Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Aug 31, 2011
<The bill was sponsored by a nonprofit agency called B Lab, which certifies socially responsible companies as "B Corporations." >
Don't our legislators have better things to do...like getting the economy back on track and better budgeting. Instead, let's cater to this special interest auditing company to feed them business...ughhh!!!
I like this Bill very much. It is cutting edge, socially responsible, and good for California. I think it very well might attract companies from other states, and it might influence other states to pass similar legislation. Good news!!!
Wow, Nate--are you serious? This "Bill" is at least the third new piece of social engineering in this state that I've read about before noon today. What is going on here? Where are people's priorities? Certainly not on job creation or growth. What's it going to take to slap people back to reality? 25% unemployment? Flash mobs and riots in the street? Oh, wait......
At least we'll all feel good that those unemployed looters are expressing themselves.....
Too late for Solyndra!
BTW, steve, that isn't really Nate Silver posting.
No, Steeeeve, I wasn't serious. Unserious people like myself give reasons for our positions. Serious people like yourself howl at the moon with angry, hate-filled inanities.
Thanks, nate. I would hate to hear you were thinking we took you seriously. And I can certainly see where you would read into my comments about jobs and coherent priority setting as being hateful.
I was venting with good reason, since some folks in this state still refuse to admit that we have serious fiscal problems created (and not being solved) by the Dems that have a stranglehold on our state.
Anyway, you're a hoot...thanks for the sarcastic humor.....
By all means, vent away Steeeeve. It is probably better for you than other ways of releasing your anger and hatred.
@"BTW, steve, that isn't really Nate Silver posting" And here we have Stacey the sleuth doing what she is so good at -- tracking down the REAL identities of the posters on these sites.
Nate's way of venting his anger is with personal attacks and snarky replies. Of course, I'm glad he's doing it that way rather than by restricting my freedom with more government control.
Nate, I thought you changed over to Kate Golden or Nathaniel B. Silver.
The question is, why is this legislation even necessary? Corporations can be socially responsible now. No corporation will choose to upset investors because the investors will go elsewhere.
I think the person who posted on the proposed "babysitter" legislation was right; we need a part time legislature. These people have too much time on their hands--and without prejudice as to party affiliation.
So how does a company which makes no money stay in business?
I'm not sure what the big deal here is. There are already corporations that put other considerations ahead of profit making. They're called "non-profit" companies and "not-for-profit" companies. As far as I can tell from the article, this legislation is simply creating another class of corporation in addition to the at least two other classes of similar corporations which already exist.
It seems that existing laws do much to prevent socially irresponsibility, and most corporations already understand the advantages of good CSR in public relations; but if this bill works to prevent shareholders from bringing suit based simply on bottom-line figures, then I'm all for it.
Thanks for taking time to share your love for corporations!...and I thought you spent all your time trying to destroy our public schools and bash teachers...go figure!
BTW, I hear Texas is nice this time of year(let steve know that too), check it out.
Lived in Texas already Sal. I don't bash teachers; not destroying public schools--you might want to point out how you support those accusations. No particular love of corporations; worked in both public and private arenas. Just not a fan of nonsensical governmental interference.
You'll have to tell Steve yourself cuz I don't actually know who s/he might be, just like you.
yo, sally. I think I'll stay in California, the place of my birth, even if it's just to annoy you and your other trolling friends, by posting what's right and what should be changed to make it right.
It's simply outrageous, when this state is facing bankruptcy, that the legislature spends it time on this kind of crazy BS instead of fixing mulitudinous problems that are preventing job growth and financial stability. Has CA truly become the land of nuts?
It's vital to our future that get rid of the full-time legislature. We need to go to a system, such as that in Texas, where the legistlature meets only for two months every other year. This gets rid of the career politicians which are destroying this state. States that have part-time legislatures are generally much better governed than California.
I agree with Kathleen Ruegsegger, Sacto's Nuts, or whatever she has chosen to call herself today.
Part-time legislators will provide more opportunity to get really rich people filling the seats. Not having to rely on a two-month salary, they can afford to fall back on their high salaries. Brilliant!
Part-time legislators, having less salary, will also be more susceptible to richies bribing them. But that's okay by Rueg-Sacto-Nuts, I guess. More brilliance from the lone star state.
I gotta tell ya, as soon as some big-head Texan or former Texan starts holding up Texas as the model for anything -- other than heat, filth, grime, corruption and stupidity -- I stop listening.
Bettina, I don't post as anybody else; no need. Someone else suggested Texas; I indicated I lived there once. There was no statement for or against Texas. Anything that stops career legislators and a large staff is fine by me. You must realize there are already plenty of rich legislators, full or part time. If someone wants to serve and can get elected, they'll find a way whether they are rich or not.
Kathleen Ruegsegger-Sacro-Nuts says, "If someone wants to serve and can get elected, they'll find a way whether they are rich or not."
Yeah, that explains why so many poor people are legislators. Of course, how could we have missed that?
Fact is, part-timers would be even more likely to be from upper classes; and those who aren't wealthy, faced with a mere part-time salary, would be more susceptible to bribes.
Last point: the ploy to replace full-time legislators with part-timers is a great way to give lobbiests even more leverage/influence; part-time pols take their eye off the ball for 10 months, lobbiests are there to do their work for them.
Kath-Sacro, possibly unwittingly (she is from Texas), is smuggling yet another way for reducing govt regulatory oversight while increasing corporate power.
Bettina/Nate/Whatever, Never said I was from Texas; not Sacto (or Sacro as you've typed it). You must wear yourself out jumping to conclusions. This legislation isn't about increasing corporate power or reducing government oversight. Find some other stage for your tap dance logic.
Bettina, I responded. Full time legislators come up with legislation like this to feel they are earning their keep. No prejudice as to party affiliation in that belief. Anyway, the real point is the legislation isn't needed in this case, whether it came up in a full or part time capacity.
Changing the subject Kathleen Ruegsegger? You claimed a part-time legislature was a good idea. I argued that your claim was without merit. You seem preoccupied with people's names. Is this too complex for you?
Really Bettina, no change. Less government interference, yes. If that takes keeping legislators out of career service, great. If it means limiting time spent at the office to only what is necessary to conduct the people's business, okay too. It's a big topic. I'll be out of contact for a bit, but please talk amongst yourself.
Highly disingenuous to ask someone else to be sincere in their response to your claims when they are framed as ridicule of the person you're asking.
Hey Stacey, try to follow this....
Kathleen Ruegsegger put forward a claim: she likes the idea of a part-time legislature.
I responded to her claim, and offered three reasonable counterclaims which, if valid, reveal the transparent weakness of Kathleen Ruegsegger's initial claim.
Nothing disingenuous there. The only thing disingenuous is that neither you nor Kathleen Ruegsegger have managed to offer claims that might show my own to be invalid. True enough, Kathleen Ruegsegger offers a feeble and repetitive restatement of her original claim. But does she offer an argument? Nope, and rarely does. What the two of you sillies do best is howl at the moon about my identity. Pretty transparent. Both of you are not about ideas in the least. You're both big egos whose identities are bound up with this site, and with your soft-headed ideas being exposed for what they are, all you can do is wrap yourselves in your own identities and ballyhoo about how others don't do the same.
I've got news for you, Stacey whoever you may be. Most of the posters here realize that ideas are more important than the name one uses. That's why we see 'patriot', 'concerned', 'reasonable', 'liberal', etc. Who cares? It's the quality of ideas that counts. But you and your silly sister, Kathleen Ruegsegger, are not up to the task. Too bad, Stace. Scoreboard!
Responding to her claim in the way you did and calling it "reasonable"...disingenuous.
Part-time legislatures: more susceptible to bribes or not? We have states with part-time legislatures and full-time legislatures. We should be able to tell, which you haven't, instead of characterizing Kathleen as tongue-in-cheek "brilliant" or "big-headed".
Lobbyists: are they more effective lobbying part-time legislators or full-time legislators? Again, you failed to provide basic evidence to support the claim. Most people don't live in your bubble.
I don't know the answers to these questions nor do I have a position on the subject. I'm just looking for some basic argumentative support from you which is consistently lacking.
Perhaps I hold the false belief that when you can start to demonstrate the ability to provide basic support for your assertions, you will no longer need to rely upon ridicule of others.
Bettina, etc. It's not that you are anonymous; it is that posting under multiple names could have others believing there are multiple people posting when in fact it is only one person. So if you choose to use multiple names, I will let others know it is just you, again.
I don't like this or the "babysitter" legislation. It seems CA legislators are doing busywork. The topic of the value of part time or full time legislature is longer. Not getting onto it now. Start another thread and see if others wish to discuss it.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: *
- Amador Estates
- Amberwood/Wood Meadows
- Another Pleasanton neighborhood
- Apperson Ridge
- Beratlis Place
- Bonde Ranch
- Bordeaux Estates
- Bridle Creek
- California Reflections
- California Somerset
- Canyon Creek
- Canyon Meadows
- Canyon Oaks
- Carlton Oaks
- Carriage Gardens
- Castlewood Heights
- Charter Oaks
- Civic Square
- Country Fair
- Danbury Park
- Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
- Del Prado
- Foothill Farms
- Foothill Knolls
- Foothill Place
- Foxborough Estates
- Golden Eagle
- Grey Eagle Estates
- Hacienda Gardens
- Happy Valley
- Heritage Oaks
- Heritage Valley
- Highland Oaks
- Jensen Tract
- Kolb Ranch Estates
- Kottinger Ranch
- Laguna Oaks
- Laguna Vista
- Las Positas
- Las Positas Garden Homes
- Lemoine Ranch
- Lund Ranch II
- Mariposa Ranch
- Mission Park
- Mohr Park
- Nolan Farms
- Oak Hill
- Oak Tree Acres
- Old Towne
- Pheasant Ridge
- Pleasanton Heights
- Pleasanton Meadows
- Pleasanton Valley
- Pleasanton Village
- Remen Tract
- Ridgeview Commons
- Ruby Hill
- Southeast Pleasanton
- Spotorno Ranch
- Stoneridge Orchards
- Stoneridge Park
- Sycamore Heights
- Sycamore Place
- The Knolls
- Val Vista
- Valley Trails
- Vineyard Avenue
- Vineyard Hills
- Vintage Hills Elementary School
- Walnut Hills
- West of Foothill
- Willow West
- Alisal Elementary School
- Amador Valley High School
- Donlon Elementary School
- Fairlands Elementary School
- Foothill High School
- Hart Middle School
- Harvest Park Middle School
- Horizon High School
- Lydiksen Elementary School
- Mohr Elementary School
- Pleasanton Middle School
- Valley View Elementary School
- Village High School
- Vintage Hills Elementary School
- Walnut Grove Elementary School
- another community
- San Ramon
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,148 views
Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 854 views
The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 668 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
San Ramon Express
© 2014 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.