-trade system and 40 percent would oppose it. They are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60 percent favor, 33 percent oppose).
Close Races for California Governor and U.S. Senate Seat
With the November election approaching, an overwhelming majority (79 percent) of likely voters say the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important. Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37 percent) and Republican Meg Whitman (34 percent), with 23 percent undecided.
Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42 percent to 33 percent). Preferences follow party lines, with independents split 30 percent for Brown, 28 percent for Whitman and 30 percent undecided. (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.)
Most likely voters (79 percent) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina and 22 percent are undecided.
Those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54 percent) as Fiorina (18 percent). Among those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37 percent to 37 percent). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina and 25 percent are undecided.
President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped nine points since last July and 16 points since his record high (72 percent) in May 2009. Approval of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s handling of environmental issues (34 percent) is higher than his overall rating (25 percent). The state legislature’s approval rating is 15 percent.
Most Support Tougher Pollution Standards for New Vehicles
When asked the open-ended question of what is the most important environmental issue facing Californians, air pollution is most often mentioned, as it has been since 2000. But it has declined in importance to residents from 33 percent in 2000 to 23 percent today. Other frequently named issues this year are water supply (12 percent), energy and oil drilling (11 percent), and water pollution (6 percent).
Similar to last year (23 percent), one in four Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25 percent). Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (63 percent), the Inland Empire (57 percent) and the Central Valley (54 percent) consider air pollution a very serious or somewhat serious health threat, and 43 percent of Californians say they or an immediate family member has asthma or other respiratory problems.
When it comes to air quality policies, a strong majority (70 percent) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. But there is much less agreement across party lines: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are willing to see stricter standards, compared with 45 percent of Republicans.
The California Air Resources Board is poised to consider easing or delaying implementation of diesel pollution rules because of their economic impact on truck owners and businesses. Asked about tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, an overwhelming majority (75 percent) of Californians are willing to see stricter standards, a view held by solid majorities across political, regional and demographic groups. Similarly, 75 percent would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. A smaller majority (58 percent) would be willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities.
About the Survey
The PPIC Statewide Survey has provided policymakers, the media and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions and public policy preferences of California residents since 1998.
Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents reached by landline and cell phones throughout the state. Interviews took place from July 6-20, and were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese and Korean. The sampling error is plus or minus 2 percent for all adults, plus or minus 2.2 percent for the 1,971 registered voters, and plus or minus 2.7 percent for the 1,321 likely voters.
Click here to read the full survey.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 07.29.10 @ 07:18 AM
What surprising about this survey? The media stories have been harping about the “Gulf Tragedy” for months. How awful this, and how awful that. People are pursuaded and they react.
We’ve seen this before hundreds of times.
President Bush: How awful this, and how awful that.
Irag: How awful this and how awful that.
Afganistan: How awful this and how awful that.
The economy: How awful this and how awful that.
Toyota gas pedal: How awful this and how awful that.
The list is endless and predictable.
The media wants to sell papers, gain viewers and listeners.
The results are predictable: people respond and the polls move.
Why is anyone surprised? And it means NOTHING.
Mark King
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 08:17 AM
Amazing! What could be a trillion dollar boom to our economy is sitting just offshore. Why were we at 5000’ of water? One major spill in 40 years after 47000 wells drilled! This spill should not have happened if BP didn’t take short cuts and listened to their drilling crews. For the sake of speed, they added an extra blight on the industry. There is no “green solution” yet. We will be depending on oil and gas for years to come. Like Mark King says, the media and environmentalist get all the news coverage and it is all bad and against the industry….yet everyone uses oil and gas products in 99% of their everyday lives.
Time for Californians to wake up! You are destroying our country! Please vote in November to change the legislation in Sacramento and Washington and let’s get our country back with common sense industry and growth!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 08:26 AM
The oil industry has no one to blame but themselves for losing the opportunity for more offshore drilling in California. The public simply does not trust them an inch and rightfully so. They lie about climate change, lie about their commitment to alternative energy and they bribe our government to take a hands-off approach to safety and oversight. If we could even come close to the kind of intelligent governance that is seen in offshore drilling in Norway (and other nations) and in the nationalized nuclear energy system of France, we’d be light years ahead of where we are today. I don’t know about my conservative friends but I am tired of the now all too familiar meme of “America the Loser”. Is it really beyond us to a single thing correctly anymore? Wow.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 08:54 AM
And all the while the public continues to demand more and more oil, California being the top consumer. Is there any wonder why we are broke? If you consume it you better produce it. If you don’t produce it then stop using it, problem solved.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 09:02 AM
Here’s your solution: Nationalize the oil industry so it can safely and professionally extract the Earth’s bounty and the ridiculous proceeds can be applied to pay down the national debt. For once the taxpayer might actually be put first in the grand scheme of things. That wouldn’t upset the conservatives, would it?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 12:14 PM
What, are you saying the government can do it better? Where have you been the last 3 months? BP is a European Union regulated corporation operating in US federal waters (actually in open ocean, according to the UN) and they still screwed up. Why? Lack of principles, something our corrupt, lying cheating self-centered government doesn’t know the meaning of. But you think they will do better, like social security, Medicare, the postal service or the military? Is the government not $14trillion in the hole? How do you think they got there, by doing thing right? Come on boy put yer thinking cap back on and quit listening to Hugo Chavez.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 01:35 PM
While BP’s failure to observe the proper safety measures was horrible, the argument that the industry should be nationalized is just plain stupid. The US government, under current laws and regs, was supposed to be monitoring BP and all the other companies for safety procedures. They did not. Why in the world would anyone believe we could trust the government to RUN the industry when they can’t even reliably OBSERVE the industry.
And if you want to see what happens to an industry that gets nationalied, just read up on what happened recently in Venezuela. Costs up, output down, productivity down, prices up. Get outside your prejudices and get some damn data.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 02:05 PM
Are you aware that virtually all the oil exploration organizations that were successful in gaining drilling rights in Iraq last year were China and other foreign government-run nationalized outfits? ExxonMobil and other U.S. firms deemed paying for oil rights in Iraq to be “too risky” while nationalized organizations were quite willing to scoop up their share of one of the world’s largest reserves. Interesting . . .
“From among the most outspoken of critics of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, China has emerged as one of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the war, snagging five lucrative deals. While Western firms were largely subdued in their interest in Iraq’s recent oil auctions, China snapped up three contracts, shrugging off the security risks and the country’s political instability for the promise of oil.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37577656/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.29.10 @ 03:16 PM
great argument, empty. Let’s be like China, Cuba, Venezuela, and the other “government run” countries (of course, you’d have to give up free speech, free press, etc.). What you’re missing here is that it is the [China et al] governments, i.e. the notfree people of those countries, that are underwriting the risk that free enterprise companies have to take on themselves. I guess therefore you’d be ok with the US government insuring our oil companies against foreign losses? Then we’d be on an even competitive footing with China. Here’s an even better idea: conserve like crazy, but also develop our own oil resources so we can quit borrowing from China and sending the money to the Middle East. What do YOU drive?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 07.30.10 @ 12:18 PM
I say we all start walking to work—Oh there are no jobs, because the tax and spend liberals chased them to other countries—Liberal nuts running calif..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.02.10 @ 08:50 AM
Jeeze what is it with you and government run companies, Empty? Is it a fetish you and liberals have? The biggest government run economy on earth was the former Soviet Union and it was a colossal failure. Not even the Chinese Communists followed that disaster and went private for their growth industries.
Look I know you liberal arts majors all think legalism is a sweet deal because any idiot can be in charge, but those of us in the hard sciences realize that the larger and more complex any system gets it is more prone to failure. It doesn’t matter what it is its just logistics (that include really big corporations as well). That drives a conservative approach to systems in general, meaning smaller more autonomous units with everything under a supervisory system that has less control. It works. It works in nature (look at your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system) and in our man made contrivances whether a mechanical, electrical, information or political system.
If the Chi-Comms can figure this out why can’t you?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.02.10 @ 09:10 AM
Its too bad that the primary emotion that governs the views of conservatives and the public policies they embrace is fear. They’re afraid of change, they’re afraid of new ideas, they’re afraid of challenging the demigods they worship (i.e. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Cheney), they’re afraid of socialism (while they cash their Social Security checks and use Medicare), they’re afraid of strong women, they’re afraid of people not like them, they’re afraid of accepting facts as evidence of what is real vs. their skewed perceptions, they’re afraid of gays (unless they’re names are Drudge and Breitbart), they’re afraid of scientific inquiry, they’re afraid America is falling behind but are too afraid to examine why and what can be done about it.
Karl Rove and Dick Cheney know this about conservatives and turned fear-mongering into an art form. Doesn’t it bother you people to know how easily manipulated are by others who think you’re rubes?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 08:05 AM
Emptynewsroom, I shake my head in bewilderment as you go on about the fear of consevatives. I have many conservative friends…not a one is afraid or fearful about anything you cite. Sadness at the course of events would be most accurate and a hopefulness that America is noticing what is going on and will be willing to correct it’s mistake of 2008.
Mark King
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 09:02 AM
Oh, really? I just cited all the examples of why fear governs the lives and ideology of conservatives and yet you don’t know any like that. Then that’s all the more reason to ask yourself why the Republican Party insists on making fear their dominent political strategy and why Fox News, NewsMax and others pursue the same course of action. So I’ll ask again: Doesn’t it bother you people to know how easily manipulated you are by others who think you’re rubes?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 10:26 AM
Thanks, Mark. Empty you sited nothing but your warped opinion which is nothing more than your own projected fear. Do really expect anyone to take this mindless slop seriously? And where do you get this rubbish? It looks like MoveOn, DailyKoz talking points cut and pasted into your comments directly from their site.
It takes courage, not fear, to live in a country that believes in the principles of freedom and allows its wealth generating markets to operate with minimal interference from government. Socialism, government controlled economies, all operate on the premise that people are afraid of change, indecision or risk. Therefore the government attempts to make everything in the market place safe and secure so you and your mammas boys can live in the warn snuggly bosom of your nanny state. Further which requires more courage and less fear, allowing a society to embrace the idea of equal treatment under the law or the racist policy of affirmative action where you are forced by law to make race a point in every decision you make?
Answer this Empty, what is the difference between a prison and a socialist state? Twaddle that in your adolescent brain and let’s see if you can think beyond the propaganda you constantly spew.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 10:48 AM
You’re right - chickenhawks and their chicken-like followers are not motivated by fear. They just try to motivate each other and swing voters with it. As Dick Cheney said during his fear-mongering speech at the 2004 GOP Convention, “9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11”. You people are afraid of your own shadows!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 10:58 AM
Tom Ridge, Director of the Department of Homeland Security Cites Pressure Before 2004 Election
Threat-level warnings became a subject of controversy in 2004 after one rise was declared just days after the Democratic National Convention that summer. The move was seen by some at the time as redirecting public attention toward an issue where Bush was stronger (terrorism) and away from questions about the war in Iraq being raised by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), his reelection challenger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003993.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 02:44 PM
And that is proof we need a nanny state? Good grief, get the basement dweller a pacifier.
Or try this; come up with a real solution to our energy problem, that doesn’t require sending 80% of the world’s population back to the Stone Age. In fact find one solution that doesn’t cost more, give less in return and add more power to any already large entity. So far that is all we get from you lefties, pay more, get less and make government bigger than ever.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 03:02 PM
NO ONE, but no one grew the federal government and the national debt more in the past forty years than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Look it up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 04:16 PM
Again, try to come up with a solution that doesn’t cost more give less and make any entity bigger. Comprende amigo? At least make an effort.
Here, I’ll give you an example. Use incentives (tax breaks) to help industry produce more electricity from nuclear and geothermal sources. Replace the taxes lost from the incentives by allowing more oil and coal development. Have the government reduce the size of oversight in the energy sector so that it is more efficient and less centralized, therefore reducing government expense but producing more cogent and effective regulation. Cut out all regulation that has been implemented for political reasons rather than safety and security. Institute more incentives for conservation by end users by giving real tax breaks for those who show reduced usage of electricity or any other energy use. Replace lost revenue from the energy sector as demand drops and supplies increase by allowing more industrial development here on US soil.
That is an example of actually doing something other than pointing fingers and blaming others all the time. My ideas may not work and in the end the financials may not pencil out, but at least I tried something that would not cost more, give less or make big organizations (of course government is the biggest, an easy target) even bigger.
Ok want to try now?
Oh BTW, your man Obama beat RR and GW combined by twice, look it up.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 04:39 PM
Good advice! Now you’re talking about the great policies and incentives that President Carter introduced back in the late 1970’s! He had a rare intelligence and honesty for a U.S. president and actually gave the country a chance to be decades ahead of the rest of the world in alternative energy technologies and use. Then that old corrupt idiot Republican fool got elected in 1980 and back to BIG OIL we went. What was that jerk’s name? Oh, yeah, Ronald Reagan. Whatever happened to him?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.03.10 @ 07:23 PM
Obama vs. Bush: Who cut more spending and who spent more?
Cutting spending (The Washington Times): President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs… By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/
Spending: Obama will likely spend 9% more in his 2011 (proposed) budget than Bush’s 2009 budget: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/obama-budget-2011-deficit-spending-department
Big deal, less than a 10% increase. No wonder all the knuckleheads at Fox News and other pretend journalists are so upset! So, you’re clearly wrong with your statement that Obama “beat RR and GW combined by twice”. You’re a real scholar and a true fact-challenged right winger, AN50.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 09:34 AM
We now know who empty is. Maxine Waters. Empty, from now on your call sign is Maxine.
Have fun folks during Fiesta.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 10:11 AM
And your name is mud to the folks at the FTC.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 10:28 AM
Dan I love it! “Maxine” it is from this point forward. Hilarious and so accurate.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 11:50 AM
Pity the poor fool, defenseless without wit or thought, and only sticks and name calling as his last resort.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 12:39 PM
Maxine, your namesake is a very loyal and unabashed communist you are both cut from the same cloth.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 12:49 PM
Thank you Ms. Rivers. I appreciate your enormously informative and intellectual postings. Say “Hi” to your mom Joan for me would you dearie?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 02:05 PM
Wow Dan. When I ran into you the other day at the coffee shop you said that showing the true colors of liberals was childs play, and that you would prove it with Empty. Man did you call it. You not only show that empty has no job, empty also agreed with Cindy that they are a communist. So we now have Maxine the unemployed communist. I’m glad I didn’t take the bet. But the call sign works for me. Cya at fiesta.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 02:50 PM
WHEN did Santa Barbara get a coffee shop for closeted gay Republicans? You turn around and these folks are everywhere!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.04.10 @ 08:46 PM
So now we have Maxine the gay hating unemployed communist. Dan you nailed this guy perfectly.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 05:44 AM
Hey emptynewsroom , I just happened to be at the same coffee shop when “THURSTON” ran into Petry . They were both sitting in the same chair in a corner , wearing a large conical hat - it was quite a sight .
Funny how we never heard from these wankers when:
(a) we illegaly invaded a country that posed no threat to us
(b)a CIA agent was outed for political gain - thanks again ,Dick , for your patriotism
(c) secret energy meetings allowing Big Oil to set the table
(d) not a peep when horrible conditions were revealed at Walter Reed while Repubs waved the patriot banner when simultaneously cutting Vet Affair funding (now thats really disgusting)
(e) not a peep when Abu Grahib pics and torture surfaced .
Empty , I would go on , but have come to realize there is no point arguing with the AN50 and Petry types if they cant see what is so obvious to more reasonable folk .
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 07:26 AM
I was wondering how long it would be before Baghdad Bob’s wife would allow him to come out with his revisionist outlook on history and join the now aptly name Maxine the homophobic unemployed communist. Not long at all. When you turn a rock over.
As for the PPIC story, I can only say that we continue to point the gun directly at ourselves. We are the State that could never shoot straight. We insist others support our voracious habits of energy consumtion while we pontificate on how they should live their lives. Is it no wonder why California is the laughing stock of the nation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 08:58 AM
“California is the laughing stock of the nation”? Says who, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? You know, the self-loathing and anti-American comments of right wingers like you are very tiresome. Because you’ve been brainwashed by the nonsense pretending to be news spewed by the Murdoch-GOP slime machine, you have come to believe that the U.S. can do nothing right. You hate your government, you hate your president (actually elected this time, what a novel concept!), you despise intellectuals and people with critical thinking skills (jealousy?) and you live in a constant state of fear and hugely exaggerated jingoistic dread. I’d feel sorry for people like you, Petrie, AN50 and the rest of your silly little cult, except that you morons do so much damage to the country you falsely claim to love that progressives like me must set aside our pity and do everything we can to continue to marginalize your extreme and wrong-headed opinions. Your chosen leader, Bush-Cheney the two headed unelected president, was an abject failure and it eats you up inside to see what losers the GOP and Republicans in general really are. Tough. You lost the election, so get out of the way and shut up.
Here’s what true “patriots” Republicans turn out to be: they vote against a bill which would have helped sick and dying 9-11 first responders, the heroes they were so happy to use as pawns in the 2004 election campaign.
http://www.yournabe.com/articles/2010/08/05/queens/qns_9-11_responder_vote_20100805.txt
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 11:21 AM
Ahhh…Maxine the homophobic unemployed communist is also a proud progressive. Wow, you are hitting all the bases of a happy productive life. Yes, progressives. A lovely bunch. They brought us eugenics that led to the gas chambers, re-segregated the military, have a history of creating concentration camps for American citizens, have an actual disdain for our Constitution, love to re-write history in their own image.
And let’s not forget the silent genocide planned parenthood brought to us. All by a giant of the progressive religion.
For the last seventy years, progressives have asked blacks to elect and empower them so that they could defend them from racist conservatives, like the evil AN50 and Thurston, who were trying to keep them down. They said that without them, minorities would be relegated to an inferior education, lower-paying jobs, and the sorrow of institutional racism. And it has happened, but with a different cause. How’s that war on poverty working out for you Maxine?
The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is one of control, nothing more. Health care for all? Not necessarily. CONTROL of healthcare? Absolutely. Financial reform? Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector? Yup. Cap and Trade saving the planet? Not even close. Massive redistribution program? YES.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 11:43 AM
Blah, blah, blah. (I’m not even reading your childishly written claptrap.) You people have got nothing. You’re morally bankrupt, living in the past and rightfully ashamed of your own equally ethically challenged “Party”. Voting against helping 9-11 heroes? Your fake patriotism is totally exposed for what it is: pretend. GOP strategist David Gherkin is on NPR right now and faced with the reality that very soon over 50% of the U.S. population will be made up of minorities, its clear to him the writing is on the wall. There is little doubt that Republicans will continue to slide further into irrelevancy with their racist, misogynistic, homophobic Neanderthal thinking. Better sign up for a Libertarian Party membership now and beat the rush. The rats are abandoning the sinking GOP ship.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 12:16 PM
Maxine just remember you are a proud progressive.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 12:45 PM
I absolutely am. The past 40 years have been progressive in nature and I fully expect that trend to continue. So I advise you create as much drag as you can, which I guess is what being a conservative is all about. Humans are progressive by nature—its called “evolution”.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 01:05 PM
Maxine, history has never been one of your strong suits.
Cindy, on the PPIC survey just remember how Ducks Unlimited had to fight the legions of ignorant progressives and, as usual, were proven right. It’s that same as off shore drilling. It’s not hard to beat progressives..just remember that reality and logic are not their strong suits either.
I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago. I believe it shows us what is happening. Excuse my paraphrase.
“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”
Kindly consider that in any progressive totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them. All phases in the life of the individual are controlled. Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation, and even diet, are all dictated by the state. The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.
And when these frauds talk about hope I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation. If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything? If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try? But then you have those like Maxine that live off the labor of others, sit on the sidelines, hide behind fake names and yell as loudly as possible trying to be relevant.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 02:50 PM
Progressives are not “socialists”. You really should have finished up at West Point before embarking on your boiler room career.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 03:30 PM
You are right Maxine…they are more despicable. I don’t think an American socialist would round up and place Americans in concentration camps as two icons of the progressives have. Nor would an American socialist promote eugenics to control the “lower races”. Progressives did and have promoted it for decades. You come from a proud line Maxine.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 03:40 PM
Petry, I’m done with responding to your nonsense. I don’t know why I ever bothered. Good luck to you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 08.05.10 @ 04:08 PM
Maxine you can’t help it. It gives validation to your life. You may want to study your gods of progressivism to really understand what you are spouting. There is still time for you. Get out of the house and enjoy Fiesta. Ciao.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.21.11 @ 09:40 AM
GWW, as quoted some time ago ...“Funny how we never heard from these wankers when: (a) we illegaly invaded a country that posed no threat to us ...”
At least Pres. Bush had the approval of Congress before attacking another country. Several Democrats have joined forces with Republicans to ask Pres. Obama how it is that we attacked another country without Congressional approval. Do I smell impeachment?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.21.11 @ 10:03 AM
Obama is just another symptom of your corrupt, broken, dishonest, war mongering system. You find that surprising?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.21.11 @ 10:11 AM
Maxine you voted for him. I guess that makes you doubly stupid. Oh and welcome back from your stint in the LA County jail.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.21.11 @ 10:30 AM
Thank you Daniel. Your old buddies in lockup asked about you and said they hoped you’d update your Rip-Off Report profile.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.21.11 @ 10:58 AM
Smiling. All the way to the bank baby.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
U.S. Youth Volleyball League Opens Registration for Goleta Program
Eight-week league for children ages 7 to 15 will run from April to June at Girsh Park
Capps Applauds Ruling Affirming Unconstitutionality of Proposition 8
Ninth Circuit panel upholds a 2010 opinion on California's marriage equality law
Santa Barbara’s City Parking Lot 2 Closed for Construction
Repairs and other work are expected to continue through April
Santa Barbara Gathering Planned After Tuesday’s Ruling on California’s Proposition 8
Santa Barbara Equality Project invites the community to an evening event at the Unitarian Society
Agencies Join Forces to Offer Hands-Only CPR Training Throughout County
Emergency medical services personnel will lead free sessions at various locations on Feb. 14
Weather: Fair 44.0º
Search Noozhawk »
