Saturday, December 31st
Seatings in O’Neill’s from 6:30pm to 9:00pm
3-Course Meal
Complimentary Champagne Toast
Live Entertainment and Dancing
Trabuco Ballroom from 8:00pm to 12:30am
$85 Per Person
New Year’s Celebration
Mission Viejo See map
Comments + Leave a Comment
Boards
All Boards »
Shripathi Kamath June 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
"As a Republican, he will go head to head with our current incumbant [sic]"
Wait, are…Read More there no other contenders? John Webb on the Republican side might run, and then there was that Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang fella, who finished second.
The more the merrier. The more diversity in the views, even better.
I would like to hear from contenders how they would vote differently on some of the votes the incumbents have cast. Because all too often we have "an independent minded Republican" or a "progressive reformer" or "Heck, I am BATMAN himself" only to have disappointing regurgitation of ideology of what should not be done ("low taxes", "freedom", "family values", "apple pie, motherhood").
Not what will be done.
And until we have that, corporate monies shall determine our representative.
I mean I can imagine Mr. Raths voting for the 45th time to repeal Obamacare, but seriously, which vote that John Campbell cast would be different if Mr. Raths were in office? If 90% of the positions are the same, it looks like a remarkable coincidence that an independent thinker is so like the incumbent, does it not?
Mr. Raths did offer an 'independent' idea endorsing civil unions but not gay marriage. Cool. Is he going to sponsor a bill for civil unions? Or simply insist on enforcing DOMA because "sanctity of marriage", "religious liberty".
How about H.R. 1797? How about the Gang of 8 bill on immigration if it passes the Senate and comes to the House? Will his vote be different than that of Mr. Campbell's? That is the key question.
But again, I welcome Mr. Raths entry in the field, we need more variety, and if we cannot get that, we at least need more people willing to run. Good luck to you, sir.
Peter Schelden (Editor) June 19, 2013 at 09:29 am
Uncanny timing—this is especially poignant in light of this announcement:…Read More http://alisoviejo.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/elder-sexual-abuse-caregiver-suspect-arrested
M June 19, 2013 at 07:32 am
Anymore info on this place? When I looked online the only location is vista, ca
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming the…Read More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It might…Read More even flourish on reddit.