Woolsey makes bid for 10th term

Seeking her 10th term in Congress, Democrat Rep. Lynn Woolsey faces a Republican opponent who is voicing the same themes as many Tea Party candidates around the country while denying any direct connections to the movement. Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#143 Oct 12, 2010
Kevin wrote:
...why do the Blue Dogs Democrats have a particular dislike for Woolsey?
I'm not certain they do but I do know that unlike Woolsey, blue dog democrats are right of center.
Kevin

Mill Valley, CA

#144 Oct 12, 2010
kevin wrote:
<quoted text>
He wants to become a career politician.
So it is bad for him to want to be what Woolsey already has become?
Kevin

Mill Valley, CA

#145 Oct 12, 2010
The founding fathers gave Congress 2 year terms. I'd say they wanted the ability to change Representatives to change at the will of the population. Everyone gets to vote on November 2nd and we will see what our district wants.
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#146 Oct 12, 2010
Jim Judd is inept at representing a constituency. He didn't see reason to verbalize his disdain for government until 2009 which in my opinion illustrates his complacency during the most heinous times our nation has ever endured. His lips were sealed during the entire Bush administration.

To this you said that he was not a career politician.

Tell me, how does Judd feel about the cost of Wars?

What regulations does Judd want to eliminate?

What is the tax rate he wants?

To these question you asked if I wanted you to read his website. If you can find Judd answering these simple questions at his site then yes do so and report back ASAP.
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#147 Oct 12, 2010
Kevin wrote:
The founding fathers...
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

- Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

- Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

- Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

- Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making." - reclaimdemocracy.org

Point being the founding fathers did not believe in corporate personhood.
Kevin wrote:
...2 year terms...
"States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders." - reclaimdemocracy.org

Does Judd want corporate term limits like this country used to have?
Kevin

San Francisco, CA

#148 Oct 12, 2010
Kevin wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is bad for him to want to be what Woolsey already has become?
A career politician.
You never answered this question.

This is getting boring and not worth my time.
You like Woolsey. I like Judd.
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#149 Oct 12, 2010
Kevin wrote:
You like Woolsey. I like Judd.
I've listed many reasons for why I like Woolsey. I'm sorry your Judd is such an undefendable dud.
FedUpEditor

San Francisco, CA

#150 Oct 12, 2010
Woolsey has been nothing but a rubber stamp for Pelosi and Obama. If you like where our economy is and the high unemployment that goes with it, vote for Woolsey. It won't take much longer to reach Marin and Sonoma Counties. However, if you want someone who has actually created a job and knows how to meet a payroll, vote for Jim Judd. Many District 6 voters have been voting Democrat so long maybe they thought they didn't have a choice. Thinking people choose Judd.
meg for meg

Corte Madera, CA

#151 Oct 12, 2010
FedUpEditor wrote:
Woolsey has been nothing but a rubber stamp for Pelosi and Obama...
Dubya and his cronies ran the US into the ground, raped it and picked it's pocket for 8 years and left us in a horrible mess. Now barely 2 years into a new presidency and it's the new guy's fault?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-oba...
meg for meg

Corte Madera, CA

#152 Oct 12, 2010
FedUpEditor wrote:
...if you want someone who has actually created a job...
They've all created jobs.
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#153 Oct 12, 2010
FedUpEditor wrote:
Thinking people choose Judd.
Maybe you can answer some questions since you seem to think you know Judd.

Tell me, how does Judd feel about the cost of Wars?

What regulations does Judd want to eliminate?

What is the tax rate he wants?
kevin

Corte Madera, CA

#154 Oct 12, 2010
Does Judd want corporate term limits like this country used to have?

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#155 Oct 13, 2010
Kevin wrote:
HP, Cisco, Microsoft, and Intel were started long before Woolsey and Boxer took office.
That does not negate the fact that both Meg and Carly got rich in California while Boxer was in office.

By they way, since you brought it up.

Microsoft's Bill Gates started under a tax rate of 70% in 1979

Gordon Moore of Intel started with a tax rate 75% in 1968

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started HP in a garage in 1939 with a tax rate of 79% and then took the company public in 1957 with a tax rate of 91%!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displ...

I must ask, which years tax rate do you feel was the most conducive?

Do you feel America was the worst place in the world to do business in the 1940's and 50's?

How about during Clinton's tenure (39.6%) and Bush's (35%)? Which had the healthier economy?

Keep in mind that countries with the lowest tax rates and weakest regulations are not countries that are good for business. They are countries that are in disarray like Afghanistan and Somalia.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellen Tauscher Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mexico's Take Over Of California: Complete By 2... (Jun '09) Sep 26 Guess Who 27,502
Team Clinton started talks on 2016 White House ... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Le Jimbo 34
Both sides eye Clinton as she seeks right balance (Jul '13) Jul '13 Moe 2
Vorderbrueggen: Get ready to draw those maps (Dec '10) Dec '10 Gary47 1
Solano County voters send Garamendi back to D.C. (Nov '10) Nov '10 Mike 1
Travis environmental project wins funds (Sep '10) Sep '10 Garamendi Thief Scum 2
Miller, Garamendi lauded as heroes at Martinez ... (Apr '10) Apr '10 jose 1

Ellen Tauscher People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE