Users who Dugg This
Shelly Cooper
1378 Followers
Shelly Cooper
1378 Followers
BinaryFella
142 Followers
BinaryFella
142 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
Jake Rocheleau
2455 Followers
Jake Rocheleau
2455 Followers
branditaAug 8, 2010
Funny how Whitman and conservatives want to repeal the California climate law. For claiming to be so concerned about the economy, I guess they don't care about all the jobs that will be lost in the green industry.
eh123Aug 8, 2010
Yeah, both of those guys will be really upset.
ericccAug 8, 2010
Green jobs have huge momentum and potential in California. Especially in the bay area,and this is not an attack ad; it highlights a policy difference between the two candidates that is both timely and relevant to voters. Nobody is being quoted out of context or judged by association.
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
It's just red meat for those who've had the Fox/AM radio/Teabag chip implanted in their brains.
If we're in the middle of August and Meg Whitman is still trying to shore up the right-wing vote, she'll never be able to afford the election.
hyperianAug 8, 2010
well to be fair whitman isnt in the green industry so she doesn't care.
i hate whitman so much.
endgameAug 8, 2010
LOL, really how many of these "jobs" have been created in the green industry? See that's the thing their are NO green jobs, what a few solar panel companies. Sorry but that is not enough to put bread on the table for MILLIONS of Californians out of work. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trentdeuxAug 8, 2010
there is no such thing as a green job. that is just made up bs. get your head out of your ass.
tao52nycAug 8, 2010
Let me join the ranks of those being dugg down for telling the truth. /s
Spain tried it's bit with subsidized "green jobs". Even with subsidies, for every "green" job that was created, it was determined that 2.2 "real" jobs were lost. I'm sure Cali is experiencing similar math.
imortusAug 8, 2010
California politics are so much more amusing than politics on the national level.
tirauAug 8, 2010
Care to elaborate, or was that just a lame shot at humor?
eddiepotatoAug 8, 2010
The fact that Whitman has outspent Brown by around 200/1 and is still behind him in the polls is endlessly entertaining.
solamenAug 8, 2010
I Thought it said Brown Attacks White man on emission laws and had to do a retake.
davidtcAug 8, 2010
It says "over" not "on", but the rest of what you saw was right.
ofnumbersAug 8, 2010
f**k Meg Whitman.
kirualeorioAug 8, 2010
Do you? That's a man baby!
twwixAug 8, 2010
I'd rather not.
nickasterAug 8, 2010
Good for Brown. AB32 may shift some jobs around for a while but it's WAY BETTER in the long term for the economy than putting our heads in the sand on behalf of oil companies.
akchrsAug 8, 2010
Don't you think it would be better for the economy if they would quit spending money they don't have.
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
Nope.
How do you destroy a water pump?
You run it dry.
Far less private capital is in the market these days.
If you run the pump dry, you destroy it.
When consumers and private investors are not feeding money through the pump constantly, the pump is destroyed.
Look around you. When you look at the state of America's infrastructure, can you honestly say you're a proud to be an American? [If yes, you *need* to travel outside the U.S.]
Building Hoover Dam was spending money we didn't have. Every damn penny the gambling industry or anyone *ever* made or *will* ever make in Las Vegas can be traced back to government investment.
Why? Because Las Vegas doesn't *exist* without free government power to run all the air conditioners and fire the water cannons at Bellagio. *No one* at a buffet gets their water glass filled without government water moving through government pumps powered by government power delivered to millions of *private* taps. And then hundreds of metric tons of tourist piss and puke is pumped right back out for treatment in the government sewage system.
Building the Golden Gate Bridge was spending money we didn't have.
The self-dubbed "Digg Patriots" don't want you to think about things like this. They don't even want you to *know* about things like this, because it goes against the narrative of their last 40 years.
[Hint: Those in life who must constantly run around labeling themselves "patriots"? They aren't.]
superkendallAug 8, 2010
Brown is actually running ON global warming? As in, he's supporting a movement already heavily discredited while Whitman is saying "lets do what makes fiscal sense for California"?
Major misstep, Brown is toast.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
"A this point running a campaign around global warming is like being a Flat Earther. It just shows you haven't been paying attention to the advancement of science."
Typical conservative... In reality, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. Global Warming is one of the most widely accepted theories in the realm of science, besides the obvious holdouts who will not believe in anything to make them feel special. To deny global warming is akin to denying evolution... Retarded.
kylejorgyAug 8, 2010
I'm not saying global warming is real or what not but it hasn't had any major discredits. I don't under stand how repealing an environmentally friendly is good for the economy and further more our future economy.
archiesteelAug 8, 2010
@superkendall: " As in, he's supporting a movement already heavily discredited"
No, it hasn't. In fact, the science has been reaffirmed and the good name of those accused by professional deniers cleared.
You guys lost.
"Major misstep, Brown is toast."
I guess you know as little about California politics as you do about science.
"A this point running a campaign around global warming is like being a Flat Earther. It just shows you haven't been paying attention to the advancement of science."
The "advancement of science" has confirmed AGW theory is by far the likeliest explanation for the current warming trend. It is supported by empirical evidence, while all you deniers have is innuendo.
Learn some actual science.
hyperianAug 8, 2010
let me put this right here..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkchips/4254681996/
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Noone's buying your s**t, kendall. Sell your snake oil on Fox
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
Along with all the gold scams, too.
I hear Glenn Beck has a few ad spots available.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Global warming was discredited by a bunch of Republicans and businessmen who have never even heard of the scientific method because it wasn't mentioned in their Bible. They don't believe in it because they believe Jesus will come down and save us all before our planet goes to s**t. What a crock of crap that is, and how f**king egotistical that they think he'd come back during our lifetime! (not that a dead guy who probly never existed can come back anyways--- Atheism ftw!)
There is NO downside to believing in Global Warming, except for greedy businesses who make more money if they aren't being forced to take care of our environment.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
This^
There are NO meaningful downsides to improving our environment.
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
superk:
The self-dubbed "Digg Patriots" have been busted.
You can't just run in, fling more "Global Warming is a Hoax" handfuls of s**t at everyone and not get called on it anymore, let alone have those "Digg Patriots" defend you with their master mimicry of AM radio right-wing shock jock science.
Your real problem isn't that Digg is liberal.
Your real problem is that America is.
nmanguyAug 8, 2010
Why is putting something that will discourage spending on hold until unemployment is only 5.5% a bad idea?
lokee73Aug 8, 2010
The last time California's unemployment rate was below 5.5 was 1987. This may as well be a plan to roll it back forever... which is probably. The ultimate goal.
hyperianAug 8, 2010
obviously he didnt even read the first half of the article.
nmanguyAug 8, 2010
Well, if we want 1990 levels of emissions, why is asking for 1987 levels of unemployment so much harder?
torisutanAug 8, 2010
The issue is that there are ten million more people in California today than in 1987, and how the f**k do the Republicans think we're going to get them all jobs? We can't keep creating jobs, eventually people will run out of s**t to do! We'll be like China, where everyone does one single task all day long and has zero marketable skill if they lose their job because all the jobs require you to do one simple task whereas currently (and in 1987) jobs in America were complex and multi-faceted, and required employees who could do more than one thing every day.
As for why it's a bad idea, the only way it will create jobs is by allowing companies to build cheap, pollution-heavy factories. When people work in those, they'll get sick, and they won't be able to work. It will destroy our environment, which I guess might create more jobs as humanity struggles to repair the damage in 20 years, but that's kind of... I dunno... f**king retarded?
feeishAug 8, 2010
Wow, It is time for me to sleep because when I clicked on that story I could have sworn it said "California Brown Bear attacks white man over emissions law"
As for what the article is really about it will be interesting to see how this race turns out. And if you want to lower green house gasses then switch to nuclear power. All that CO2 that would have been release to power homes would now just be CO2 release later from gas.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninjaofpatienceAug 8, 2010
I think I saw an onion article titled that once.
tirauAug 8, 2010
California has a *lot* to lose from global warming. Our ag- and viticultural face decimation, wildfires are increasing in number and intensity (due to additional factors as well, but my point stands), and our water resources, excuse the pun, are drying up. With our large population, we can do a lot to mitigate the effects of climate change, and it truly is in our own best interest.
lokee73Aug 8, 2010
This is going to be a "hold my nose" vote for Brown. I don't have a good reason to vote for him, but Whitman is sprinting to the right.
shogeistAug 8, 2010
The fact that he's not Whitman is a good enough reason.
lokee73Aug 8, 2010
That is a very good argument. ..
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
This made it to the front page...
And there are only 2-3 conservative nutcases.
Is... it possible... Digg Patriots have been temporarily silenced?
ajajadudeAug 8, 2010
They're only targeting articles being submitted by certain users.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
They have to keep a low profile for the moment.
abtronicAug 8, 2010
Those damn Dig Patriots are the only reason I'm here. I couldn't believe they were tampering with dig. I don't even visit that much, but when I do, I don't want someone filtering the stories because they have an agenda. Arg!!!! Republicans/Conservatives are scum.
bloodwineAug 8, 2010
As an outsider, I ask Californians to reflect on the stewardship of Arnold. Are either of the candidates vying for the position a step up or at least a sideways step from Arnold, or are they both likely downgrades?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
libertyfrogAug 8, 2010
Jerry Brown has already been Governor of California.
libertyfrogAug 8, 2010
I am in full support for the greenhouse law (reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) but there is no denying that it will hurt (even though it may be slightly) a lot of the growing industries (except the green industries) in California.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
Yeah, but that's not a good enough reason to NOT do something beneficial.
werfwerAug 9, 2010
especially now, when things are booming !
libertyfrogAug 8, 2010
Less spending is what California needs.
smacksawAug 8, 2010
As a native San Diegan, let me explain this to people.
California can't balance a budget. It's a combination of many factors, but for the most part, what we've always done is run things into the ground with deadlocks and then wait for the federal gov't to come and give us back our money and bail us out.
LA has lots of pollution. Tijuana has lots of pollution. The EPA actually helps the state if we keep it down. In San Diego, we always fail. Why? Because their pollution migrates to our area. We can't win.
California is a dirty place due to pollution. In Australia, it's not anti-capitalist to have water rationing due to their drought. It's just a policy to conserve resources. In California, we have pollution. It sucks. So you need to do something to cut down on it. Global warming, whatever, f**k that. What matters is smog, wildfires and polluted water. No one wants to live in toxic s**t and a lot of the state is like that.
It's not irresponsible for a state to do things to keep it clean. It's irresponsible not to figure out ways to do it because it goes against free-market capitalism or some stupid s**t like that. If the free-market had a solution for pollution, we'd be celebrating how well it works. But we don't have that and it's been decades. So now we need to turn to government. It's all fair. We gave the market a fair chance and it didn't work. Now we're going to use our government to do it. That's what government is there for - to pick up the free individuals who failed.
This costs Californians their health and it costs the state money. That's why we need to fix pollution.
libertyfrogAug 8, 2010
Southern California and the Bay need to stop telling the rest of California how to live. Hard workers are paying for people to live in outrageously expensive cities (seriously, move out of San Francisco or LA and you will save hundreds of dollars a month on rent and food) through our taxes. California needs to be split into separate states.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kbadkAug 8, 2010
Regardless of what state/community you live in, there will always be disagreement on how to run the world. And there will always be a majority and a minority. There's no way around it. You can't call for a split every time a vote doesn't go your way.
ngmcs8203Aug 8, 2010
Yes because we all want to live like those hard working folk in Bakersfield or Fresno. What's the crystal meth usage look like out there these days?
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
I've heard that occasionally, someone may actually have FOOD with their meth. Only sometimes, though.
endgameAug 8, 2010
Sacramento passed AB 32 which amounts to a new $60 billion energy tax that will kill jobs in California. It’s being implemented by legions of bureaucrats and a huge bureaucracy that admit it will do virtually nothing to solve global warming. Here’s the price tag we’re being asked to pay for an ill-conceived, flawed and ineffective proposal:
* Over 1.1 million lost jobs (Sacramento State University Economist)
* Up to 60 percent higher retail electricity rates (Southern California Public Power authority)
* 8 percent increase in natural gas costs (CARB)
* $3.7 billion in higher gasoline and diesel costs (Sierra Research)
* Possible $143 billion cap and trade auction tax to offset AB 32’s higher energy prices and job losses (CARB Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee)
What a JOKE anybody that supports AB32 is obviously clueless about jobs.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yacksAug 8, 2010
But why don't you think about all the green jobs???
tao52nycAug 8, 2010
There are no "green jobs". That's the cruelest joke of all.
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
I found it amusing that she spent tens of millions of dollars destroying a candidate [Steve Poizner] who had little-to-no name recognition statewide.
Poizner did *better* in the Republican primary than he would've if Whitman had completely ignored him. You've got to make sure people know the man's name before they can hate him, right?
Anyway, if you manage to make one million dollars over your lifetime of 40+ hour weeks, you'll be lucky.
Meg Whitman just spent nearly $100,000,000 of her multi-billion fortune to destroy a guy no one's ever heard of. She just dumped 100X more money on that *than you will earn in your LIFE.*
As Govs. Davis and Schwarzenegger know intimately, the job of California's Governor sucks.
Evidently, it's worth quite a bit to Meg Whitman.
Why, do you think?
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Hmmmm.... well, if I were a Republican (and I'm not), I would probably say something like: "She clearly has an interest in making California better!"
Fortunately I'm not a Republican, because I use my cerebral cortex, and I know that Meg Whitman is actually partially responsible for the current debt crisis in my state.
When she was CEO of eBay, she fought for and won the right to conduct business online without being taxed. eBay, of course, is based in California, and if it were a normal business would be taxed. So of the hundreds of millions of dollars that go through eBay every day, not a single penny of it gets collected by the state of California. Why? Because of Meg Whitman, who in every campaign ad I see claims to want to solve our debt crisis.
Hey Meg, how about you start by letting us tax that multi-billion dollar business we let you run out our state?
kerouac906Aug 8, 2010
I think Meg Whitman will make a GREAT governor for CA, since they are going to have to auction off a ton of s**t to get out of debt. Surely she can pull some strings over at eBay and get those listing & final value fees down to zero!
/s
trentdeuxAug 8, 2010
C1: Christie Todd Whitman
C2: Chris Christie
C3: Meg Whitman
C4: Walt Whitman?
urmyhartbstoprAug 8, 2010
... I hate Whitman. Her commercial is up there with Bret Baier carp with Shirley Sherrod. You know why Brown can't get any clips to take out of context? Cause she never was into politic at all. She doesn't vote. She probably didn't have any political stances/opinions until she decided to run for government. Even by then, she don't have enough time to form any real opinions with research/debate for herself; her political opinions are probably stolen or she adopted from the conservative base without any real thought to it. What's her social issues? She probably had none because she never care to vote. Why the sudden interest in politic? She's after something and I don't know what, but I am sure it ain't running California. Maybe her motive is businesses. She probably want give kickbacks and taxcuts. I'm sure taxcuts, program cuts, and prisoner early releases are going to work this time around. It works for Arnold right?
She took over Ebay when the company was in great and when she left it was worth half of what it worth when she took over.
She the least qualified person out of the two governors running. She's another Arnold but worst because she's much more of a corporate shrill. Brown have experiences and a union shrill. But I rather choose Brown over another inexperienced governor (that's a jab at Arnold).
Look how desperate she is to spend so much money into commercials. She's making up her lack of experiences with her boat load of money. Her debates were failure and now she got pep rally/talk instead >_>.
urmyhartbstoprAug 8, 2010
Oh look at his plan:
http://www.jerrybrown.org/fightingforyou
He got pension reform plan. I'm f**king voting for him.
kd1sAug 8, 2010
I hope he trounces Whitman. And while we're at it can we please do something about Carly Fiorina?