[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I don't think I have been insulting at all. If you
can't take what I am dishing, then please, don't run
for office as you will be eaten alive.
-TJ
--- eric dupree <dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
TJ I have not seen this chat room use for person to
person insults. I
appreciate it if your use some restraint. Although
you are free to do as
you please, remember we are all in this together.If
anything I've written
has been taken as a personal attack, that is not my
intention.From: "Tim Campbell"
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fwd: Ed Jew to City
Attorney: Stop
dragging feet -- Produce the Records
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:27:57 -0700 (PDT)Well I would say you are a resident in both philly
in
California, but due to one person one vote you
have to
decide where to register, and I would support your
right to be in either place. But not both. If you
were
in both I would be on the side of your vote not
counting for one of those places, if you voted in
both
districts. There are usually rules of percentage
of
living, working etc on the books that can tell you
legally how much of a resident you are and where
you
are allowed to vote, you just have to get off the
internet and read some legal books once in awhile,
I
know it's hard.-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:> Tim:
>
> You may not be aware of this, but Mr. Jew is
very
> popular in his constituency, and the residency
> requirement was certainly met.
>
> *Lots* of people have two homes and commute
between
> them. Residency laws are intended to shut folks
who
> are busy, mobile professionals out of society by
> restricting where we can live, work and vote.
>
> For example, within 10 days of taking a job in
> California, California law requires one to have
a CA
> driver's license. Ignoring the fact that the DMV
> often cannot provide a license quickly enough to
> accommodate people under the law, it also
assumes
> that
> everyone who has a workplace in California is
also
> going to be living all or most of their time in
> California -- a dubious proposition in the case
of
> many. I have an apartment in this city and an
> apartment in Philadelphia. I have a car in this
> city,
> and a car in Philadelphia.
>
> Where is my "residency?"
>
> What if I spend most of my time on the road
working
> --
> as I do -- and not much time in either this city
or
> Pennsylvania? Which state am I a "resident" of?
>
> (BTW, both Pennsylvania and California assert
that
> I'm
> a "resident for tax purposes," a fun situation
I'm
> letting my accountant and lawyer work out).
>
> My moral theory of residency is simple -- if the
> city
> deigns to collect taxes on my residence, then I
am a
> resident. As long as I don't vote in two
different
> districts in the same election, that's all that
> matters.
>
> I initially believed that Jew had been caught
> red-handed, but the more I read about this, the
more
> I
> am convinced that Jew is being targeted by the
SF
> political machine. Seriously, for the pols in SF
> City
> Hall to talk about "restoring trust" after all
the
> scandals that have broken in the last six months
is
> hilarious. They're using their power to try and
> whisk
> Jew out of his seat because he was pointing out
some
> inconvenient truths about their governance.
>
> Do I support him as a candidate? No, but he
> probably
> doesn't care. Do I support the abuse of the
justice
> system to unseat him? Absolutely not -- and I
find
> the DA's assertion that his evidence "proving
his
> innocence" is "inadequate" to be laughable. It's
> not
> Jew's job to prove he's innocent, it's the DA's
job
> to
> prove his guilt.
>
> In short, if San Francisco voters took the tack
> you're
> suggesting, and rolled over for PR's sake
whenever
> local pols go on the warpath, SF politics would
be
> even more of a disaster than they already are.
It's
> the fact that certain elements of SF will fight
back
> that keeps things from going completely off the
> rails.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Generally if you spend over 50 percent of your
> > non-working time in a single area that is
where
> you
> > live, others look at where you reside, vote,
shop,
> > etc.... what is on your license, I don't know.
My
> > point was there are better ways to fight what
you
> > feel
> > as wrong without looking crazy "to the
voters". Do
> I
> > think you are nuts, maybe, but I understand
why
> you
> > would do that. 95 percent of the voters won't
and
> > the
> > press (even if they "get it") will make you
> > laughable
> > to the 95 percent of the voters who don't get
it
> and
> > thus you can never win elected office then or
in
> the
> > future. The best way to fight it is wear a
suit,
> > live
> > in a house, look as regular as your precinct
or
> > district deems (in SF you could be more
relaxed
> than
> > say Texas or Rhode Island). As you are looking
the
> > part of a leader talk about how you don't feel
> > someone
> > should be forced to live anywhere but still
> > represent
> > a district. I personally feel someone should
spend
> > 75
> > percent of their total year in the area they
claim
> > to
> > represent, whether that be working or play or
> > living.
> > I guess look up the election rules yourself
and
=== message truncated ===