| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/10/31-11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40359 Activity:high |
10/31 So the LA Times and SF Chron have endorsed prop 77. How do you feel
about the prop? -emarkp
\_ I like some ideas in it. I don't like the implementation. It
would have been easy for them to put this up and push it through
if they didn't implement the first round without voter approval
and outside the standard census cycle. Or if not easy, at least
I'd be able to give my support. --scotsman
\_ What about the implementation don't you like? -emarkp
\_ Just what I said above. It's redistricting outside of the
normal cycle, and the first time 'round it goes into effect
without being approved by the voters. --scotsman
\_ I'm not sure what you mean by "goes into effect
without being approved by the voters." Do you mean
the council of judges would normally be approved in an
election, and won't be the first time around? -jrleek
\_ The map they would draw would be in effect in 2006,
in the same election that the voters approved said map.
\_ I voted for it. -ausman
\_ I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other. The problem
of incumbency has little to do with how the districts are drawn.
-tom
\_ Opposed. It's not a solution, it's appointing a tribunal to come
up with a solution. I want this redistricting reformed, but this
does nothing to actually do this. --erikred
\_ Right now the legislature draws its own boundaries. How would
you suggest improving it? -emarkp
\_ Mathematical formula based on population. Follow the
guidelines currently provided re: not splitting up counties
or cities too much. --erikred
\_ This is something that's been bugging me about the whole
discussion. The main argument I hear for supporting it is
"no seats changed hands last time". This is insufficient
to convince me that there's a problem with the current
map. Based on that, it's a big leap for me to conclude
that the system to draw the map has pressing problems.
--scotsman
\_ Okay, so you like the proposed rules but want to remove
people from the process? I'd agree with that, though I'd
want the algorithm and implementation public and
reviewable. Short of that, the rules for choosing the
judges are pretty strict and I see this as a reasonable
solution. -emarkp
\_ The idea of appointing three formerly partisan judges
by random lot sounds like an unnecessarily complication.
Propose a solution, not a method for designing a
solution that's more complicated and just as open to
corruption as the current one. --erikred
\_ I'm voting for it. It's clearly better than what we have now. In
fact I'm voting for all of 74-77. The arguments above against it
don't mean anything to me. Prop 77 is easily understood and
likely to have reasonable results. Anything to light a bit more
fire under politician asses.
\_ Even though it comes from Ah-nold "The Groper" Schwarzenegger,
I was for it a few months ago and I'm still for it.
-moderate/liberal
fact I'm voting for all of 74-77.
\_ If Judge Wapner is against it, then so am I!
\_ those ads actually cemented my position in favor...
\- so what is the rationale for it being all judges
rather than say statisticians or political scientists
or other technical people. what is the "objective
function" the implementors will be given?
\_ The whole job of a judge is to be as fair as possible.
\- gee the whole job of a mathematician is truth.
\_ you confuse fairness with truth. they are not the
same. only one requires wisdom.
\- well this is all meaningless without some sense
of the objective function. how do you decide
whether map A or map B is "better"?
\_ "better" is defined by "just" and "fair". that
is what judges are supposed to do. if not
people we trust with our justice system every
day, then who? mathematicians? hah!
\_ I think it's funny that my comment about judges
being a better judge of fairness than
mathematicians got censored.
\_ Judges are also supposed to be wise, which means
they would rely on expert statisticians for the
math bits. |
| 2005/10/31-11/1 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40358 Activity:high |
10/31 http://www.daveloveselizabeth.com : Makes me glad I am married. I did not know that Linux is a cause of singledom. ;-) Stuff like this will make dating that much harder .. \_ I don't understand why this guy is spending so much time and energy and money on a white chick. Statistically white chicks are more bitchy and/or have attitude problems, don't cook and don't take care of kids, and are much more likely to leave you and take your money and fuck someone else. -asian fetish troll \_ I would be creeped out if I was Elizabeth. That guy tried too hard. "Just Engaged" shirts and hats?! Run, Elizabeth, run! \_ Why do I get the urge to track these people down and gun them down? \_ He sets the bar too high for himself. How can he ever expect to top it? Anyhow, it's the frequent little things that chicks dig. Not the big impossible stuff. \_ IMO, it's not that he's a romantic who sets the bar too high with Mediterranean cruises and whatnot, but that he is objectifying his wife and in a sense making her a possession. I think he has issues with women. Do *you* treat women like that, even when trying to impress them? I'd think he was less creepy if he *did* take her on cruises and buy her diamonds. There's this weird sense on cruises and buy her diamels. There's this weird sense of desperation and trying to make everything 'perfect' that gives me a feeling of dread. Will he beat her if she doesn't conform to the ideals? He seems to be setting himself up for a fall. He didn't do anything 'impossible'. In fact, it was more mundane - that makes it creepier. "Here honey, I got us His and Hers Forever mugs." \_ Wow, you jumped from "desperate nerd" to "wife beater" pretty fast there buddy. \_ what, you don't beat your wife? about the prop? -emarkp \_ I like some ideas in it. I don't like the implementation. It would have been easy for them to put this up and push it through if they didn't implement the first round without voter approval I'd be able to give my support. --scotsman \_ What about the implementation don't you like? -emarkp \_ Just what I said above. It's redistricting outside of the normal cycle, and the first time 'round it goes into effect without being approved by the voters. --scotsman \_ I'm not sure what you mean by "goes into effect without being approved by the voters." Do you mean the council of judges would normally be approved in an election, and won't be the first time around? -jrleek \_ The map they would draw would be in effect in 2006, in the same election that the voters approved said map. \_ I'm just saying that this guy has issues with women and I would fear that he wouldn't know how to behave with one. This could get violent, but even if not I think it would be bad. I am surprised she doesn't sense the creepy vibe. She's probably some sort of nutjob herself. I'm getting "Runaway Bride" with my spider sense. \_ I voted for it. -ausman \_ I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other. The problem of incumbency has little to do with how the districts are drawn. -tom \_ Opposed. It's not a solution, it's appointing a tribunal to come up with a solution. I want this redistricting reformed, but this does nothing to actually do this. --erikred \_ Right now the legislature draws its own boundaries. How would you suggest improving it? -emarkp \_ Mathematical formula based on population. Follow the guidelines currently provided re: not splitting up counties or cities too much. --erikred \_ This is something that's been bugging me about the whole discussion. The main argument I hear for supporting it is "no seats changed hands last time". This is insufficient to convince me that there's a problem with the current map. Based on that, it's a big leap for me to conclude that the system to draw the map has pressing problems. --scotsman \_ Okay, so you like the proposed rules but want to remove people from the process? I'd agree with that, though I'd want the algorithm and implementation public and reviewable. Short of that, the rules for choosing the judges are pretty strict and I see this as a reasonable solution. -emarkp \_ The idea of appointing three formerly partisan judges by random lot sounds like an unnecessarily complication. Propose a solution, not a method for designing a solution that's more complicated and just as open to corruption as the current one. --erikred \_ I'm voting for it. It's clearly better than what we have now. In fact I'm voting for all of 74-77. The arguments above against it don't mean anything to me. Prop 77 is easily understood and likely to have reasonable results. Anything to light a bit more fire under politician asses. \_ Even though it comes from Ah-nold "The Groper" Schwarzenegger, I was for it a few months ago and I'm still for it. -moderate/liberal \_ If Judge Wapner is against it, then so am I! \_ those ads actually cemented my position in favor... \- so what is the rationale for it being all judges rather than say statisticians or political scientists or other technical people. what is the "objective function" the implementors will be given? \_ The whole job of a judge is to be as fair as possible. \- gee the whole job of a mathematician is truth. |
| 11/23 |
| 2005/10/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40210 Activity:low |
10/20 Re: the redistricting proposition. Prop 77.
It's not a partial, non-biased redistricting. It'll decrease
the amount of seats urban areas get, while increasing rural
representation. Think districting based on land covered, rather
than population. This essentially means it will increase R
representatives and decrease D representatives. Arnold sends
another wolf in sheeps' wool.
http://csua.org/u/dsc (blog)
OTOH, he later mentions a Cal study showing no apparent political
bias effects to 77, but the study isn't released. (scroll up) The
Trib article he quotes mentions prof. Bruce Cain. Anyone know of
him? His UCB bio shows he's very pro-redistricting.
\_ why are they always pushing a magical retired panel of judges
somewhere to plan redistricting? what makes them so special?
also the redistricting would be based on 5 year old census
data. there's a reason redistricting usually happens
only immediately after each 10 year census, the data is considered
to be the most accurate at that time. - danh
\_ Also, first time around, the new plan goes into effect before
we get to vote on it. bull shite. --scotsman
\_ Almost anything would have to better than the current system
where the legislature chooses their voters, rather than the
other way around. Just because DeLay jerrymandered Texas,
doesn't mean the Democrats should do the same to CA. -ausman
\_ I have yet to see evidence that the current map is
gerrimandered. In the BA, at least, the maps pretty much run
along county or city grouping lines. I don't think people
voting their representatives back in necessarily means
the game is rigged. --scotsman
\_ It is definitely gerrymandered. I don't know about the
Bay Area, but it is apparent in LA. How it happened:
http://tinyurl.com/8vae2 |
| 2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40195 Activity:moderate |
10/19 Is there an "unbiased" site that gives the straight dope about what
each proposition is really about, and what the pros and cons are?
\_ It's the GOVERNATOR! What do you expect? More tax cuts for the
corporation and the people who have made it. That is the basic
platform of the conservatives.
\_ wait, you're actually going to vote on those?
\_ The voter pamphlet you get from the state will have the pro/con
from biased sources and the 'neutral' description from the state.
And why wouldn't someone vote on them?
\_ the voter pamphlet only has so much space and my past experience
with it has been somewhat unsatisfactory.
\_ Just vote no on 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 and yes on 79 and 80 if you
are a lefty and do the reverse if you are a righty. I'd personally
vote no on all of them because I think they all muck around with
things that we don't fully understand, but since nobody listens
to anybody anymore just tow the party line.
\_ toe
\_ Why would redistricting have anything to do with left or right?
\_ Ahnud says vote yes on 73-78 and no on 79, 80. The reality is
it makes no difference how you vote, b/c if everyone votes no
the law doesn't get passed but if everyone votes yes, the law
will be struck down by the courts.
\_ I thought we paid the legislature to legislate.
\_ no, the various lobbies and special interest groups pay the
legislators to legislate. We just occasionally vote them in
or out.
\_ I advocate voting against all propositions on principle, regardless
of issue. The system sucks and should be done away with.
</flamebait>
\_ pretty much... check out this prop that passed:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/63
It's bluntly stupid. I guess you can pass anything as long as
it targets a rich enough tax bracket.
oh and that smartvoter site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop
\_ Why do you love rich people john? I don't mind having
Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton's cousins pay a bit
more for basic infrastructures to help out the rest.
At any rate the rich bourgeois already own vast amounts
of land in metropolitan areas and they have been, are, and
will continue to gobble up empty, underutilized suburbian
vacation homes. They also run and control mega apartment
complexes in hot spots of metro cities and artificially
inflate land values (Irvine) which really screw up the rest
of us working class prolitariats. -fuck capitalism
oh and that smartvoter site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop
(oh and that http://smartvoter.org site might help the OP:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/63 )
\_ i'm not John, don't interrupt, and you = bluntly stupid
\_ Because I'm a fat bloated plutocrat bastard tool of the
running dog imperialists. Because I hate hippie long-
hairs and think all the colored folks should limit their
career aspirations to serving me and Muffy drinks at the
country club. Because I like the idea of a Metropolis-
like tribe of underclass laborers being squashed under my
mighty oppressive boot. Excuse me? -John
\_ Vote Yes on 77. Redistricting in an impartial way is the key to
making districts more competitive, which should reduce the number
amount of extremism, left or right, in the legislature. ok tks -!psb
making districts more competitive, which should reduce the amount
of extremism, left or right, in the legislature. ok tks -!psb
\_ As above, show me that it's not impartial now, and you might
change my mind on 77. Oh, and btw, it's "ok thx" |
| 2005/9/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39569 Activity:nil |
9/8 "People who do not want to play The Blame Game....
are to blame." - last night's daily show.
\_ i think it's the 'meet the f**ckers' link
http://tinyurl.com/9c3ko
http://tinyurl.com/9c3ko - danh
\_ That was really good, thanks!
\_ are you talking about Iraq and its role in 9/11 attack? |
| 2005/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39559 Activity:nil |
9/7 http://csua.org/u/db1 (governor.ca.gov) "[Schwarzenegger] believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners. ... The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. ... Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto AB 849." -Margita Thompson, Press Secretary for Ahnold [fyi, I clipped out a couple sentences for brevity, but the "unconstitutional" part is the public voting no-gay-marriage and the legislature revoking it -- also keep in mind no-gay-marriage may also be unconstitutional. Not sure in both cases.] \_ More to the point: Wow. It's the governor's job to determine what's unconstitutional...OK. --scotsman \_ few points: 1. afaik it is not specified in either the ca state or or fed constitution that the executive cannot make a determination re constitutionality 2. the executive (state and fed) is a co-equal branch of gov w/ the legislature and the cts 3. it is a judicial decree (marbury v madison) that says that the scotus is the final arbiter re con- situtionality (fed). 4. one ought to be free to wonder why a co-equal br- anch, the executive, ought to accept this. \_ What I meant was, _if_ he really really for true wanted to sign this, then he should have signed it, and let the courts do their job. He's trying, lamely, to have it both ways. "My hands are tied, dear cahlifohniahns." BTW, mr. black, ordering your pointless points as bullets don't make you make any more sense. \_ The statement made above implied that the governor could not to determine whether a particular act was constitutional. My point is that there is no basis for this assertion. Neither the federal nor state constitutions preclude the executive from making determinations re constitutionality of legislative acts. At least on the federal level the ONLY authority for the supremacy of the judiciary over the executive re constitutional interpretation comes from the judiciary (see marbury). The question remains, WHY should the executive branch, which is co-eqaul w/ the judiciary and not precluded from constitutional interpretation, defer on these questions? BTW, Who is mr black? \_ Um.. Why not post a URL? \_ i first got the text from reg-required <DEAD>sjmercury.com<DEAD> |
| 2005/9/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39543 Activity:nil |
9/7 Express your opinion on gender-neutral marriage to Ahnold:
The gender-neutral marriage bill in CA just made it through the
legislature intact and is now heading to the Governor.
It's bill AB 849. If enough people call to support it, hopefully
we can get it to go through.
(If you oppose it, well, you can call, too, to express your opinion.
Mine, obviously is in favor of passage.)
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
It's easy to voice support through the voicemail system -
the buttons in order to show support are 2 - 1 - 1.
(and if you want to oppose it, the options would be 2 - 1
- 2. So don't go flaming me for posting one-sided info)
You can also use the form at http://www.govmail.ca.gov (be
sure to use the dropdown to choose AB849 and click the
SUPPORTING (or opposing, if you must) button before you
submit the form.
\_ Come on, just call it gay marriage -moderate/liberal
\_ there is quite the busy signal on that number, but that's
what the Governator's phone system calls it. --Jon
\_ Arnold has to hate this bill. He's probably pro-gay marriage,
but I doubt he wants to alienate a chunk of his base by signing
it. Not to meantion, it's over ruling a proposition. (Arnie
loves the props) Plus he's got other things he's far more
worried about. I don't doubt that he will sign or veto the bill
entirely based on this poll.
\_ don't forget pissing off Maria who 100% knows what the future is
going to be (anti-gay-marriage laws are unconstitutional)
\_ Which constitution (state or fed)?
If the answer is state - note that the state constitution
will probably be amended in almost every state.
If the answer is federal - I'd like to hear your
constitutional argument.
\_ The citizens of California already overwhelming expressed their
opinion in Proposition 22. You would think the left would have
learned their lessons in 2004.
\_ We'll see which one is ruled unconstitutional, then.
And, funny thing, the left doesn't look at preventing
people from their due civil rights as a lesson. |
| 2005/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39534 Activity:nil |
9/6 Gay marriage bill passed by California legislature with minimum
required votes, goes to Ahnold
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1478960/posts
\_ Judicial activism! Think of the children!!1!1 Oh wait...
\_ Feel the love.
\_ Passed under cover of Katrina, ignoring Prop 22, etc.
\_ Make up your mind -- do you want it made legal by activist
judges or activist legislatures?
\_ Neither. |
| 2005/9/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39492 Activity:nil |
9/4 New Orleans PD shoots dead six Army contractors walking across
bridge with guns
- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477299/posts
Come read the thread before it was removed by http://freerepublic.com staff:
- http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~jctwu/posts.htm
Read new freshened thread which replaced it:
- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1477350/posts
\_ Must have been part of the "insurgency":
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.php
\_ I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Freepers make my head hurt.
\_ New news: "Army Corps of Engineers says its contractors were not
killed by police, but gunmen who fired at them were killed."
Also, that thread that got removed got relisted. Weird. -op
\_ Awesome, they relisted racist trash!
\_ CBC news says something nearly totally different:
http://csua.org/u/d8t
\_ Yes, just like what it says under "New news: ...". |
| 2005/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39288 Activity:nil |
8/25 The Governator isn't all bad, he's for solar power:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/million_solar_r.php
\_ A related article someone posted two months ago:
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/11790776.htm
\_ Go Governator! |
| 2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:39253 Activity:very high |
8/24 We should go back through the motd archives and dig up all the
arguments that Ah-nold was going to be above corruption:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050824/ts_latimes/nonprofitscloakdonorstogovernor
\_ Shrug. I voted for Ah-nold because (a) Davis deserved punishment,
and (b) his wife spoke up for him after people pointed out he was
a groper.
I didn't vote for him because I thought he would be a great
governor, or do a better job than Davis.
I /am/ going to vote him out next election, because purpose (a) has
already been served.
\_ What, people don't like Arnold, I didn't vote for him and I think
he has done WAY better than any reasonable expection. -phuqm
\_ I still have not heard anyone say why Davis 'deserved punishment'
\_ He was an idiot who sold the state out to his pet
campaign donors, like Edison. He sat on his hands and
\_ntm Ellison
did nothing as the power crises escalated.
\_ Davis didn't sign deregualation.. He pushed for long
term contracts to staunch the bleeding. Then when the
causes became more clear he went to court to try and get
those contracts renegotiated.
\_ I thought selling the state out was done by Pete Wilson
and the legislature BEFORE Davis became governor.
\_ Because he allowed car registration fees to go back to what
they were before the brief CA tax surplus years.
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=10325
See second response. Eh, to answer your question, it was
mainly the hugeness of the budget deficit combined with the
hiding of it until the last moment. Energy brokers and
special interests too, as someone else wrote.
\_ CA government is fucked anyway. Governors can't fix it.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16350
\_ I voted for McClintock becuase Arnold was a scumbag groper and
wasn't really conservative. I'm disappointed that he's been taking
money in hand over fist considering his promises. He hasn't gotten
my vote and won't in the foreseeable future.
\_ Did anyone on the motd actually make that argument? On the
other hand, if Arnold can get that Gerrymandering law passd,
he's my hero.
\_ He wouldn't be my hero, per se, but it would be a really great
thing if that were passed, I agree.
\_ How do you figure?
\_ I went with this editorial
http://csua.org/u/d58 (Wash Post)
\_ An editorial which presumes corruption. What corruption
can you point to in the process? The "no seats changed
hands" argument doesn't hold water without evidence
\_ "replace the state's corrupt system for drawing state
and federal legislative districts with a cleaner one
in which a panel of retired judges -- rather than
the very politicians who have to run for office --
would draw lines without regard for protecting
incumbents"
I believe they're saying they just don't like
politicians doing the districting, even if they were
benevolent politicians. You could say we have a
system that invites corruption, if it wasn't already
present.
\_ Can anyone point to a arguments _against_ this?
\_ If it didn't call for an immediate redistricting, I MIGHT
support it. If it were to pass, whatever plan they decided
on would take effect without voter approval for the 2006
elections. Ludicrous.
\_ What's ludicrous is Republicans openly being against it
because it might be unfavorable to them right now. Way
to think about justice and the future there boys. Anyone
making that kind of comment publically should be
automatically blacklisted for reelection.
\_ What kind of comment?
\_ Even given that it might take effect immediately, I
think that's better than the situation we have now.
\_ Then you're an idiot.
\_ Cram it with walnuts, ugly. Our legislature is
dismal. And our lines have been drawn such that in
the last election not a single seat changed parties.
We have a horribly unresponsive and unrepresentative
democracy. I'm willing to put up with a lot to make
it more responsive and representative.
\_ This is as foolish as the more idiotic arguments
for term limits. Show me where on the map they
drew broken, unreasonable lines. For comparison
look at TX's current map. If you want a more
responsive democracy, find some way to get the
voters to actually get interested.
\_ Are you asking if there is anyone who is pro-gerrymandering?
\_ Anyone who believes unelected judges are slimier than
elected officials. I think only elected officials believe
this and then never with a straight face.
\_ Tom DeLay is pro-gerrymandering. At least when it creates
more GOP seats.
\_ The whole gerrymandering debate is overblown; in the
states which have judges draw up the districts, no
seats changed hands in the 2004 elections. It just won't
\_ Um, the 2000 map was judge-drawn, the 2003 map was
Republican-drawn. R's gained from their own map.
make that much difference. -tom
\_ In TX, R's gained 6 seats from a judge-drawn map
\_ No, you have it backwards. When they went from
a judge drawn map, to the DeLay Gerrymandered one,
they gained six seats:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040106-115653-7008r.htm
http://csua.org/u/d56 (Wash Times)
\_ "We will look at an unaccountable, arrogant,
out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose
at Congress and the president...The time will
come for the men responsible for this to answer
for their behavior." T. Delay
\_ Oop. You're right. My brain is tired.
\_ BTW, has anyone done research on algorithmic ways of
redistricting that involve as little human input as
possible?
\_ Consider the source, the LA-Times hates Arnold and has been, and
continues on a quest to make him look bad and keep him
out of office. -ax
\_ Fuck Arnold and his quest to reduce the quality of life
in California via tax reduction, infrastructure quality
reduction, and Republicanism. |
| 2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39080 Activity:moderate |
8/10 Stories from a wounded Army soldier
http://csua.org/u/czk (Wash Post)
http://freerepublic.com comments on the end of the story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460559/posts
\_ Freepers' version of respect for veterans "Wonder if this moron is
gay..sounds like what a queer would do." Why do freepers hate
America?
\_ "There is only room for one party in America and you liberals
better get used to it."
\_ So, is that an actual quote, or are you just making them
up again?
\_ http://csua.com/?entry=38572
\_ Oh, you're quoting liberal pretending to be a
conservative. That's so much better.
\_ Says you. That post was in earnest.
\_ Oh, come ON.
\_ Do you have evidence of who posted it?
Anyway, I could find you similar quotes
on any given conservative comment board
in two minutes.
\_ I don't require evidence of who posted
a troll to know it's a troll.
Especially one that blatant. I don't
Especially one that blantant. I don't
doubt that you could find something
similar on freerepublic or something.
I can find plenty of wacky left-wing
I can find pleanty of wacky left-wing
quotes on left-leaning boards too.
Anyway, please find one, at least then
you'd be using a real quote from a
real wing-nut, and not just someone
pretending to be a wing-nut.
\_ I am pretty sure it was jblack. He
posted a bunch of similar stuff that
day, then deleted anyone who disagreed
with him, then posted that. But it is
the motd, so there is no proof.
\_ Well, yeah. In this case, I
don't think it was jblack.
However, I can't say with
complete confidence that jblack
wouldn't post something like
that.
\_ This is egregious even for FR standards--the comments make me sick.
I wonder how many of the posters there are/were in the army. -John |
| 2005/7/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38715 Activity:kinda low |
7/20 Hi guys. Adding to emarkp's comments ... according to Wikipedia,
Rehnquist is a strict constructionist, and Scalia and Thomas are
originalists (textualists). Let's say California enacted a law saying
"Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or
recognized in the state of California." Would that be constitutional
according to these three judges? Is there an amendment which makes
this decision easy?
\_ Uhm, the text of all the amendments is available on the net. They
aren't a national secret or anything. Is this some bizarre troll
attempt?
\_ No, I read all the amendments prior to posting -op
\_ Rehnquist is more of a "pragmatic conservative" as opposed to a
strict conservative; he's one of those that's less concerned
with what the constitution precisely says and more concerned with
making the supreme court and government work efficiently and smoothly.
making the supreme court and government work efficiently and
smoothly.
\_ I hadn't seen the term "originalists" before. But I'd say that when
pretty much all marriage laws were enacted, that law wouldn't be
necessary. Checking my OED, the word "marriage" means "the union
between husband and wife". -emarkp
\_ I hadn't seen it either. But when a http://freerepublic.com poll
from last week came out with 70-80% of voters supporting an
Originalist SCOTUS nominee, that was interesting.
Scalia is supposed to be the representative originalist
(textualist). -op
\_ Then maybe I'm wrong in saying I align with "strict
constructionists" because I see Scalia as a model jurist.
I'll take a look at the wikipedia article. -emarkp
[Postscript: I guess I'm an "originalist" according to the
wikipedia article.]
\_ Assuming you are not a troll the 14th amd makes it pretty clear
that this is unconstitutional - "No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States."
\_ Hi guys, op here ... Considering what you've written already,
would the state law "Only marriage between a man and a woman is
valid or recognized in the state of California" be constitutional
or not (for a strict constructionist and originalist)? We're
_assuming_ the law does not violate the state Constitution, and
we're now employing the Supreme Court check.
\_ I think for an originalist it would be seen as redundant because
that's what marriage means. -emarkp
\_ But the word "marriage" (of people in matrimony) isn't in
the Constitution (including amendments), is it?
Anyway, the question was whether a strict constructionist
or originalist would see such a state law as unconstitional
or not.
\_ Okay, as a newly identified originalist I'd see it as
constitutional. -emarkp
\_ This is a far more interesting question b/c it goes to the
heart of equal protection. A possible interpretation under
the original purpose of the 14th amd (prevent discrimination
based on race) would be that the statute does not violate
the constitution b/c it does not deprive any person of equal
protection under the law - ie any man can marry any woman
protection under the law - ie any many can marry any woman
and visa versa.
An alternate view is that equal protection was always intended
to protect people even if they made unpopular choices (say
they chose to be a Jew/Quaker instead of a Protestant), thus
discrimination based on the gender of the person you wish to
marry would be unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure that an "originalist" would go w/ the 1st view
but the 2d could work as well.
\_ "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
Marriage is, at its heart, a contract between two adults.
Such a law, ultimately, says that only a man and a woman make
this contract. See Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S.
549, 567 , 570 (1911)
\_ "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means
not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere
physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but
the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to
be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free
to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he
will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue
any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter
into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential
to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes
above mentioned." 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897)
\_ Okay, person posting judgements from 1911 and 1897, what do
you think strict constructionists and originalists would
write as an opinion? -op
\_ While this court has not attempted to define with exactness
the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much
consideration and some of the included things have been
definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely
freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the
individual to contract, to engage in any of the common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally
to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
262 U.S. 390 (1923) |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38544 Activity:low |
7/11 link:tinyurl.com/8wbn2 (journalnow.com, Bloomberg News) The US gov will report this week that rising tax revenue is shrinking this year's budget deficit, possibly by as much as 90 billion, giving Bush a shot at fulfilling his deficit reduction promise 3 years early. Also, California's economy is improving: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050708/85505.html?.v=1 If things do indeed improve in the next few years, will you guys still say bad things about Bush? \_ He promised to cut it in HALF. $90 billion isn't close to half of $400 billion. For that matter, he CREATED the problem in the first place by being the first president EVER to push tax cuts in a time of war. So to answer your question: yes. A minor reduction in problems he created won't validate him for me. \_ Does your quoted $400 billion include the spending in Iraq/Afgh? The added debt during Bush's terms is in the ballpark of $2.1 trillion. There was a join study including the Heritage Found. that found that on our current track, the only thing the gvmt will be able to afford by 2040 is financing our debt. \_ I believe it was stated in the promise that the deficit will be halved by half by the END of his second term, not in the 2004/2005 fiscal year. \_ Does "halved by half" mean 25% reduction? \_ Wishful thinking aside, does 2004/2005 mean the end of W's 2nd term? \_ The only reason tax revenue is rising is because more and more people are getting hit with AMT problems. \_ Do you have data to back that up? \_ Racking up a gigantic deficit and then cutting *that* in half isn't quite that impressive, which is why promising to cut the deficit in half seems like a kind of vague goal. deficit in half seems like a king of vague achievement. |
| 2005/7/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38403 Activity:kinda low |
7/3 Does anyone know if http://freerepublic.com censors posts? \_ Yes. \_ Yes, plus they turn off your account. \_ Yes, for anything that doesn't toe the party line. And they are blazingly fast, it will happen in seconds. Gestapo efficiency. \_ Can we have a moratorium on Nazi references? \_ Fuck you, goebbels \_ Can we have a moratorium on hypersensitivity? \_ Can we have a moratorium on hyperthreading? |
| 2005/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:38014 Activity:high |
6/8 [ Re-posted after deletion by motd censor. It's not even 24 hours
old fer chrissakes - originally from 6/7 ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4616043.stm
Taiwan assembly passes changes: Future amendments will have to be
decided by referendums, which means the Assembly has effectively
voted for its own abolition.
But, later on, it says this:
However, analysts point out that the threshold for passing amendments
- 50% of the entire electorate, not just those who turn out to vote
- is very high, making it difficult to pass any controversial changes.
Here, it says, typical turnout is around 60%... http://csua.org/u/ca0
That means, in the future, for any amendments to pass, 82% of voters
need to approve, unless turnout is abnormally high.
\_ The failed assassination attempt on Ah Bian proves that Four
Eyes can't shoot.
\_ Yes, DPP has set up Taiwan for Buku-Bucks and big time detente.
Politically they're capitalizing on the KMT's pro-China visits.
You know how GOP folks complain about Democrats co-opting their
goals and vice versa? Same thing.
\_ Can you explain, elaborate, and/or provide url's? How does this
generate cash(Beacoup Bucks?). How does this represent the DPP
co-opting KMT's goals? As far as I understand, this just
makes it practically impossible to pass any kind of amendment.
Does it also make it impossible to pass other legislation? -op
\_ http://csua.org/u/cal (Post)
It makes it harder to pass changes to the Constitution, such
as: Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country, separate
from China (PRC).
\_ That's what it sounds like... then why did the DPP do it?
I thought their platform was independence. This legis-
lation basically cements the current status quo forever:
no independence, no merger, no changes, period. I know
that the KMT wanted this, in fact, this was part of their
election platform, but I thought the DPP ran on change.
\_ They saw a dead-end following a hard-line approach.
\_ it's more than that. DPP want to do it mainly because
this "reform" will squash smaller party, Taiwan
Solidarity Union," headed by Li Deng Hui. the TSU
has becoming more of a threat to DPP than an ally.
Further, you would argue that DPP gained a small
victory because in the past, changing the soverign
territory (such as remove the Chinese mainland)
impossible. With new rule, it's highly improbable, but
not impossible.
\_ Is there any significant difference left in between
the two main parties, then? As far as I understood
the recent elections, the biggest difference was
their stance vis-a-vis re-unification/independence.
Now that issue is no longer on the table, so what's
left? I guess this also pretty much resolves the
entire reunification/independence debate.
\_ in my eye, the differences is still there.
KMT still calls for eventual unification with
the mainland, under the condition that China
would become richer and more democratic.
DPP still want to be independent. If it requires
USA to nuke China off face of the earth, then
they will do everything they can to drag USA
into it.
The blurr you see is more to do with the fact
that lousy economy has made people to think
"may be getting a job is better than pursuit
my own identity;" And the fact that DPP was
ran on a "reform" platform... and it turned out
while KMT was corrupt, it left technocrats to
run most of its government / economic policies;
DPP is more blatently corrupted, and it has
essentially destroyed the civil servant
machines. Major government post are fill by
those who are loyal to DPP or made significant
contribution to the campaign. Political
correctness overrides any economical / political
consideration. This is why under DPP rule,
TW went from a meager 1% fiscal deficit to
30+% deficit today. -live in TW now.
\_ thanks for all the replies. What party, if
any, do you support? -op
\_ i am completely disillusioned with
democracy for Chinese in general now.
I prefer rapid unification with some
degree of self-goverance for three reasons:
1. so TW can jump onto the Chinese economic
bandwagon. People in taiwan can make most
differences, AND benefit most from China's
boom.
2. DPP build its power based upon fueling
racial tensions. Want to get rid of that
before this racial tension turned into
sectarian violence
3. it is only way to remove this potential
flash point which may cost hundreds of
millions of Chinese lives... i.e.
full confrontation with United States.
- denizen of Chinese Republic.
\_ I'm not Chinese, and I know very
little about this. However if I were
Taiwanese, I think I would be very
nervous about reunification until
China makes some democratic reforms
and builds up a better track record.
Can't argue with 3 though.
\_ I agree with you.
Not many people in Taiwan is in
a hurry to "re-unite" with PRC.
However, it is important to
get a dialogue going, and not
constantly provoke PRC (mostly
by DPP, etc. for domestic
political consumption). It would
also be nice to reach some form of
understanding with PRC on some
guidelines, necessary
conditions, etc. for co-existence
and possible eventual unification,
while Taiwan still has the
political, economic, and military
capital to do so, cause unless
you think PRC will suddenly
collapse, time is on PRC's side,
unfortunately. Very few in
Taiwan are willing to pay the
price for dejure independence.
The best thing to do is to
maintain defacto independence,
not unnecessariy provoke PRC,
set guidelines and conditions
on what PRC needs to do before
unification can be considered,
and observe and bid time. The
problem is everytime someone
tries to do that, the more
extreme TI supporters will
start yelling "traitors",
"sellouts", and fan emotions and
fears.
\_ I concur.
\_ Interesting. These Taiwanese
conservatives sound just like
the NeoRepublicans of America.
\_ Huh? What do you think
then?
\_ DPP, because they don't buy votes and
they're not full of wackos who think Chen
shot himself.
\_ I don't know whether he shot himself
or not, but I wouldn't call people
who think so wackos cause the whole
incident and how it was handled do
smell fishy.
\_ ^wackos^Wackjobs
DPP's biggest problem is it doesn't know
how to handle corruption among its own.
\_ wacko's version of assassination:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5911.htm
\_ Wackjob.
If Chen really wanted to stage the shooting, don't you think
he would have done a lot better job acting? Not, "Oh,
what's this blood on my shirt?" but "Shit, what the fuck was
that that just blew into my stomach?!"
\_ huh? the wikipedia article pretty much supports
the claim that the whole thing smells fishy.
\_ Okay, I took out the URL and gave you the reason why
they're all wackjobs.
\_ otoh, it could just be ah bian being his usual
self: a clown and a bad actor
sorry, but I don't buy your "he couldn't be so
dumb" defense.
\_ Wackjob. Go home. Think about it.
\_ wikipedia article reposted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-19_shooting_incident
\_ what is the big deal? we got a president who staged an
assassination; his wife made millions in stock markets, put
his house servant on government payroll, sued and searched
opposition newspapers and magazines, and allow cronies to escape
island after embazzled millions, flare racial tentions for his
political gain and completely ignore the
Consititution since the it states One-China policy... are you
trying to say this "reform" is significant in some way?
\_ Oh gawd, you're still on the assassination theory?
\_ don't know about that, but ah bian's fat belly
(supposedly scratched by the bullet) is certainly
world famous now.
\_ not to mention the suspect they "caught" died
one year ago. the will which suppose to proof
he was the assassint was burnt... and that is the
official end to this assassination... you don't call
this a cover up?
\_ ^cover up^conspiracy theory
\_ url for these accusations?
\_ google is your friend. |
| 2005/4/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:37409 Activity:nil |
4/28 Ah-nold's approval ratings have been termimated.
http://csua.org/u/bwt (sacbee.com)
\_ user/password: bugmenot/bugmenot
\_ more on Arnie: http://csua.org/u/bww (washingtonmonthly)
\_ Like it matters. It didn't matter for Bush. Anyway, who are
they going to get to run against Ah-nold?
\_ Rob Reiner has stated his interest. I for one welcome our new
meathead governor. |
| 2005/4/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37282 Activity:nil |
4/20 http://csua.org/u/brv LA Times editorial staff says Bolton should voluntarily withdraw from consideration for UN ambassadorship - saving Dubya the embarrassment of yanking him - and instead take an ambassadorship to France. \_ oh, they'll love him in France \_ Interesting, but I thought he had every vote he needs thanks to a Rep senator who is, by his own admission, voting against the wishes of his consituency. Then again, that was yesterday morning. \_ Ooh, you missed a good one. Voinovich (of all people) threw in a monkey wrench. They put off the committee vote for 3 weeks or something. But it doesn't look good for bolton. \_ Go to http://freerepublic.com, do a search for Voinovich, and guess how fast this guy's going to buckle. |
| 2005/3/10 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36608 Activity:high |
Blogger Sheds No Tears For Rather
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359777/posts
\_ IP address replaced with hostname.
\_ oh, we all know it's http://freerepublic.com anyway by now, it's ok |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:36524 Activity:high |
3/4 FYI for any other PEs here, as of July 1st, should the Gubernator get
his way, the Professional Board is being folded into a single "Dept
of Commercial Licensing". The implication is that, after 7/1, any
complaints against your license will be processed by the same people
who process complaints against hairdressers rather than a council of
engineers. Google California AB 1024. -- ulysses
\_ As much as I dislike Ah-nold, I'm inclined to agree with him on
the consolidation of the state governing boards. A lot of these
board positions are just sinecures for retired politicians.
\_ The BPELS has 13 seats and one Executive Officer. 6 of those
seats and the executive officer are PEs with the remaining 7 being
"public". You decide.
"public". You decide. For comparison the CA Bar Ass'n Board is
6 "public" out of a 23 member board. Hey, you don't care about
who licenses the person who designed your roads, bridges,
waterways, BART tracks, etc etc vs who licensed you real estate
agent or your stylist, well, that's the will of the public at
work, I guess.
\_ Indeed. Crap like this is EXACTLY why bureaucracies end up
sucking. "Ooh, we can save money!" while the world falls
apart around you.
\_ What's a PA seat vs a public seat?
\_ PE = Professional Engineer.
\_ I know a woman who put herself through Berkeley EECS as a
hairdresser who may very well be reading this. Why don't you
belittle someone else?
\_ As someone who frequents the more expensive stylists and bemoans
the lack of decent cuts this side of the Bay Bridge, I probably
have more respect for stylists than you do (probably). Still, my
guy Christopher out in South Beach is not likely to create
something within his profession that could destroy property or
lives...or to get into a more real scenario in my case, make
toilets run backwards
-- ulysses |
| 2005/1/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35917 Activity:moderate |
1/26 Why do you guys like to post politics on motd? What does motd have
that http://freerepublic.com, http://cnn.com discussions, http://fox.com groups,
Air America forums, etc don't have? I'm just trying to understand
the motivations, thanks.
\_ There's one person (it's all it takes) who keeps posting
\_ Don't be rediculous. There must be a dozen or more people in
this forum that post political stuff.
this shit up here. We've asked him/her a number of times
on what the motivation was, response was some irrational
belief that they're making a difference, etc. etc. The one
poster puts up the most provactive unfounded bullshit and you
get the avalanche effect. I think a number of people have
started just screening and deleting this shit already.
Anyway, it was really bad after the election, I think some
guy was posting threats to kill the president, etc., stuff
that would no doubt have gotten us into hot water. -williamc
\_ You're part of the problem, Mr. Deport-Liberals-to-Canada.
\_ What makes you think it is only one person?
\_ When you're a nutjob, it's better to not have to sign your
posts. Trolls from nutjobs stop working once people realize
who they're dealing with. -tom
\_ Soda has a pretty busy nutjob contingent--sometimes I'm
\_ Surprised? Impressed? Enraged? Aroused? What?!? The
suspese is killin' me here!! -mice
\_ My mission is to make yourself interesting. If I _told_
you what I am, it wouldn't be very suspeseful, would it?
\_ NOOOOO! HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!1! WHY THIS
ALWAYS HAPPEN TO MEEEEEEEE????!?!!?
by how many simultaneous freeper troll threads they can keep
going. -John
\_ Much higher signal to noise ratio.
\_ As above, but also you get rational people from both sides.
\_ The format of the motd suits itself to political trolls. It's
anonymous, and the threads are compact with replies following a
natural tree-like structure. Certain online forum software can
achieve a similar effect, but most of them don't, and often
crack down on political trolls. Political trolls should really
have their own motd file but that would defeat the purpose...
trolls need a large lake in which to cast. |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35879 Activity:high |
1/20 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html What happened to the First Amendment? We will fight back and we will not rest until we get our messages across on every single newspaper ads, magazine ads, and commercials. \_ I know this is a troll, but advertising is not free speech. \_ Well, not quite. If Rolling Stone ran the ad, and the state banned the issue, that would be a violation of free speech/press. In contrast, Rolling Stone refusing to run the ad is not a violation. If I posted logical, persuasive anti-freeper statements on http://FreeRepublic.com and they were all wiped by admins, that would not technically be a violation of the 1st Amendment. \_ Plus, your account would be shut off. \_ Still, it's always kinda funny to see the shoe on the other foot. |
| 2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:35634 Activity:very high |
1/10 John Fund explains some of what happened in Washington's recent
race for governor.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006139
\_ Restored.
\_ He omits that Rossi won the first two machine counts and
only after a hand recount only in overwhelmingly Dem.
King County did Gregoire come out ahead. The Dems. have
refined their election stealing skills since 2000.
\_ Source? Everything I've read indicated that the dem led
in all the recounts, which was why the repub. wanted a
"re-vote"
\_ Are you kidding? I've never read anything like that.
http://csua.org/u/anl (5th paragraph)
Also just search on http://news.google.com.
\_ Seriously, where did you hear this?
\_ I suspect he just mis-read the articles. Since they
usually just use the names of the canidates, it could
be easy to mix up.
\_ They recounted the whole state. Pretty funny to watch
the Republicans whine when the shoe is on the other foot.
Want some cheese with that whine?
\_ And pretty funny to see the Dems who were all worked up
about making sure everyone got their vote be suddenly
silent in the face of ACTUAL fraud.
\_ You mean like all the Florida fraud in 2000? Admit it,
you are just a big fat hypocrite.
\_ Honestly, I was out of the country during that
time, and I completely missed the whole 2000
controversy. I don't know how that makes me a
hypocrite, but you're welcome to try to come up
with something. -jrleek
\_ I read the full report about FL. There was absolutely
zero evidence of fraud.
\_ You don't know how to read then:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
"After carefully and fully examining all the
evidence, the Commission found a strong
basis for concluding that violations of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
occurred in Florida."
\_ You don't know how to read the whole thing:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm
-emarkp
\_ Did you say "zero evidence of fraud" or not?
There is certainly plenty of evidence.
\_ Um, no there isn't. There's a lot of
handwaving, but no evidence. -emarkp
\_ Wow. You know how to present the
dissenting opinion and claiming it's
fact. I think I remember you posting
the same link before. From now on,
I'm going to live life according to
the body of law made up by Clarence
Thomas's dissents.
\_ I see you haven't read the dissent.
Show me in the conclusions what the
evidence was then. -emarkp
\_ There are none so blind as he
who will not see. It is right
there in front of your face.
"It is impossible to determine the total
number of voters turned away from the
polls or deprived of their right to vote.
It is clear that the 2000 presidential
election generated a large number of
complaints about voting irregularities in
Florida. The Florida attorney general?s
office alone received more than 3,600
allegations 2,600 complaints and 1,000 letters"
Here is a whole bunch more
evidence you can deny ever
seeing:
http://csua.org/u/anq
\_ Error 404
\_ Facts are such inconvenient,
stubborn things.
\_ Yes, especially when made up.
-emarkp
\_ So your contention is that all
the people who claimed that
they were turned away and not
allowed to vote are lying?
\_ Hey assmonkies! Why don't
we let the politicians and
pundits shout at eachother
about who "committed fraud"?
Us techies should be sticking
to a single message: "voting
in America is innacurate."
It can be fixed with common
sense, better laws, technology
and hard work. Claiming that
the "other guy", whoever
he is, is at fault really
helps nothing. Both sides
did that for four years, and
in 2004 the voting was just
as broken. Sure, there was
a clear winner, since he won
by such a large margin, but
the system is still broken,
and shouting like
children/pundits helps
nothing.
\_ I don't know if John Fund is a Republican, but he his
pretty famous for being an expert on voter fraud. He's
pretty bi-partisan in that area. |
| 2005/1/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:35568 Activity:moderate |
1/6 Schwarzenegger proposes introducing democracy to California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/national/06arnold.html
Could the rest of the U.S. be next?
\_ As much as I agree with his proposals, I'm a little worried about
the appeal to legislation by direct democracy. We have a republic
for a reason--though I think the republic model is hurting right
now, and this may be the way to shock it back to being useful.
\_ What advantage does the republic model have? The only one I can
think of is that we don't need to spend millions of dollars
conducting statewide voting for each proposition that appears.
\_ Because the masses are too stupid to know what's best for the
state. The elected representatives are supposed to be
smarter and spend all their time figuring out this stuff
for us.
\_ If they're too stupid to know what's best for the state
they are too stupid to elect a smart representative.
\_ Or rather, they'll be so stupid that they'll be fooled
by smart representatives who don't do the public good.
\_ The crime in this article is painting redistricting as a purely
partisan issue. BS. Gerrymandering has to be fixed for the
health of the democracy. What party that "helps" in a given
state _should_ be irrelevent. I'm not sure if judges are the
best canidates, but it's certainly a step up from having the
legislators elect themselves. -jrleek
\_ I don't think they really portreyed it that way. I thought
they were more saying that politicans from both parties are
pretty much against it for obvious reasons, and that the
majority party is more against it, again for obvious reasons.
It seems to me that since the nytimes is pretty openly
democratic, that when they say that the democrats are the main
obstructionists, it's not really that partisan.
obstructionists, it's not really that partisan. This seems to
me like an issue where everyone of any political affiliation
should be on the same side except for the weasel politicians
of both parties who get a free ride by bullshit gerrymandering.
How many times in your life have you voted for a member of a
state assembly or for U.S. representative where the incumbent's
job was even remotely threatened? I never have, and I've lived
in quite a few places. That's not democracy.
\_ Agreed. It's all well and good for one side to say, hey, the
other side does it too, but it's reprehensible to let that logic
prevent meaningful reform. |
| 2004/11/23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:35037 Activity:high |
11/32 Does anyone here actually object to changing the constitution to allow
naturalized U.S. citizens to run for president? If so, why? It seems
to me that "I don't want Arnie to be president" is a pretty bad
reason.
\_ I am a neocon, I got signatures for Arnold, and I am naturalized
citizen (when I was 10), and I oppose changing it. I dread the
idea of a nut like Soros becoming President.
\_ it's not like we can't snipe any one we dont want..
\_ I don't object to the concept, I just don't trust that this isn't
just demagoguery. If it does happen, I'd like it to be a drawn
out process so that I can see other people's ideas about the pros
and cons of this amendment. I don't think it should be rushed
through for the next election.
\_ Well, I object to changing it just so we can get a popular
president. -republican
\_ Aren't conservatives supposed to fear change and revere the wisdom
of the founding fathers? Or is that only when it's convenient?
\_ I'm a liberal. I was basically posting this to challenge other
liberals who would be tempted to oppose this because of
Arnold rather than based on what's right. -op
\_ How about this: the position of President is so important that
there should be no question about the President's ultimate
national loyalty.
\_ Are you just trying to pose a possible reason or do you
actually believe that?
\_ There is a difference between constitutional change via the
amendment process and change via interpretation by the court
system.
\_ Naturalized for twenty years sounds almost reasonable. Perhaps
25 or 30 would be better, though.
\- i think age of naturalization is also a relevant factor.
there is a difference between 20yr old immigrant who has
live here for 45yrs and a 1 yr old immigrant who has lived
here for 45 yrs. --immigrant
\_ Good! I would specifically set the age of naturalization at
not later than 35 years and 4 months.
\_ A related question, does anyone also object the removal of this
restriction for senators? Why or why not? If a naturalized
foreigner is allowed to run for president, I don't see why they
shouldn't be allowed to run for a senate seats. |
| 2004/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34880 Activity:high |
11/13 Schwarzenegger to run ads to urge changing the constitution to
allow foreign born citizens to run for Presidency:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/arnolds.year.ap/index.html
\_ Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, sword in hand, destined to wear
the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow.
\_ Did you even read the article? He's not running them himself.
"Schwarzenegger, 57, has said he would consider running for
president if the Constitution allowed but has not pushed
for a constitutional change."
\_ I bet you think Bush/Cheney had nothing at all to do with
the Swift Boat ads.
\_ "She (Morgenthaler-Jones) is ...... major Schwarzenegger
campaign donor who is helping pay for the ads and created a
companion Web site." Would you consider Arnold running the ads
himself only if he makes a personal appearence in them? Oh,
even if he does appear, he's still not running them himself
because he's just hired as an actor. He is an actor afterall.
because he's just hired as an actor. He is an actor after all.
\_ Who cares, it's a good amendment. After all, who cares where
you were born. If you are a U.S. Citizen you should be able
to run for President. Dump the second class status of
naturalized citizens. After all, it's a well known fact
that naturalized citizens are better than native born
citizens in terms of work ethic and patriotism.
\_ I strongly agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately,
the Arnie factor is likely to make this a partisan issue
in the coming years, which it really shouldn't be.
\_ That's simply not true. Many first generation Americans
have mixed loyalties, hence the need to put the
Japanese in containment camps in WWII.
\_ 'need'? I think you're whipping up a major shit-storm. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34684 Activity:nil |
11/4 Arnold says Bay Area people are losers:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137644,00.html
\_ Dems', not the Bay Area. Get facts staight.
\_ no...he was referring to tax increase proposals. |
| 2004/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34539 Activity:nil |
11/2 Man, http://freerepublic.com is slow today! \_ My heart bleeds. |
| 2004/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34312 Activity:very high |
10/23 What does everyone think about prop. 69 (The DNA database one).
The arguments against in my Voter Info Guide sound kinda tin-foil
hat, but I can see where some problems might exist. For example,
does anyone know what kind of testing they're planning on using?
I doubt it would be full-sequencing, but the against argument
hints at that. (I think.)
\_ Probably RFLP typing. Easy, fast, done in a couple of hours
at most and doesn't require a high resolution gel. I can show
you how to do one in a half day.
\_ GATTACA.
\_ CUAAUGU.
\_ Think of it this way (disclaime--I don't like the idea):
-all legal structures with the potential to screw you (the private
citizen) either through a tyrannical government or through misuse
by someone unscrupulous start life as something relatively
harmless, sold to you as a measure to improve security ("so what
do you have to hide?") Such measures rarely stop at the first,
innocent step used to sell it to the public
-Governments almost never give up the ability to collect/maintain
potentially misused information on you, even when it's proven that
said information serves no purpose
-Arguments against such measures are almost invariably made to look
like crackpot straw men
-Even if strict auditability and oversight laws and structures
exist, do you trust them entirely?
Note that I'm not making any specific arguments against this, just
giving you something to generally think about. You may also note
that in European countries, where this has been done to some
degree, the only supporting successes are generally individual,
high profile cases (i.e. not a general reduction of crime) while I
can point to a number of pretty hard-core fuckups resulting from
DNA collection. -John
\_ As a data point, they used to say that UK's CCTV cameras would
only be shown to well-trained security types and they'd never
leak; now the "Real TV"-type shows are filled with tapes of
couples making out with a voiceover of cops making fun of them.
\_ Yes, we should be careful about this one. A DNA database of
this sort could be pretty bad if the wrong hands get to it.
Think insurance companies, think "no coverage," think corrupt
gov't lab workers who are willing to sell the information.
Hey, you have a tendency for CF? Well, the carrier is going
to drop you when your wife gets pregnant. Scary stuff.
Another reason why we should have state sponsored health
care like virtually ever other civilized country in the
world... -williamc
\_ Have you ever been in a National Health hospital in the UK?
It's like that scene in the insurgents' bunker in the 2nd
Terminator movie. -John
\_ I've been to County in LA. Same thing. -williamc
\_ Did a terminator bust in guns blazing?
\_ You're assuming the DNA finger printing method they use
would reveal this. If it's the same as the one they
used for crimes when I was in HS, (RFLP) it wouldn't.
Since so far all the counter arguments are based on it
being one of the (super expensive) full sequencing
methods, I was curious if anyone actually knew which type
they were using. The second poster also thinks it's
probably RFLP.
\_ Sorry, I was the second poster. RFLP is commonly used
to reveal information like this, i.e. if you are
a carrier for a certain disease like CF. Probably
you need to do a review on RFLP and how it can
be used as a marker for diseases. - williamc
\_ That's true if you break on certain sequences.
They don't use those sequences in crime work.
(normally)
\_ Maybe you could relate some of those horror stories. So far
the only ones I've heard have been "mixing up the DNA at the
lab" which, to me, seems pretty isomorphic to mixing up the
fingerprints at the office. (Although a little harder to
catch.)
\_ There was a case in .ch where a group representing
health insurers accidentally was given access to a DB
of HIV patients' DNA (including their identities)--and this
country has very strict privacy laws. There was also a
case in the UK of wrongful identification of a criminal
based on a DNAsample, even though the chances were
something like 1 in 2 million. They've since switched to
using more identifiers, but the point holds. These are
isolated flukes, but when they do occur, they give rise to
a similar problem to that of using PIN codes for credit
card auth instead of signatures--The technology's pretty
good, hence trusted, hence you have little-to-no chance of
non-repudiation IF something horrible goes wrong. -John
\_ My wife and I like 69.
\_ So does yermom
\_ menage trois!
\_ manage trolls!
You have new trolls.
\_ mangy trolls!
\_ "menage a trois", or actually "ménage à trois".
\_ You sick!! -sexless sodan |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34214 Activity:insanely high |
10/19 Schwarzenegger endorses CA stem cell research bill. Why?
Be a smart liberal! http://csua.org/u/9jr
\_ A friend of mine from Europe was commenting recently on how odd
this whole thing is from his perspective. He said that in
Europe, it would be the leftists who would be anti-stem cell
research and the right-wing who would be in favor. Can any
of the Europeans here comment on this?
\_ I like stem cell research but this looks like a big careless
giveaway to biotech.
\_ It also runs directly against what Dubya has been saying.
\_ Horrors! Must not contradict Great Leader!
\_ I thought it was "Dear Leader"
\_ The governor of California disagrees with a right-wing leader
on a social issue. Big news.
\_ The URL, on the other hand, covers another aspect.
\_ The URL covers the Maria Shriver influence.
\_ How much Federal funding was going into stem cell research before
Bush zeroed and banned Federal funding on it?
\_ Way to go fiscal conservative. Exemption from the Brown Act.
Exemption from the public records act. An appointed group to
dispense the funds. Way to go Arnie mortgaging our future.
--voted for McClintock
\_ So, are you also going to vote for Kerry or Nader or some weird
libertarian guy?
\_ I'm not the guy above but I also voted for McC. Kerry? That
would be insanity. I'm voting for Bush, the much lesser of
two evils. He isn't a real conservative but he's the best
we've got. |
| 2004/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34190 Activity:nil |
10/18 For the memory-challenged individual below, who stated that there were
no Davis/recall/Ah-nold flamewars on the motd:
http://csua.com/?q=recall+davis
http://csua.com/?q=recall+arnold |
| 2004/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34182 Activity:moderate |
10/17 what does it mean to register as a Rep/Demo? Is it used for
statistics or something? How about registering as one party
and then voting as another party, is that allowed?
\_ In most states you can't vote in the primary of a party
unless you're registered. Since leaving Ca, I've registered
for a party just so I can vote in the primary. Where I live,
whoever wins the Demo primary wins the general election by such
a large margin that the whole election *is* the primary, and
you don't really get a vote unless you're registered Democrat.
Does this suck? yes, it does.
\_ Ever heard of the secret ballot? We've got that in this
country. So how exactly would they "not allow" you to
vote for whomever you wish? I mean, please!
\_ thanks for your response. I'm not a citizen so I
don't know these things but I hope to vote once I get
my citizenship. So here is my second question. Say there
is a party A and a party B. I hate party B, so can I
register as party B and pick the most incompetent person
for the primary, and come the general election, vote for
party A? Is that illegal? -op
\_ it's not illegal, but it makes you a jackass. I believe
that the most responsible thing to do as a citizen is to
vote in whatever primary matters (e.g. republican in 2000, dem
in 2004) and vote for whoever you actually think would make
the best candidate. If democrats had followed your strategy
in 2000, they would have probably picked Bush as the weaker
candidate...but gues what? he won, and most dems would probably
agree we'd be a hell of a lot better off with president McCain
right now. Whether you're a democratic-leaning voter or not
is beside the point. Republicans would probably have voted
for Dean in this election, but you have to ask yourself...are
you *sure* your guy can beat the guy you think is weak?
what if you're wrong?
\_ I actually practice cross-party voting in the primary all
the time. In 2000, I voted for McCain in the Primary, even
though I wanted Gore to win; in 2002, I voted for Simon in
in the Primary even though I wanted Davis to win (and yes,
that was a worrying gamble). I look forward to an open
primary system at some point so I can stop filing all of
this paperwork.
\_ Here's the part where someone posts an anti-Davis rant.
Come on folks, NOBODY liked that guy.
\_ Maybe you did not realize it, but you did vote for
Davis if you voted against the recall. That was
a special case where you could vote twice.
\_ Yes, we SO need a Davis/Ah-nold flamewar right now!
I know you can do it! Motd's greatest hits comin'
back atcha!
\_ There's nothing to flame about. No one is going
to defend Davis. No one is that stupid.
\_ You obviously weren't reading the motd during
the recall shitrain [borrowing this term
from Hunter S. Thompson because it is so
appropriate.]
\_ Sure.
\_ No, it is not illegal.
\_ sounds complicated. what is the objective for doing so? |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34120 Activity:very high |
10/14 Summary: Private corporations + interest in outcome +
broadcast in public medium = conflict of interest.
My prediction for news coverage-- a total repeat of 2000,
Fox will again declare Bush as the winner many hours before
the election's officially over. "We report, you comply."
\_ Hopefully they'll do it early enough that more Repubs won't vote.
\_ I sent my professor the above and he said "In Europe we
learn this in primary school :-). [Granted, my two main
teachers were communists.]"
\_ Media here don't make any claims to being objective. It can
get irritating, but hey, there are plenty of reasonably
balanced sources of information to choose from. -John
\_ I don't mind the bias here but I wish the media would
stop pretending to be objective when they're not. I'm
ok with yellow rag journalism. They should just be honest
that they aren't objective and let the readers decide.
\_ Well, even when they are pretty direct about having a
political agenda/bias (or rather, not giving a rat's ass
about trying to appear objective) the ultra holier-than-
thou attitude of a lot of Euro papers and TV news can be
pretty abrasive after a while. -John
Earth to ilyas the communist born but turned to ultra left
wing nut, what do you have to say about the original
statement on conflict of interest, and what do you have to
say about my professor's comment? -op
\_ [ actually I changed my mind. I won't even dignify this
phrasing with a reply. -- ilyas ]
\_ so, you're as suprised as the rest of us to see yourself
called an "ultra-left wingnut?" who knew?
\_ Earth to poster: read the thread again from the beginning.
\_ Wow, you've figured out that all media outlets are biased in one
way or another. Congrats.
\_ you're right. the difference is i think MOST media
outlets try to be balanced and fair. foxnews and co.
don't give a fuck.
\_ A bias you share is invisible. Conservatives tend to
find a lot of liberal publications (time.com is a good
example) pretty grating, but I bet you don't notice,
since it all seems reasonable to you. -- ilyas
\_ I think the bias in several popular mainstream
media outlets, like drudge, fox, wsj opinion
page, those fucks at the media research center,
is pretty NON invisible and far greater than
any secret jewish conspiracy at the nytimes.
find a lot of liberal publications (time.com is a good
example) pretty grating, but I bet you don't notice,
since it all seems reasonable to you. -- ilyas
\_ Look, I don't want to argue this again.
I ll just paste something laughable from
Reuters next time it comes up. What's your
response to the LA times "we ll dig dirt on
Arnie but not Davis" thing? -- ilyas
\_ And liberals tend to find a lot of conservative
publications (time.com is a good example) pretty
grating.
\_ I think Time is pretty mainstream but is definitely
'small-c' conservative in that it doesn't like to
rock the boat very much.
\_ I also agree that Time is mainstream, siding
with the current administration a little,
Democrat or Republican.
Democrat or Republican. CNN is like this too,
but one increment more.
I also find Krauthammer's essays in Time pretty
damn stupid, but then again I think the same
thing about Safire.
\-if you are writing in the motd, i assume you
have an SAT above 1000. why are you reading
TIME? krauthammer is a human-cockroach cross
breed. |
| 2004/9/29 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33822 Activity:nil |
9/28 Arnold officially enters the Twilight Zone:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/092804b_governor |
| 2004/9/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33615 Activity:low |
9/18 Relax, fat sysadmins. You're not nearly as fat as these people:
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm
\_ don't get too relaxed. you are probably as dumb as this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse
\_ What about skinny sysadmins? Why are we always left out? |
| 2004/9/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33304 Activity:nil |
9/2 Wait, I thought Scwharzenegger wasn't going to need all that lobbyist
money because he's rich. He'll be so much better than Davis! Oh
wait... http://csua.org/u/8wo (yahoo! news) |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33261 Activity:nil |
8/31 From our balanced and bias-free friends at the NYT:
"Then comes the Governator, a man who is used to having movie-goers
shell out $8 to see him on the silver screen and who this time is
having various corporate interests, including the pharmaceutical, oil
and entertainment industries, shell out $350,000 to underwrite his
visit to New York on his private jet.
"For many, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the embodiment of the American
Dream, and that will be his subject tonight. His immigrant story of
the self-made superstar who marries a princess, becomes governor of
most populous state in the country and owner of seven Hummers (though
he has sold four of them) is a compelling one and will serve as the
centerpiece of his discussion of the Republican Party's diversity."
\_ Hey dude, change the csuamotd password back? thx.
\_ Um, what's your problem with this passage? If anything its naked
Arnold-worship. "embodiment of the American Dream" indeed. And
is this from the op-ed page or a news analysis, or is this
front-page?
\_ You think smearing him with corporate interest ties without a
shred of evidence is worship? Sorry but you're just plain
stupid.
\_ Don't forget the 7 Hummbers (though he has sold 4 of them).
\_ What's the difference between 1 Hummer and 7 Hummers? 7
Hummers don't guzzle any more gas than 1 Hummer if he can
only drive one at a time. BTW does he use any of his
Hummers for day-to-day commute?
\_ I believe this is called sarcasm. Yes, I am sure
of it.
\_ There are many many people in America who admire
someone who owns 7 Hummers. Maybe even most. I
think you have been in Berkeley too long.
\_ No, he doesn't own 7 Hummers. The quote reminded
us that he sold 4 of them, remember? Yes, this
is sarcastic too.
\_ Again, is this an op-ed?
\_ No, this is the lead news item on http://nytimes.com -!op
\_ Front page of http://nyt.com, "Convention Briefing".
link:csua.org/u/8uu
\_ Googling for schwarzenegger $350,000 gives this:
http://csua.org/u/8uv
"... and private donors are kicking in more than $350,000 to
pick up the tab, the governor's office said Wednesday.
... The governor's office did release a list of firms ..."
(found at end of article)
BTW, the NY Times today is clearly left-wing, and more stupid
than the other competing media outlets, IMO, although they
do get some things right sometimes (yes that'svague). -liberal
\_ I don't think anyone questions if the quote was factually
correct. One wonders if the quote reflects a bias on
Schwartzenegger (sp?) that may or may not be appropriate
in a news piece.
\_ I am responding to the "without a shred of evidence"
guy -- there is your guy who "questions if the quote
was factually correct". (Yes, the evidence was in
http://sfgate.com and not referenced in the http://nytimes.com article
- they're stupid like I said.)
In any case, the title of the article itself indicates
clear bias: "For G.O.P., Another Night of Moderation
Lies Ahead". That sounds like it was written by a CSUA
liberal. The NY Times has stopped pretending and is
clearly left and anti-Bush. -liberal
\_ They are stupid becuase they didn't reference a
true statement? Bizarre reasoning.
\_ You provide support for true statements when they
are not well-known facts, especially when
controversial. -liberal
\_ Hahahah "the NYT today is clearly left-wing". Thanks for
laugh. When is the last time they advocated for the
proletariat to seize contorl of the means of production?
The NYT is a major corporation with billions of dollars
of shareholder value. At best they are slightly left
of center, more moderate than anything else.
\_ Perhaps one might substitute "left-wing" with "pro-
Democratic".
\_ and "anti-Bush"
\_ Smearing him??? Do you think that this is not true?
\_ Again, no one questions the truth of the quote. The
question is merely if sarcasm behind the quote is
appropriate for a news piece.
\_ I don't read it as sarcasm. You are being too touchy.
\_ We disagree then. Perhaps you are ideologically
inclined to give NYT the benefit of the doubt.
\_ I accept that as a possibility, though I
generally like Schwartzenegger.
\_ Oddly enough, I find him generally annoying,
though I am glad he told the Bay Area to
deal with the bridge retrofit/replacement
cost overruns without state help.
\_ There's a guy who wrote "smearing him with corporate
interest ties without a shred of evidence". It sounds
like he questioned the truth of the special-interests
quote.
\_ Mea Culpa. "No one reasonable..."
\_ Why does it matter if the quote was from op-ed, analysis, or
front-page if it was fair and balanced?
\_ why do we care? BORING. fox news would at least
imply a Democrat had radioactive testicles. |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33240 Activity:insanely high |
8/31 Bush makes Garrison Keiller go nutzoid:
\_ psb was certainly not in the "republican:evil
democrat:good" camp 4 years ago. This is another one of
gwb's achievements. - psb #37 fan
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979
\_ I enjoyed that. Thanks. --aaron.
\- A good example of irony is the flourishing of political
rhetoric [in english anyway] set off by the rise of
the Chimp-in-Charge --psb
\_ HAIL GREAT EDUCATOR PSB! REPUBLICAN:EVIL! DEMOCRAT:GOOD!
\_ psb was certainly not in the "republican:evil
democrat:good" camp 4 years ago. This is another one of
gwb's achievements. - psb #37 fan
\_ Keillor is a great writer. Even if you like Bush you should
check this out - definitely in the great tradition of the
American polemic a la Mark Twain.
\_ Waaaa! I liked it better when MY party were the gerrymandering
fear mongers! What happened to Democrat victimhood, and
Democrats being the ones taking all the bribes? Davis, 'O
Davis, where art thou?
\_ Garrison Keiller is most definitely not a Californian, so why are
you blabbering about Davis? Trying to start another Arnold flame
war? I've got news for you - Davis lost. We've moved on to
Swift Boat.
\_ Sheesh. Did you notice the whole post was about Democrat
things of the past? I was making fun of Keiller's
article by pointing out that everything he accuses the
Republicans of are things the Democrats are famous for.
And I used things from Democrats past. Since I'm
posting on a forum that almost exclusively read by
Californians, I thought it fine to invoke the name of a
California democrat famous for the things Keiller attacks
Bush for.
\_ So you think the playground mentality justifies something?
"But he did it first!" does not qualify as a moral stance.
\_ Umm... no. I'm not saying that what I think the
Republicans are doing is GOOD. I'm just saying
it's funny to watch the pot call the kettle black.
\_ Fear-mongers? When were the Dems the fear-mongers?
\_ Certainly my whole life. "Hole in the Ozone! Global
Warming! Return of Jim Crow Laws! Vouchers cause racism!
etc. etc."
\_ Yeah that's the same as preemptive invasion. Die painfully. |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33153 Activity:nil |
8/26 Indian tribes are underprivileged? See how powerful they are:
http://csua.org/u/8ri (Yahoo! News)
\_ Um. We killed almost all of them, wiped out most of their culture
and language, and took all but the worst parts of their country
from them. Don't you think they deserve what they can scrape up?
\_ Wouldn't Hobbes say we deserve their country?
\_ And also that they deserve the power they've accumulated now
because they've learned to adapt and work the new system.
\_ No, no, no, American capitalism and the Free Market are
only good when they benefit rich, white Americans.
\_ Hobbes said a lot of things. He was kind of a dick.
\_ A veritable Leviathan!
\_ Damned Indian outsourcing! |
| 2004/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:32877 Activity:high |
8/12 Ah-nold keeps his distance from GW Bush (Bush was in Santa Monica
on Thursday), won't campaign for him outside of state (though he will
speak at the RNC):
http://csua.org/u/8l0 (usatoday.com)
And you know what? I know exactly why. Can you guess?
\_ Why don't you tell us?
\_ The answer is: Maria Shriver. Think about it. -op
\_ Could you spell it out for me?
\_ Because Arnold is busy spending his time here in CA where we need
a governor and this is the state where Arnold can do the most good
for Bush? Unlike a certain Senator who is running for President
but has missed 70% of the votes this year, Arnold puts his
responsibilities to the people first. That's what you were going
to tell us.
\_ but of course Bush can do his job while travelling just as much
as Kerry.
\_ It's a different job so yes, he can. And until very recently,
no he has not traveled anywhere close to as much as Kerry has
for a year. |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:32586 Activity:very high |
7/30 Er, I guess you don't have to be dead to get your own postage stamp
in Austria.
http://tinyurl.com/3sbhl (yahoo news)
\_ Ew, I don't want to lick Arnold.
\_ but ax does
\_ are there any internships in Sacramento? my handbag line isn't
filling up daddy's beamer -monical
\_ Are you actually suggesting that machine might be alive? |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:32517 Activity:nil |
7/27 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders struck an agreement
on a $103 billion state budget, ending a 26-day standoff ... With
billions of dollars in borrowing and one-time savings, the spending
plan contains little of the cuts the governor wanted in January. ...
"I said many times, when I was lifting weights and shooting for a
500-pound lift and maybe ended up at 495 -- I was still happy to get
it done" the Republican said late Monday ... |
| 2004/7/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:32332 Activity:nil |
7/16 Funding for jailing illegals falls short(711.2 Million a year)
http://whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~2277233,00.html |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:31185 Activity:high |
7/6 Richard Riordan was supposed to be teh nice guy?!?!?!1!!
http://csua.org/u/828 (sfgate article)
\_ Arnuhld sez: "We must always focus on encouraging and supporting
children. I've known Dick Riordan for a long time, and I know
\_ Well, Arnold knows better than anyone what it's like to be
accused of improper sexual behavior.
that he would never knowingly or intentionally upset a child."
So either she was asking for it, or that was the pills talking.
\_ Huh? Arnold is gospel now?
\_ Well, Arnold knows better than anyone what it's like to be
accused of improper sexual behavior.
\_ anyone have link to the vidoe? Is any channel playing it? This
may be the first time I have heard of a "caught joking" incident
where i'm *not* thinking that people just need to get a sense of
humor. |
| 2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30651 Activity:high |
6/7 Hey, http://latimes.com has a neat Flash map where you can click on states to assign electoral votes to Bush/Kerry. It looks like if Kerry loses Florida, he won't have a chance. If he wins Florida, he can't lose too many battleground states. Click on the map on the bottom right. It plays music when you hit 270 votes, though, so turn off your sound. I actually got it to 269-269, and something interesting pops up. \_ Ah, Florida, where election reform has gone... nowhere. \_ Sure it has! The Florida legislature banned recounts! Oh... right... \_ Kerry could win with Ohio, too. \_ True, I didn't notice all the undecideds in Ohio. \_ You guys dont have a clue about OH. It's gun country, thus Bush's. \_ They can dream. Don't take that away from them. They have so little else. \_ Lets face it, its all gonna end up in front of the Supreme Court again anyway... \_ What, before or after Dubya takes California in a landslide? \_ Its thinking like yours that will destabilize California for years to come! \_ Why do you hate California? \_ They said the recall campaign would never get enough names. Then they said the recall campaign would never kick out Davis. Then they said even if Davis gets kicked out, a Republican wouldn't win, especially with 2 big names splitting the Republican vote. Then they said even if the Republicans do win, it won't be Arnold, he's an actor, a Nazi, and not very smart. \_ The stupidity of the California Bush-landslide guy speaks for itself. \_ It does? I'm too dense to see it. Please explain in a few sentences using short words so a moron like me can understand why it is impossible and as you say stupid to think Bush can win CA. Thanks in advance for supplying any data, URLs, or facts to explain to me and others who might question your profound logic. \_ Point 1: "CA Bush-landslide guy" != "Bush-wins-CA guy". First guy == moron Second guy == optimistic (??) \_ Nah, they are both delusional. Bush is behind behind by 12 points in the latest Field Poll (including Nader on the ticket) and his popularity is at an all time low and falling. Why do you bother arguing with an obvious nutter? \_ Because polls go up and down and every which way. You would have been insane to bet a buck that Kerry was going to be the Dem candidate before his *surprise* win in Iowa. If you have nothing to say except the other guy is an obvious nutter then say nothing because you're still saying nothing this way, but you're also wasting precious bits. \_ It's not impossible. For example, following the democratic convention, Kerry could start publicly expressing a sexual attraction to prepubescent boys, or an admiration for Osama bin Laden. But, realistically, Gore won california by a huge margin, Kerry leads in the polls here by a huge margin, lots of people are bitter about the energy crisis, and given all of the above Bush will probably spend only a token amount of his time and money campaigning here (as he did in 2000). If you are willing to bet on Bush at odds of less than 10 to 1, I'm sure you will find plenty of takers. \_ tradebetx, which provides an online forum for betting on these things has Bush at 8:1 odds in California. For comparison Kerry is at 5:1 in Virginia and North Carolina and 8:1 in Georgia. \_ The only thing that matter is who shows up to the polls. Bush won't spend any time or money here but neither will Kerry. CA is just an ATM machine for both parties. How's it feel to get sucked dry no matter which side of the aisle you're on? \_ Bush I somehow won CA. Not to mention Reagan, Deukmejian, Pete Wilson twice, and Arnold govs. \_ If you can't see how California has changed since Wilson, you aren't paying attention. Arnold is a liberal, married to a Kennedy. \_ I think that one side or the other will win decisively enough that this will not happen. that this will not happen. This is a Pro Bush website and he projects the electoral vote to be Kerry 330, Bush 200: http://www.electionprojection.com \_ Nononononononononono! You can't say Bush/Kerry will win a state based on job approval ratings ("Is the country headed in the right direction?"). You must ONLY use "Who would you vote for today?" data; and if you want, you can use job approval ratings on undecided votes. This projection is FUCKING LAME. -libural \_ Sigh... I read your link, I'm not sure why, and no it doesn't say 330:200 but if it makes you feel better to pull random numbers (which you got wrong) out of context from 2 weeks ago then sure. He also says Bush has done worse in the numbers than he is now and he's done better than he is now. It's a long way from here to November. The dude can't even figure out how to use PayPal and you think he's got the election all figured out. Ok, whatever. \_ Did you see where he says Electoral Votes: Bush 201, Kerry 337? It is right at the top. Here is a Pro Kerry site that has it at 332:226 http://www.geocities.com/numbers_04 If it makes you feel any better, here is another that has Bush winning: http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html I personally think that it is "too early to tell." \_ Yes, that is what it says and you are an idiot who is unable to comprehend even simple English. Go to that URL. Look at the top of the page. See where it says Kerry 337 Bush 201? That is the projected electoral outcome. I rounded to the nearest 10 for morons like you. Nice job deleting the rest of my links. |
| 2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30573 Activity:insanely high |
6/3 If California declares independence, and the non-kookoo portion
of US decides to invade California, how will it attack? cross the
desert to take Los Angeles first, then roll up Hwy 5?
\_ It would take 21 days. 20 days for the rest of the US to stop
laughing and realise CA was serious and 1 day to retake everything.
\_ The US is all out of step except CA!
\_ On a related note, let's say you're drawing a U.S. Diplomacy
board. HOw would you divvy up NOrth America?
\_ Red counties and blue counties.
\_ If pigs fly out my ass, will they have bat wings or feathered ones?
\_ Bat wings, duh! Pigs are mammals.
\_ Take Interstate 80 from Reno to Sacramento.
\_ I think a lot depends upon how committed to a war the citizenry
is. Will companies like Boeing and Lockheed with plants in CA
support CA or the US? Will US soldiers attack Californians?
What percentage of US soldiers are from CA?
\_ Let's assume CA has a decent army. Inferior and outnumbered
by the US military, but capable of fighting a little. It's
mostly a military question, rather than a political one -op
\_ The only part of CA with significant military is San
Diego, so I imagine San Diego goes first and then the
defense contractors in SoCal. Less important is Silicon
Valley and the navy in SF.
\_ ok, let's assume california inherited 1/8th of the
US military forces minus anything nukular.
\_ That's not fair: A lot of submarines are based out of
San Diego.
\_ Another issue is who are CAs allies? Mexico? Japan?
\_ I don't think any country would provide military aid.
\_ Why not? They did during the Civil War.
\_ The South had a chance of winning, and the North
was way too busy to fight the other countries.
The US could easily lob missiles at any country
that help California.
\_ link?
\_ what a great thread! How about we assume the forces
of nature rise to aid California? (Pigs with wings of
all types...) What then?
\_ Why would the forces of nature rise up to help us?
Have you any idea how many H2s are on the road?
\_ Good point. But is it fair to assume they'll
bite the tires/tracks of both attackers AND
defenders? And there will probably be more
attackers than defenders, so it would be of
net benefit to the Californians?
\_ assume california has no allies, but neither does the
US, and it cannot attack California from Mexico.
\_ yea, but don't attack LA directly, isolate it, cut off its
water supply, and wait for it to surrender.
\_ That would cut off all of SoCal.
\_ What if we approach this the other way? California goes
on the offensive against Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and
Arizona to claim water rights. We pretty much own them
now anyway.
\_ ok, that's interesting. Let's give California the
advantage of a first strike, surprise attack.
where would you try to attack and hold? Of course,
you want to control the Sierras for its water and its
defensive value, but other parts of Nevada is kind
of hard to hold even if you conquer it at first.
I am not too familiar with geography of Arizona.
As for Oregon, is there any point in attacking it
for a defense purposes?
\_ CA can't even pass a spending bill on time. You think
CA can launch a first strike?
\_ But we have ... the Governator!
\_ But the governator cannot travel back in time with any metal or
clothing...
\_ Or look at it another way, how would you set up your defenses
for California against a US invasion?
\_ Let's keep it simple. After we crack the launch codes, we can
deter with the nuclear weapons stored in CA, and build more.
\_ Hawiians have talked about secessions for a very very long time.
In fact, they're still talking about it. They have nothing in
common with any other state and they're always fucked no matter
who the president is.
\_ hawaii's governor is very pro bush
\_ Convert Pendleton before proceeding. We stand a much better
chance with the marines with us than with them against us.
\_ CA vs. the US: it lasts about 3 weeks. That's 20 days for the US
to stop laughing, 1 day to take over.
\_ Substitute Calif with Taiwan, and U.S. with China. Now discuss...
\_ It would help a lot if the PRC supplies weapons to California,
and it has good reasons to, since there are so many Chinese in
California.
\_ Question for the anti-Taiwan independence crowd. Didn't China
cede Taiwan to Japan in the treaty of Shimonoseki? -- ilyas
\_ China tried ceding Taiwan, but Taiwan declared indepen-
dence before the Japanese invaded Taiwan, then Japan
ceded Taiwan back to China after WWII. Weird. That's
why Taiwan should declare independence. We have
superior US made weapons that will kick China arse.
Some association of US companies in Taiwan put out
an advertisement in some Taiwan newspaper last weekend
warning Taiwan government to negotiate direct
shipping, flight, etc. to PRC, or US companies will all
be dumping Taiwan companies soon. Those traitors!
be dumping Taiwan soon. Those traitors!
Taiwan will soon be spending another US$18 billion to
buy weapons. Greedy Americans overcharges Taiwan by
an arm and a leg for the weapons since no one else
sells to Taiwan. Those bastards! But hey, those
are some cool toys to play with. I was personally
aboard one of the Knox class destroyers when it was down
in Long Beach during handover training after it was
bought by Taiwan. That was one outdated warship.
We need a few Aegis boats instead. Please sell us
a few. PRC commies recently been unofficially
publishing list of Taiwan actresses and singers and
stars who are pro-independence. Heard that president
Ah Bian recently had trouble inviting any of these
money grubbing actresses and singers and stars to
his functions. Those PRC commie bastard bullies!
\_ yea but article 4 of the Treaty of Peace between China
and Japan states that:
It is recognised that all treaties, conventions,
and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941
between Japan and China have become null and
void as a consequence of the war. |
| 2004/5/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30501 Activity:insanely high |
5/30 The road to serfdom
Is it one of the best books ever written?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144892/posts
\_ Contrict your anus 100 times a day -- Malarkey,
or effective way?
\_ could Dianetics really be the Owner's Manual for the Human Mind?
\_ can I sell mine? I need a new ipod.
\_ Scientology were around the UCLA campus one day, with a big
friendly yellow tend, and attractive young 'volunteer ministers'
giving out 'stress tests' and so on. Scientology amuses me so.
-- ilyas
\_ I took their personality test. I think I failed. They
didn't want my money or my soul.
\_ Yeah, the girl that they post outside the Scientology
office in SOMA SF is super cute - until you think about the
fact that she's in a cult...
\_ So what? Cult chicks can't put out? Cult chicks have
already proven to be weak willed. She'll fulfill all
your fantasies and do anything you want as long as you
promise to consider her cult material.
\_ More to the point, cult chicks are programmed to
pretend to be willing to put out so that you'll go
through the motions of joining the cult. Be careful
when you scam scammers, lest you get scammed.
\_ How scammed could I get? I wanted to get laid with
a hot chick who does anal and has a cute friend to
join us. If I get that, what scam is there? You
think they'll empty my wallet while I'm in the
bathroom wiping my dick? What scam?
\- f hayek has an interesting critique of command economies
based on price signals but i think anarchy state and utopia
is more intersting. --psb
\_ is that a line from the fortune program? it should be.
\- hello does anybody recall who said something like
"rousseau believe man was inherently good and his
philosophy leads to totalitarianism. hobbes believed
man was basically evil and his leads to a theory of
freedom." [it's posibble it was voltaire, but pretty
sure JJR. it is also possible this isnt a famous line
from a book or article but just something someone said
that stuck in my head]. ok tnx.
\_ Submitting to the Leviathan doesn't strike me as a
'theory of freedom.' Furthermore, it's unclear
Rousseau romanticist conception of people necessarily
translates into 'people are inherently good.' The
noble savage is still savage, after all. How Rousseau's
writing leads to totalitarianism is a tortured line of
reasoning I want to witness for myself. -- ilyas
reasoning I want to witness for myself. It is believed
the American Revolution was all but directly inspired by
Rousseau, after all. -- ilyas
\_ If ilyas and psb fell in a forest, would there be
a sound? |
| 2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30371 Activity:nil |
5/23 http://csua.org/u/7ex Go go go governator (Arnold sues a bobblehead maker) \_ Hey, it's his wife that discovered them in a gift shop and was offended. He has to sue, or Ah-nold won't be getting any. \_ Can't wait to see how this turns out. |
| 2004/5/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30362 Activity:high |
5/22 Arnold policies help CA ecnomy recover... without raising taxes.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040521/us_nm/economy_california_rating_dc_1&printer=1
I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
due. If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
\_ shortened to http://csua.org/u/7eu --darin
I didn't vote for him and I don't like everything he's done or trying
to do and I voted against his propositions but credit where credit is
due. If he pulls it off I might vote for him if he runs again.
\_ Ooh, the CPAs say we're doing better. Tell that to grad students
that now can't afford UC.
\_ There's a grad school in some other state they can afford?
\_ ok freeper whatever you say
\_ SO... you think this didn't actually happen?
\_ personal attack on OP -> OP post value++ && your value-- |
| 2004/5/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:30159 Activity:nil |
5/11 Kerry ahead by a point in CA.
http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/CA040507pressen.pdf
I hope the Iraq prisoner abuse bounce kicks in soon!
\_ "surveyusa.com"?
Try the LA Times: http://csua.org/u/79b |
| 2004/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:13443 Activity:nil |
4/28 So what do people think of Arnold? Is he doing a better job than
Davis?
\_ You couldn't do a worse job than Davis. Arnold should but won't
address issues like borrowing more money to pay for the debt
while we still have the highest cost for incarcerating people
within the Union.
Perhaps we should be looking for more cost effective ways
to house criminals like perhaps we can ship them off to
another state which is willing to accept them in trade for
cash. Or maybe we should really review our 3 Strikes policy
and think about reforming the reformable instead of turning
them into even worse criminals through the current system.
He should also push hybrids and fuel cells more aggressively
and renew investigations into energies such as nuclear and
solar.
--williamc
\_ It's too bad all the people who know how to run the state are
too busy driving taxicabs or cutting hair. -- ilyas
\_ Ahnold's detractors believe this is all he is qualified
to be doing, and are incredulous as to how far he's come.
\_ I think that's an exaggeration. Even the Arnie-haters
have to admit that Conan the Barbarian kicks ass.
\_ How about forcing Mexico to pay for housing, healthcare
education, and incarceration of the 5+ million illegals
in California. |
| 2004/3/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12729 Activity:nil |
3/17 Are you making many post-college friends?
\_ Yes: (1) got involved with community-based organizations
serving Asian immigrants and Filipino Am. yuppies; (2) went
to yoga centers; (3) volunteered to work on an indie film
(which eventually got distributed by Sony Pictures); and
(4) became a groupie of a Chicago alt-country band. Not bad
\_ that's kind of gross. - danh
\_ not *that* kinda groupie. -elizp
for a neurotic introvert, and it's been fun. -elizp
\_ I've got so many goddamn post college friends
I really have trouble keeping track of them all.
\_ http://www.plaxo.com!!! spam them enough and you won't have
so many to keep track of.
\_ Yes: mostly through work, some through old college friends,
a few through hobbies.
\_ I made lots of friends at http://freerepublic.com
\_ Yes, mostly through work or friends of old friends I've known. |
| 2004/3/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12507 Activity:nil |
3/3 Bush is going to win California.. hahahahhaha:
http://csua.org/u/69o
\_ Uhm, this state used to vote heavily (R). Nothing says it can't
switch back. The (D) take too many people for granted.
\_ Schwarzenegger is a democrat fool
\_ California won't forgive Bush for Enron. CA as a battleground is
a pipe dream.
\_ It's March, don't start making predictions until August, fool.
Remember, Bush upset Gore in 2000, he did the impossible in
2002 by actually increasing the number of Republicans in
the legislature during an interim election year, and who
would've thought that the recall would work and Arnie would
be governor? And remember, a solid majority within california
voted Republican in the last election.
\_ Bush will win California when monkeys fly out of Arnold's ass.
\_ Are you the same guy that predicted three months ago that Bush
would take California?
\_ More like a Freeperdream. |
| 2004/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Reference/Tax] UID:12492 Activity:high |
3/2 I'm a little confused. Does it make any sense to vote Yes on 58 but
no on 57, or vice versa? What's the alternative to 57-- bankruptcy?
Higher taxes? Ending school lunches?
\_ 58 can only pass if 57 does. I am not sure if 57 can pass
without 58, but I think so.
\_ You've got it backwards: !58 => !57
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop57-title.html
\_ both are needed to pass to have any effect. I wouldn't mind
58 and 57 so much *IF* Arnie decided to raise just a bit taxes
58 and 57 so much *IF* Arnie decided to raise just a bit taxes n
and didn't cut car taxes.
\_ What if he decided to only raise taxes for people in *your*
tax bracket? Would that be ok?
\_ good point, and the answer is no. this bond is about
as regressive as sales tax, where the wealthies pays a much
less portion of the burden than they should bear. |
| 2004/3/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:12483 Activity:very high |
3/2 Today is super tuesday. Don't forget to vote. Here's the obPoll:
Kerry: .. (lemmings)
Edwards: .
Kucinich: ..
Sharpton: .
Neither: ..
yes on prop 55: .....
no on prop 55: ..
yes on prop 56: ...
no on prop 56: ...
yes on prop 57: ..
no on prop 57: ...
yes on prop 58: ..
no on prop 58: ....
yes on Measure 2: .
no on Measure 2: .
tired of polls: ..
don't care: .
\_ not so. there are several other very important issues on there
even if you think the primary is over.
\_ votes formatted not because I'm anal, but because I'm so incredibly
bored. :-)
\_ No open primaries this year. This sucks if you are an independent
but want to actually have a say in what your choices for the
prez vote are.
\_ You can still vote for Nader...
\_ If you want to have a say, you should have registered as a Dem
for this election, then switched back before November. If you
can't figure out how to game the system, you have no place
whining about it.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want. I
am an independent and I voted for a Democrat in the primary.
\_ Yeah, those damn parties thinking they should base the primary on
who the party members choose...
\_ Let the parties hold their own elections then instead of
having the government foot the bill.
\_ The independent in front of me in line asked for a republican
ballot. There's nothing contested in any election for the
republicans. Why would he ask for that instead of the democrat
ballot where he can make a difference?
\_ Which prop is about raising the bridge tolls? I'm so ignorant.
\_ Measure 2, comes with good things and bad things.
Translink would be great, but ferries are a waste of money
as is extending BART to Byron.
\_ The problem with M2 is it raises the bridge toll but uses the
funds for many other unrelated projects. So it taxes a small
number of people but asks a larger number of people if it is
ok to tax that smaller number for the larger group's benefit
without cost to that larger group. This is the worst form of
taxation possible. I voted against it merely on those grounds
even though we need to improve the transit system. And no, I
don't drive the bay bridge regularly. Maybe twice a year.
\_ I agree that ferries suck, but BART builds slowly and it makes
sense to build in the direction of future growth, which is
to the east.
\_ BART is a ridiculous boondoggle, far too expensive and
slow to cover the distances it's trying to cover. The
more we extend BART, the longer it will be until we have
a decent transit system in the Bay Area. That said, I
begrudgingly voted for RM2. -tom
\_ Slow? 32min from Hayward to downtown SF during morning
commute hours seems pretty fast to me. Can't beat that
even if you're carpooling with two passenges.
\_ you *can* beat that if you're using a train system
in any major city in Europe or Japan. And the ride
from Byron is likely to be more than an hour. -tom
\_ How often do those train systems stop? Thanks.
Let's get some apples/apples here. Put away the
oranges.
\_ Heavy-rail systems with stops at similar
distance to East Bay BART are much, much
faster; top speeds 50-100% higher than BART.
In dense areas, systems like the London
Underground do just as well in comparison.
-tom
\_ And cost how much? Are you seriously saying
we should replace BART with a new system
that will cost more to run and run louder
through all the neighborhoods?
\_ No system will cost more to run than
BART--standard rail costs quite a bit
less than non-standard rail. And have
you ever actually been to another
country? The trains are quieter than
BART. -tom
\_ Have you ever been to New York?
You don't have to go to another
country to beat BART.
\_ How many trains have to go by before you can be
pushed into one in the Tokyo area?
\_ let me get this straight--BART is better
because it's really slow, so no one uses it,
so the trains aren't as crowded? -tom
\_ No, more like people use trains because the
population density is so insanely high they
live like rats. Is that what you want?
\_ How long does it take to get to the station and find
parking in the morning?
\_ There are always more than a hundred empty spaces
in the parking structure even at 9am everyday.
\_ Which parking lot are you at? If I'm not there
by 8:30, it's completely filled.
\_ 32 minutes? I'm a bit further out on that line and
it isn't 32 minutes for that part of it.
\_ Glen Park BART is 12 minutes to Montgomery, which
is faster than you can drive that route on a fast
motorcycle. I know, I have tried. -ausman
\_ How is a proposition different from a measure?
\_ Prop=Statewide, Measure [1-9]=County, Measure [A-Z] = City
\_ Why are they trying to fund healthcare with a sales tax increase?
It's regressive taxation and falls whenever the economy is in
trouble. Not to mention it harms the local economy more than an
income or property tax because it's easier for people to shop
somewhere else than to move or change jobs.
\_ Because nothing but a sales tax increase will ever pass county
wide. Any policymaker worth their spit would prefer an income or
property tax but they are generally impossible to pass in CA.
\_ with good reason. taxes are already too high.
\_ Where are they trying to do this?
\_ Alameda county. Proposed sales tax increase to 8.75%
It's a worthy cause, being funded in one of the most ass-ways
possible.
\_ So for the "yes on 55" folks, why do you want to add a $12B bond
with $12B interest to the CA finance mess?
\_ Because it is an investment for the future, because I think
education is usually money well spent, because CA spends less
than it should on education, because we are in a recession
and I believe in Keynesian economics. Yeah, I know we will
probably not still be in a recession by the time the money
is spent, but the CA finance mess is not a good reason to
not spend money on worthy causes, since the economy will
be better sooner or later, probably sooner.
\_ We already spend more on education/pupil than most states
and get the least for it. Education doesn't need more money.
It needs a structural overhaul.
\_ Somewhat untrue: Education in CA needs more money AND
they need to spend it more wisely.
\_ I don't think it's a case of "spend it more wisely" but
restructure the entire educational system. The people
in charge from the top all the way down plus the
teacher's unions all have to go. Until that happens,
no amount of money will improve CA education.
\_ Wrong. California ranks 33rd in per pupil spending. We
spend like a poor Southern state and wonder why we get
crappy results. CA needs to spend more on schools.
http://www.edsource.org/sch_expend.cfm
\_ Dump the illegals and then recalculate, or get a chart
that shows absolute numbers which your chart is hiding
or better yet, do both.
\_ Prop 55 includes a $300m grant to build more charter schools.
On this basis alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support
it.
\_ Building schools makes no sense when the kids at the
current schools don't even have books or teachers. This
is money poorly spent in the name of education.
\_ For the "yes on 56" folks, why do you want to lower the number of
legislators needed to increase taxes to 55% from 2/3?
\_ The state budget has been in chaos over not being able to return
tax rates to an equitable level. Giving the legistature the
ability to actually do their job sounds like a good idea, unless
you are one of the many in CA who doesn't like paying for what we
have here.
\_ If you paid the taxes *I* pay you'd think they're already too
high. Go get a real job and pay that shit yourself for a few
years and we'll see what you think "equitable" looks like.
\_ I for one think welfare queens should start paying their fair
share.
\_ What percentage of the state budget is spent by your
so-called "welfare queens"? Do you even know?
\_ I already pay more than my share for what "we" have here.
\_ If you really fell that way, why not leave?
\_ The weather which is not something improved by increased
taxes.
\_ Because it only takes 51% to lower them.
\_ Is that true? I thought *all* tax legislation had to be
passed by the same amount.
\_ and when was the last time your state taxes were lowered?
\_ It's sad how easy y'all get brainwashed by right wing talk
radio.
\_ When was the last time taxes were lowered?
\_ Last fall, by Herr Gropenator.
\_ Case in point. Look for a reference to a "car tax"
before, oh, '96.
\_ No taxes were lowered by the Governor.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCAVehicleLicense2003.html
\_ I wonder how it feels to be you and be wrong about
everything, all the time.
\_ I see a fee being lowered after it was raised
earlier. Where is your tax? Do you think I was
unaware of the VLF being lowered? You're not even
remotely as clever as you think you are.
\_ In real dollars, property taxes go down every day. Thanks,
prop 13.
\_ Until you move.
\_ Yes, thanks prop 13 or I couldn't afford to own a home.
My parents would already be in the street.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't do anything to help new homeowners;
it only helps people with hundreds of thousands of
dollars of equity in their homes keep from
contributing to the community. The idea of people
losing their homes over property taxes is a myth.
\_ A myth? I was here and saw it happen. It is
real life to me, not some history book lesson.
I lived in pre-prop 13 CA. Did you?
\_ Yeah, I was here too. We used to have good
schools before Prop 13 dried up the revenue
for them. CA has been on a slow downward
spiral ever since it was passed.
\_ Yeah, the state was better bankrupting
families so they'd leave and take their kids
with them. Who wants to spend money
educating all those middle class kids?
\_ Uh huh. Without Prop 13 my taxes would be up
40% over the last two years. Since they are
already $5K now that's another $2K. I wouldn't
lose my house, but I'd suffer. Eventually, I
might lose my house if the taxes double/triple.
\_ So? Suffer away. It's market economics. You
could always move instead. Also, without prop
13 the burden would be spread everywhere.
\_ It's not market economics. What good
does it do me if my house is worth 20x
what it used to be? I should pay tax on it
when I sell and not before, like with stock.
\_ I think Mr. I Hate Prop 13 is just a
bitter apartment dweller who gets off
every night thinking tomorrow will be the
day the housing bubble bursts and he can
finally afford a house.
\_ property taxes pay for the services which
support the value of your house, like
police, fire, and roads. The analogy to
stocks is totally missing the point.
-tom
\_ So if my house is worth 20x what
my neighbor's house is worth then
I should pay 20x more for this?
\_ I think so. -!tom
\_ Even if it doesn't cost 20x to
supply services to his house?
He uses the same amount of road,
fire, police and other services.
His more expensive house does
not put a bigger drain on the
local services. Let me guess,
you're not a home owner and
don't work yet, either?
\_ I am a homeowner, and have
been working for 15 years.
Try again, anonymous coward.
-tom
\_ You 'work' for UC and live
in Oakland.
\_ How much more will you lose if
your block goes up in flames? Or
if property values crash because
of high crime and shitty schools?
-tom
\_ He's getting the same service as
the shitty house next door. Will
the local fire department make
his fire a priority when both
houses catch fire at the same
time? Not a chance. Will the
cop go to his house first? Nope.
\_ Because it is past time that California raised its taxes.
\_ no its past time California lowered its expendatures.
\_ Okay, where? (And no, deleting my question does not count
as a win.)
\_ I wasn't here when your question was deleted. Where?
2 things for starters: revamp the educational system,
and stop spending money on illegal aliens, then we'll
have a chance to see what The People's real needs are
and go from there.
\_ California already spends less on education than
most states. This has been the case for a very
long time.
\_ I didn't say spend less. I said revamp. The
entire system is broken and needs to be redone.
\_ None of this really matters as long as the e-voting machines can be
shown to be easily compromised and voters are not required to show
ID in order to vote. Aargh!
\_ I had to show ID this morning.
\_ Where did you vote? (City, County)
\_ Dublin. They asked everyone for ID.
\_ When I was voting this morning I saw an old person asking about
paper receipts and audit trails. It made me happy.
\_ In San Francisco, we vote by filling in lines with a pen on
a piece of paper, which is then read by an optical scanner.
This seems like an ideal solution - not prone to error or
fraud, easy to understand for everyone, leaves a permanent
record for recount, and not labor intensive for the precincts.
Why do other counties insist on using such awful solutions
like Diebold?
\_ Who keeps the piece of paper, the voter or the polling
station? If it's the voter, this system is highly
vulnerable to verifiable vote-selling. If it's put in
a lock-box at the polling place, you're in much better
shape.
\_ The actual ballot with the pen markings is fed into
the optical scanner by the voter themselves - after this
it is locked away for safekeeping. The voter keeps
only the receipt torn from the top of the sheet.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/votetech.htm
Scroll down to "optical scanning."
\_ Wow, that rocks! Thank you! Now if only Alameda
County would implement this. |
| 2004/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:12481 Activity:high |
3/2 Can any car/bike racing enthusiasts recommend which nearby track is
better (i.e., Laguna Seca vs. Sears Pt)?
\_ Don't forget Thunderhill
\_ Is that a recommendation?
\_ Thunderhill is the one I would recommend if you are running
and not just watching. It is a great place to learn and
has a lot of run off room.
\_ seconded. Thunderhill is cheaper than Laguna Seca, and
safer than Sears/Infineon. --jwang, ex-AFM#911
e/2 Today is super tuesday. Don't forget to vote. Here's the obPoll:
Kerry: .. (lemmings)
Kerry: ... (lemmings) <-- whatever
Edwards: .
Kucinich: ..
Sharpton: .
Neither: ..
yes on prop 55: .....
no on prop 55: ..
yes on prop 56: ...
no on prop 56: ...
yes on prop 57: ..
no on prop 57: ...
yes on prop 58: ..
no on prop 58: ....
yes on Measure 2: .
no on Measure 2: .
tired of polls: ..
don't care: .
\_ not so. there are several other very important issues on there
even if you think the primary is over.
\_ votes formatted not because I'm anal, but because I'm so incredibly
bored. :-)
\_ No open primaries this year. This sucks if you are an independent
but want to actually have a say in what your choices for the
prez vote are.
\_ You can still vote for Nader...
\_ If you want to have a say, you should have registered as a Dem
for this election, then switched back before November. If you
can't figure out how to game the system, you have no place
whining about it.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want. I
am an independent and I voted for a Democrat in the primary.
\_ Yeah, those damn parties thinking they should base the primary on
who the party members choose...
\_ Let the parties hold their own elections then instead of
having the government foot the bill.
\_ The independent in front of me in line asked for a republican
ballot. There's nothing contested in any election for the
republicans. Why would he ask for that instead of the democrat
ballot where he can make a difference?
\_ Which prop is about raising the bridge tolls? I'm so ignorant.
\_ Measure 2, comes with good things and bad things.
Translink would be great, but ferries are a waste of money
as is extending BART to Byron.
\_ The problem with M2 is it raises the bridge toll but uses the
funds for many other unrelated projects. So it taxes a small
number of people but asks a larger number of people if it is
ok to tax that smaller number for the larger group's benefit
without cost to that larger group. This is the worst form of
taxation possible. I voted against it merely on those grounds
even though we need to improve the transit system. And no, I
don't drive the bay bridge regularly. Maybe twice a year.
\_ I agree that ferries suck, but BART builds slowly and it makes
sense to build in the direction of future growth, which is
to the east.
\_ BART is a ridiculous boondoggle, far too expensive and
slow to cover the distances it's trying to cover. The
more we extend BART, the longer it will be until we have
a decent transit system in the Bay Area. That said, I
begrudgingly voted for RM2. -tom
\_ Slow? 32min from Hayward to downtown SF during morning
commute hours seems pretty fast to me. Can't beat that
even if you're carpooling with two passenges.
\_ you *can* beat that if you're using a train system
in any major city in Europe or Japan. And the ride
from Byron is likely to be more than an hour. -tom
\_ How often do those train systems stop? Thanks.
Let's get some apples/apples here. Put away the
oranges.
\_ Heavy-rail systems with stops at similar
distance to East Bay BART are much, much
faster; top speeds 50-100% higher than BART.
In dense areas, systems like the London
Underground do just as well in comparison.
-tom
\_ And cost how much? Are you seriously saying
we should replace BART with a new system
that will cost more to run and run louder
through all the neighborhoods?
\_ No system will cost more to run than
BART--standard rail costs quite a bit
less than non-standard rail. And have
you ever actually been to another
country? The trains are quieter than
BART. -tom
\_ Have you ever been to New York?
You don't have to go to another
country to beat BART.
\_ NY is much better than BART, but
it's not particularly fast or
quiet. -tom
\_ How many trains have to go by before you can be
pushed into one in the Tokyo area?
\_ let me get this straight--BART is better
because it's really slow, so no one uses it,
so the trains aren't as crowded? -tom
\_ No, more like people use trains because the
population density is so insanely high they
live like rats. Is that what you want?
\_ How long does it take to get to the station and find
parking in the morning?
\_ There are always more than a hundred empty spaces
in the parking structure even at 9am everyday.
\_ Which parking lot are you at? If I'm not there
by 8:30, it's completely filled.
\_ 32 minutes? I'm a bit further out on that line and
it isn't 32 minutes for that part of it.
\_ Glen Park BART is 12 minutes to Montgomery, which
is faster than you can drive that route on a fast
motorcycle. I know, I have tried. -ausman
\_ How is a proposition different from a measure?
\_ Prop=Statewide, Measure [1-9]=County, Measure [A-Z] = City
\_ Why are they trying to fund healthcare with a sales tax increase?
It's regressive taxation and falls whenever the economy is in
trouble. Not to mention it harms the local economy more than an
income or property tax because it's easier for people to shop
somewhere else than to move or change jobs.
\_ Because nothing but a sales tax increase will ever pass county
wide. Any policymaker worth their spit would prefer an income or
property tax but they are generally impossible to pass in CA.
\_ with good reason. taxes are already too high.
\_ Where are they trying to do this?
\_ Alameda county. Proposed sales tax increase to 8.75%
It's a worthy cause, being funded in one of the most ass-ways
possible.
\_ So for the "yes on 55" folks, why do you want to add a $12B bond
with $12B interest to the CA finance mess?
\_ Because it is an investment for the future, because I think
education is usually money well spent, because CA spends less
than it should on education, because we are in a recession
and I believe in Keynesian economics. Yeah, I know we will
probably not still be in a recession by the time the money
is spent, but the CA finance mess is not a good reason to
not spend money on worthy causes, since the economy will
be better sooner or later, probably sooner.
\_ We already spend more on education/pupil than most states
and get the least for it. Education doesn't need more money.
It needs a structural overhaul.
\_ Somewhat untrue: Education in CA needs more money AND
they need to spend it more wisely.
\_ I don't think it's a case of "spend it more wisely" but
restructure the entire educational system. The people
in charge from the top all the way down plus the
teacher's unions all have to go. Until that happens,
no amount of money will improve CA education.
\_ Wrong. California ranks 33rd in per pupil spending. We
spend like a poor Southern state and wonder why we get
crappy results. CA needs to spend more on schools.
http://www.edsource.org/sch_expend.cfm
\_ Dump the illegals and then recalculate, or get a chart
that shows absolute numbers which your chart is hiding
or better yet, do both.
\_ Prop 55 includes a $300m grant to build more charter schools.
On this basis alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support
it.
\_ Building schools makes no sense when the kids at the
current schools don't even have books or teachers. This
is money poorly spent in the name of education.
\_ For the "yes on 56" folks, why do you want to lower the number of
legislators needed to increase taxes to 55% from 2/3?
\_ The state budget has been in chaos over not being able to return
tax rates to an equitable level. Giving the legistature the
ability to actually do their job sounds like a good idea, unless
you are one of the many in CA who doesn't like paying for what we
have here.
\_ If you paid the taxes *I* pay you'd think they're already too
high. Go get a real job and pay that shit yourself for a few
years and we'll see what you think "equitable" looks like.
\_ I for one think welfare queens should start paying their fair
share.
\_ What percentage of the state budget is spent by your
so-called "welfare queens"? Do you even know?
\_ I already pay more than my share for what "we" have here.
\_ If you really fell that way, why not leave?
\_ The weather which is not something improved by increased
taxes.
\_ Because it only takes 51% to lower them.
\_ Is that true? I thought *all* tax legislation had to be
passed by the same amount.
\_ and when was the last time your state taxes were lowered?
\_ It's sad how easy y'all get brainwashed by right wing talk
radio.
\_ When was the last time taxes were lowered?
\_ Last fall, by Herr Gropenator.
\_ Case in point. Look for a reference to a "car tax"
before, oh, '96.
\_ No taxes were lowered by the Governor.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCAVehicleLicense2003.html
\_ I wonder how it feels to be you and be wrong about
everything, all the time.
\_ I see a fee being lowered after it was raised
earlier. Where is your tax? Do you think I was
unaware of the VLF being lowered? You're not even
remotely as clever as you think you are.
\_ In real dollars, property taxes go down every day. Thanks,
prop 13.
\_ Until you move.
\_ Yes, thanks prop 13 or I couldn't afford to own a home.
My parents would already be in the street.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't do anything to help new homeowners;
it only helps people with hundreds of thousands of
dollars of equity in their homes keep from
contributing to the community. The idea of people
losing their homes over property taxes is a myth.
\_ A myth? I was here and saw it happen. It is
real life to me, not some history book lesson.
I lived in pre-prop 13 CA. Did you?
\_ Yeah, I was here too. We used to have good
schools before Prop 13 dried up the revenue
for them. CA has been on a slow downward
spiral ever since it was passed.
\_ Yeah, the state was better bankrupting
families so they'd leave and take their kids
with them. Who wants to spend money
educating all those middle class kids?
\_ Uh huh. Without Prop 13 my taxes would be up
40% over the last two years. Since they are
already $5K now that's another $2K. I wouldn't
lose my house, but I'd suffer. Eventually, I
might lose my house if the taxes double/triple.
\_ So? Suffer away. It's market economics. You
could always move instead. Also, without prop
13 the burden would be spread everywhere.
\_ It's not market economics. What good
does it do me if my house is worth 20x
what it used to be? I should pay tax on it
when I sell and not before, like with stock.
\_ I think Mr. I Hate Prop 13 is just a
bitter apartment dweller who gets off
every night thinking tomorrow will be the
day the housing bubble bursts and he can
finally afford a house.
\_ property taxes pay for the services which
support the value of your house, like
police, fire, and roads. The analogy to
stocks is totally missing the point.
-tom
\_ So if my house is worth 20x what
my neighbor's house is worth then
I should pay 20x more for this?
\_ I think so. -!tom
\_ Even if it doesn't cost 20x to
supply services to his house?
He uses the same amount of road,
fire, police and other services.
His more expensive house does
not put a bigger drain on the
local services. Let me guess,
you're not a home owner and
don't work yet, either?
\_ I am a homeowner, and have
been working for 15 years.
Try again, anonymous coward.
-tom
\_ You 'work' for UC and live
in Oakland.
\_ How do either of these
points matter to the
discussion? And why
do you put "work" in
quotation marks?
Because I didn't get
laid off with the
rest of the dotbombers?
-tom
\_ How much more will you lose if
your block goes up in flames? Or
if property values crash because
of high crime and shitty schools?
-tom
\_ He's getting the same service as
the shitty house next door. Will
the local fire department make
his fire a priority when both
houses catch fire at the same
time? Not a chance. Will the
cop go to his house first? Nope.
\_ You didn't address my point.
If property values drop by
50%, Mr. Expensive House will
lose a lot more money than
Mr. Cheap House; therefore,
Mr. Expensive House has
more personal interest in
services which support
property values. -tom
\_ You think this
relationship is linear?
When the house price
doubles, does the cost
of these services also
double?
\_ Because it is past time that California raised its taxes.
\_ no its past time California lowered its expendatures.
\_ Okay, where? (And no, deleting my question does not count
as a win.)
\_ I wasn't here when your question was deleted. Where?
2 things for starters: revamp the educational system,
and stop spending money on illegal aliens, then we'll
have a chance to see what The People's real needs are
and go from there.
\_ California already spends less on education than
most states. This has been the case for a very
long time.
\_ I didn't say spend less. I said revamp. The
entire system is broken and needs to be redone.
\_ illegal alien is a federal issue, not state one.
I think it's unfair to ask California to bear the
burden of Federal government's failure to guard its
borders.
\_ None of this really matters as long as the e-voting machines can be
shown to be easily compromised and voters are not required to show
ID in order to vote. Aargh!
\_ I had to show ID this morning.
\_ Where did you vote? (City, County)
\_ Dublin. They asked everyone for ID.
\_ When I was voting this morning I saw an old person asking about
paper receipts and audit trails. It made me happy.
\_ In San Francisco, we vote by filling in lines with a pen on
a piece of paper, which is then read by an optical scanner.
This seems like an ideal solution - not prone to error or
fraud, easy to understand for everyone, leaves a permanent
record for recount, and not labor intensive for the precincts.
Why do other counties insist on using such awful solutions
like Diebold?
\_ Who keeps the piece of paper, the voter or the polling
station? If it's the voter, this system is highly
vulnerable to verifiable vote-selling. If it's put in
a lock-box at the polling place, you're in much better
shape.
\_ The actual ballot with the pen markings is fed into
the optical scanner by the voter themselves - after this
it is locked away for safekeeping. The voter keeps
only the receipt torn from the top of the sheet.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/votetech.htm
Scroll down to "optical scanning."
\_ Wow, that rocks! Thank you! Now if only Alameda
County would implement this. |
| 2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12431 Activity:high |
2/27 I don't live in California anymore, and it's dissapeared from the
headlines...What's the deal with Arnie? Has he improved the fiscal
situation? done anything else useful?
\_ Of course not. The main thing he's done is claim that allowing
gay marriage in SF will cause civil unrest.
\_Gay marriage in SF doesn't work, the state doesn't recognize
gay marriage. If you don't like it, either change the laws
in Sac. or secede from California. I don't really give a
rats ass about fags getting married, but the law in its current
form definitely does not recognize homosexual unions as a
legal entity, no matter how you may try to reinterpret it.
If a law is discriminatory, go and get it changed. Good luck
trying to get the Latinos to vote for it.
\_ Mmm... racist and homophobic all in one breath.
\_ I don't think it was racist. Latino voters are more against
gay marriage than non-Latino voters. Statement of fact.
\_ Civics lesson 101: Marriage is not mentioned in the US
Constitution. Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
marriages will stand and continue.
\_ Why do Americans think the Executive branch has anything to do
with the economy? As if they can push the "create jobs" button
and some choose not to? Not Arnold, not Davis, not Bush, not
Clinton nor any other Executive has the power to "improve the
fiscal situation". And if they did, the few months he's been in
office wouldn't be enough time anyway. I didn't vote for Arnold
and don't like Arnold and I'm voting against his prop 57/58
insanity but I'll grant that he's trying. How many people on the
motd have ever taken a real US Civics course?
\_ In CA, state spending is wholy incumbent upon the Governor and
on how well he can woo the legislature. Do a little more civics
studies yourself.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm
Also take a short course on economics, and see how much of an
effect government spending has upon the economy. Connect the
dots, young man.
\_ Woo the legislature? As if the legislature is some mythical
beast that is intent on the destruction of the economy? No,
dummy, it is incumbent upon the legislature to write and pass
bills that will have a positive effect. Since when did the
legislature lose all responsibility for their own actions?
Like I said, take a civics course. Worse than being ignorant,
you're actually completely ass backwards on the subject.
\_ The motd continues to amaze.
\_ Since the Recall put the blame for all of California's
economic woes at the feet of Gray Davis.
\_ Actually they do have a "create jobs" button, but not on such
a big enough scale to make a difference. For that they need
legislative help.
\_ He didn't say "economy"--he said "fiscal situation". You know,
the CA gov't budget problems? Moron.
\_ *laugh* Yes, the governor can magically fix the "fiscal
situation" which is dramatically different and unrelated to
the economy. Refer to my reply above about who writes and
passes legislation in this state. The other guy only needs
a civics class. You're hopeless.
\_ You know, being abrasive doesn't make you any less
wrong. Certainly the governor can't magically fix
anything, but he has a significant amount of control
over both state expenditures and state income, which
are the two aspects of the fiscal situation. For
example, Arnie simply threw away $4 billion in revenues.
100% his own decision, for his own political gain. -tom
\_ Yeah, vs. Davis tripling the car tax to raise money,
also 100% his own decision, which unfortunately
was so unpopular that they threw him out of office.
I guess you won't be running any winning campaigns
in your lifetime, Tommy boy.
\_ Wrong. Davis cut the car tax by 1/3 back in 99,
when the state was flush with cash. It went back
to its normal level automatically.
\_ He's been busy raising money to fund the "borrow $15 billion to
balance the budget this year" prop. It's going to get very ugly
out here very quickly.
\_ The Gropinator wants to borrow $15B in bonds to pay for his
$4B/yr car tax cut. Dunno if it going to pass or not. CA voters
are nuts.
\_ Yes they are. Whee! Actually, CA voters aren't much different
than other states. Which is to say that their collective
intelligence is that of a child.
\_ I think the problem with california voters is that they
really represent the equivalent of at least three states
in terms of interests. Very large blocks of California
voters differ by as much as, say, South Carolina voters
and Utah voters. |
| 2004/2/18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29820 Activity:high |
2/18 California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night called for San
Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage marathon.
"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they
overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as
being between a man and a woman. I support that law, and I encourage
San Francisco officials to obey that law," the former actor said.
\_ "I vill tuhminate your fag marriages!"
\_ I encourage Arnold to shut the hell up and concentrate
his amazing energy on fixing California's fiscal health.
\_ We put him in office to just do that one thing and ignore the
rest of the state's issues. not.
\_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (this is a real quote)
\_ this was one of the la times' stupid quotes of the year
\_ URL?
\_ "Maybe you ahr all homosexuals!"
\_ You know, I could imagine being gay except for the part about
buttsex with guys. Actually buttsex with girls doesn't appeal
to me either.
\_ you can be gay and not engage in anal sex, ask tom.
\_ Tom holum is gay?
\_ yeah well oral sex is pretty ridiculous too. basically
I need that pussy. two cocks just doesn't work.
\_ You don't like blowjobs? You must be the only
guy in the world that doesn't.
\_ He probably prefers the softer lighter fur on his
gf's mustache to a man's coarser facial hair.
\_ "Give me your boots, your clothes, and your motorcycle."
\_ I had temporarily forgotten we have an Austrian former
world champion bodybuilder as governor of one of the world's
largest most important economies, thanks for the reminder.
\_ Better than a career politician doing nothing but lining his
pockets and selling to the highest bidders.
\_ not by much |
| 2004/2/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12210 Activity:nil |
2/11 Wow, the Blade Runner thread actually made me laugh. Motd hasn't
done that in awhile, thank you!
\_ You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it. :)
\_ one of the city papers asked those questions of the mayoral
candidates... it was pretty awesome. Ammiano was the funniest.
Q: But you're not helping. Why?
A: I don't know. Maybe I'm a Republican?
\_ URL?
\_ http://csua.org/u/44k
\_ Thanks!
\_ i interviewed a vp of engineering who, for company political
reasons, i was dead set against hiring. so we small talked
during the interview, then i asked, "You're in a desert,
walking along when..." the guy was very confused by the
question too.
\_ Is this testing whether I'm a replicant, or a lesbian?
\_ i would have given the guy points if he knew enough
to ask that.
\_ Good to know he didn't blow you away.
\_ well, we're not allowed to talk about personal matters
during an interview, so i couldn't ask him about his
mother.
\_ When I worked at AskJeeves, it was common practice to run
the VK both on our own engine (dead failure) or other so-
called natural language search engines or AI models (dead
funny failures). Ah, how those dotcom hours flittered away.
\_ So was Decker a replicant?
\_ That's Deckard. According to Ridley Scott, he definitely
was, and there are clues throughout the movie that point
towards this. The Director's Cut restores the final clue,
the unicorn dream, which makes the final origami message from
the policeman (a unicorn) make sense. Of course if you're
talking about the book, the answer is definitely no.
\_ In addition to the unicorn stuff mentioned above, how do you
thing a normal human could take the physical punishment he took
during some of those fights (in the movie) and not only survive
but so quickly recover and shrug off the shock, pain, blood loss
and physical damage that should have knocked him out cold if not
outright killed him? (yes, that's one really long sentence)
\_ Um. Action hero clause? Unless you think Arnie played an
android in all those movies of his... no wait...
\_ Hey! No normal human could run that dumb a campaign
and still with an election in the biggest state in the
Union! He must be a replicant.
\_ Normally yes but in this case there's a clear "humans vs.
non-humans" thing going on which is the entire point of
the movie. It was a better movie than to just go for
the Arnold Clause. |
| 2004/2/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12171 Activity:nil |
2/8 CA: At-a-glance look at Proposition 56
Vote NO unless you'd like to tax CA out of existence.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073758/posts
\_ When was the last time anyone here voted yes on a propsition in CA?
\_ I vote some up and some down. I actually read them in full plus
the various opinions and analyst reports before voting. You say
that as if you expect everyone always votes NO on all of them.
If that were the case they'd all have always failed, yes? We
know that isn't the case. |
| 2004/2/6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12121 Activity:nil |
2/5 Just got my California Suplemental Voter Guide. So Arnold couldn't
find $15 billion dollars in waste after all, and wants to borrow it?
Isn't this what the feds do? Anyway, the measure is sponsored by
"Join Arnold," which makes me think of that part in Evil Dead II where
Bruce Campbell is outside the house and the eyes appear...and some
cheesy processed voice says, "Jooooooooin Ussssss."
\_ This is the first you have heard of this?
\_ If it doesn't pass, then he will do deep cuts.
\_ Anyone notice Arnold is spinning this as a way to pay for excesses in
Davis' budget, as in we need to recover from a debt, when we're
really covering a regular deficit by incurring a new debt. |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11804 Activity:high |
1/15 If minority of wealthy people own a huge percentage of the wealth in
the US, then woludn't it make more sense for them have a bigger
percentage of tax?
\_ How much bigger? Serious question here. How much more should rich
people pay in your opinion?
\_ perhaps are you suggesting a hefty property/wealth tax in liu of
income taxes? One important function of gov't is protect property,
and so one could easily argue that those with the most for the
govt to protect should be paying the lion's share of the govt
expenses.
\_ Only because they earn more, but it would not make sense to charge
them more per dollar, just more dollars because they're making
more dollars. And you're confusing "wealth" with "high income
earning". They are not the same thing. A wealthy person with low
or no income should be paying the same taxes as a poor person with
low or no income: zero.
\_ And we suddenly race back to serfdom! So those not making an
"income" shouldn't be contributing to the common defence simply
because they've got theirs? Grow up.
\_ They pay in other ways such as property taxes, death taxes,
utility taxes, bridge tolls, sales taxes, and a million
other fees. Get an education and grow up yourself. When
you're less ignorant you can come back and discuss adult
topics with us.
\_ One rhetorical technique really bothers me: the term
"death tax". Calling it that makes it seem cruel and
unfair, but you can't tax a dead person. Call it what it
really is: a tax on recieving an inheritance.
\_ Yeah, but it's been obliterated by Bushco, so is it
worth talking about? Yay inherited plutocracy!
\_ Don't forget, this death tax was only on assets
exceeding 2 mill, which hardly sounds excessive.
I can understand pegging this to inflation, but
doing away with it entirely seems excessive since
that will need to be made up in other ways.
\_ Yeah, the whole process leading up to it has
been utter bullshit. It's greed, plain and
simple. Inheritance tax has an interesting
history, and is a deeply anti-monarchic response
(and rightly so).
\_ How much bigger?
\_ This contradicts what people consider 'fair' in non-tax contexts.
This reminds me of a truly amazing article in the Daily Bruin I
read the other day where someone was complaining how unfair it
was that Schwarzenegger wasn't willing to tax rich people in
California more, to solve the budget problem... Then in the same
breath the person complained how the Federal government has this
progressive scheme of taxing states, where California only gets
back 76% or so of the revenue they give up to the Feds (which
apparently is also very unfair). It seems he saw no contradiction
in what he was saying, or maybe he didn't want to be principled
but favored any tax scheme which gave him the biggest slice of
the pie possible in the current political climate. -- ilyas
\_ The analogy is false. "States" don't suffer from the
problems of poverty, people do. There's no reason the
state with the highest cash flow should pay proportionally
more than other states. (You can't call California the
"richest" state since right now our state government is
actually the poorest.) California also has more poor people
and more need for social services than, say, Wyoming. -tom
\_ I think California is passing the 'suffering'
from this progressive taxing scheme the feds have onto
the residents just fine. Who is to say the Feds have a less
optimal income redistribution plan than you do? Maybe it's
worth it to take away from some social services in CA and
optimal income redistribution plan than you do?
give to social services in MA, etc. The analogy is not false.
\_ If the other states are getting more for pork-barrel projects,
then it's logically consistant. If it's to subsidize poor states
then he is a hypocrite.
\_ Well, even if it goes exclusively to pork, you are still not
in the clear. You have to prove that _your_ method of income
redistribution is better than this other one. I think it's
better to simply agree on whether progressive taxation is
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
\_ You're missing the point. Taking more money from
California because it has the highest cash flow is not
"progressive taxation." California is billions of dollars
in the hole--"rich" people who lose money during a given
year pay no taxes that year. California has no earnings,
just a budget. -tom
\_ Bzzt! California has 'earnings'. They're called taxes.
Just because CA spends more than it takes in doesn't
mean it isn't doing well. That's called overspending.
If I made a million dollars last year but spent 1.5
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ If you spent the 1.5 million on charity projects like
education for all children and health care for the
poor and elderly, then you'd have a 1.5 mil deduction
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
and not have to pay any taxes. It's not like the
state is buying itself sports cars.
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
\_ California is *NOT* the richest state in terms of average
per capita income. And if you look at the distribution scheme
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
you will see that the money goes to politically favored states
and is taken away from those the Republicans want to punish.
Poverty and wealth have nothing to do with it.
\_ All methods of income distribution are unfair to someone. That is
one of the core problems with any tax system. No matter what you
do someone will say it is unfair to them. And they'd be right. The
only real question is not "fair or unfair?" but "who do we screw?"
In the U.S. we screw wealthy people by charging them more money but
not providing more services for their tax dollar. We then screw
them again when they want to leave their wealth to other family
members so the money has been unfairly taxed twice. I was going to
balance my comments by saying how we screw poor people but I can't
think of anything that isn't some form of "we don't give them enough
money from wealthier people".
\_ I disagree. I don't think forming societies is an inherently
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
\_ That's an interesting opinion but not meaningful and does not
bear out in reality where historically no matter what the tax
system has looked like there is always a group that
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
\_ Well, I think 'feeling screwed' is not a good yardstick
for universal fairness. Maybe someone is unusual
and would feel screwed with any scheme that didn't give him
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
the whole world on a platter. I don't claim to know how
to approach universal fairness, but I have a feeling it
exists (even if it's not as elegant and simple a concept as I
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
would like). -- ilyas
\_ Well, i'm not sure your vague "feeling of existence"
is such a good basis for your claim that a
notion of universal fairness exists.
\_ You're probably not wealthy enough to know that our tax system
is so deliberately laden with loopholes that the very richest
pay far far less of their income in taxes than you probably think
\_ They may be too ethical to play shell games with companies.
But that doesn't mean they don't exist for those with
less scruples.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
that they do.
\_ Compare a regular guy making 40k, gets taxed 20% = $8000.
Then there's moneybags making $400k, gets taxed 5% = $20000.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes.
it gets spent later.
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
\_ Noblesse Oblige?
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
\_ No, actually, my parents are fantastically wealthy and I know
that your concept of "the rich pay nothing! it's all full of
holes! the poor pay more!" is a crock of shit. They pay more
every year in absolute and percentage terms than any middle
class or poor person will pay in a lifetime. You're not
wealthy enough to know what the rich really pay, you just
repeat the noise you read on http://moveon.org.
\_ I disagree. Jean-Luc Piccard once said the life of a few is
worth sacraficing for the benefit of the many. Or maybe that
was from a Vulcan, I can't remember.
\_ No, Picard never said this. He was not a utilitarian. What
he did say in one episode was that he refuses to let
arithmetic decide such matters.
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes. |
| 2004/1/7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11695 Activity:nil |
1/6 People have said to me, "Arnold, isn't it a terrible burden being
governor at a time of such crisis?" I tell them, no, not at all.
To crush your enemies, have them driven before you and hear the
lamentation of their women - that is best in life.
\_ I read the motd for this sort of deep philosophic thought. Thank
you. |
| 2003/12/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11572 Activity:kinda low |
12/23 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/23/MNGS03SUEU1.DTL Democrat Governor stops parole, while Republican Governor lets those on parole free? \_ That's because Arnold is actually more liberal than Davis was. \_ Arnold is busy trying to be a Champion of Women. \_ Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! |
| 2003/12/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11268 Activity:nil |
12/1 Donald Rumsfeld wins Foot In Mouth Award:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.html
\_ "I believe that gay marriage should be between a
man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
\_ George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
\_ Which is bizarre, because his quote makes perfect sense.
\_ It's a logical tautology:
Things we know we don't know = Everything - Things we know
In a logical sense, he's saying we are aware of fewer ignorances
than we have, which would not be the case if we knew everything
we know, got it? ;-)
\_ You must not see some of the questions he gets from reporters.
Sometimes he has to talk real slow, with short words.
\_ Bzzzt. Things we know we know.
Things we don't know that we know.
Things we know we don't know.
Things we don't know that we don't know.
\_ I knew someone would say this. Typical computer people. Just
because it makes logical sense, doesn't mean that its clear
English. Its very deserving of the award, which is meant to
encourage clear public speaking. I bet you think Stroustrup is
a well written piece of literature.
\_ Okay, so what was not clear about it? I fully understood the
intent of the statement the first time I read it with little
difficultly.
\_ Forest. Trees. Try the Orwell article, it might make
things a teensy bit more clear to you.
\_ Non. Sequitor. I read the Orwell article. Did you?
There's nothing like that at all in what Rumsfeld said.
The only thing I see at all that MAY confuse someone is
that the words "unknown" and "known" are used many times
\_ I'd like to see a transcript of the whole interview. He
sometimes says inane things to point out the inanity of the
questions he gets.
\_ Oh I see, so sounding inarticulate is like a Jedi Mind
Trick?
\_ No it's more like: "look you dumb asses, maybe if I talk
to you like you're a 3-year-old you'll understand"
\_ So wait. I have to be a 3 year old to understand
what Rummy is saying here? Are you a 3 year old?
\_ Bush Good, Saddam Bad.
America Strong, Terrorists Weak.
\_ No you moron. It makes perfect sense, but normally
you wouldn't be so verbose in pointing it out. I'd
like to see the transcript because it's most likely
he already answered the question several times and
was spelling out the obvious when it was clear that
the reporters were idiots. |
| 2003/11/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11225 Activity:kinda low |
11/25 First Arnold campaign promise broken:
Aug. 20:
"SCHWARZENEGGER: Now, does this mean we're going to make cuts? Yes.
Does this mean education is on the table? No."
Now:
"Education would absorb $160 million in cuts this year and next under
the proposal Schwarzenegger presented to legislative leaders Monday."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1125califbudget-ON.html
\_ RECALL!
\_ Remember, Sully, when I promised to kill you last? ... I lied.
\_ I feel so betrayed! In the movies he wouldn't let us down!
\_ What about in Batman?
\_ Y'all should've voted for Tom.
\_ Do away with that pesky public education altogether.
\_ Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
\_ No. Mary Carey. |
| 2003/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11094 Activity:nil |
11/15 California budget head calls deficit 'staggering'
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/11/15/rtr1149508.html
Recall Arnold, bring back Davis!!!
\_ good link. yeah we need 4 more years of davis to reach that
$62b budget gap. bring back davis. im finding a new state. |
| 2003/11/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11040 Activity:nil |
11/11 Cool. Foreign born billionaire fucking around in American politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer
\_ So its okay when Richard Mellon Scaife does it, but its bad when
George Soros does it? And I hear that Ahnold guy is a furriner,
too.
\_ Scaife is an American. His concerns are American. He is not
running around spending money to make America better for the
world but the world better for America. As an American that's
ok by me. I'm not a citizen of the world, or Berlin or any
other place outside this country.
\_ And Soros has lived in America since 1956, likely well before
you were born. Calling into question the patriotism of a
citizen of this country simply because he supports a different
view from yours is childish at best, unpatriotic at worst.
--scotsman
\_ And this is worse than huge corporate donations how?
\_ Did you read the article? No. You're so blinded and ignorant
you don't even know about the death of big contributions a few
years ago from big corporations and the equally evil unions?
\_ because corporate donations go to The President, and Soros
donates only to organizations not affiliate with any one
candidate.
\_ Huh? Nurse, increase the patient's medication, he's not
making sense.
\_ go download the latest patch for your sarcasm detector.
\_ Wait I thought the Democrats were the party of poor, homosexual,
minorities. HOw could this be?
\_ Homosexuals hate minorities.
\_ Actually, minorities hate homosexuals.
\_ It's important that we all understand which of the
different 'communities' on the left hate each other so we
can make sure to sit them at different tables when we
divvy up the public treasury for ourselves. |
| 2003/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:11012 Activity:high |
11/10 http://csua.org/u/4y1 GO RALPH! GO! RALPH'04! Sock it to 'em baby! No Dean-lite! \_ I guess you want more attacks on American soil. \_ There's not a single bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm \_ First of all, learn to shorten your URLs. I have done it for you this time. Remember this in the future, it makes your trolls slightly more credible. \_ Sorry, but it's not a troll. 300,000 democrats crossed over and y'all bitch out my guy for having the nerve to enter the race. This is still a democratic republic the last i checked. \_ So you think we're better off with Bush, huh? \_ I think BushGore is the same person. If it can't be the Real Thing then fuck it. I refuse to vote for the alternate, not lesser, evil. It is exactly that sort of non-thinking that gets us the same sort of loser in office every 4 years. \_ I agree! GO NADER GO! RALPH'04! -- conservative \_ Well that's just dumb. Now, granted, Al Gore wasn't a very good candidate. Lacked charisma. But it's pretty obvious that he had differences from Bush. Even if they said the same thing before the election, you could tell. This is a democracy, yes. Which is why Nader cannot win, he is simply too far left to appeal to enough people. He wouldn't win the dem nomination either. So forget it. \_ Your own words, "Even if they said the same thing before the election, you could tell" [they were different]. WTF? That's just plain stupid. GO GREEN! We're taking the SF mayor and after the governator fails we're taking CA and then the country. The reason people don't vote Green is because they believe they can't win, not because they don't like Green politics, platforms and Green philosophy. --Nader'04! \_ hah, are you for real? what I meant was that even if they might sound pretty similar in the useless debates they had, they were different. Do you really think that a Gore presidency would have been no different? The electoral laws in this country are set up for 2 parties. |
| 2003/11/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10892 Activity:nil |
10/31 Remember all those rosy estimates about how much it would
cost to rebuild Iraq from the White House? Remember how many
on the motd said that $200B and 10 years was wildly too high?
Who turned out to be right?
http://csua.org/u/4v5
\_ Of course the Marshall plan cost over $1 Trillion. And that gave us
France and Germany. Oh well.
\_ BZZT thanks for playing anyway. The Marshall Plan allowed the
European countries to devise their own reconstruction plans,
and make their own priorities, which the Iraqi reconstruction
does not. US corporations did not participate - the money was
given to local organizations and companies.
Also, the Marshall plan cost 11.8 billion, about 100 billion
in todays dollars, not 1 trillion. You're off by an order
of magnitude even taking into account inflation.
\_ The value I saw was $1T in today's dollars. I'll double check.
Do you have a reference for your figure?
\_ Yawn. I don't recall seeing $200b and 10 years on the motd and
certainly never thought such a figure was wildly too high. I'm
still stuck on the motd postings about how it's going to be another
Vietnam quagmire and we'll never beat them and how the CA recall
can't possibly pass and Arnold can't possibly get elected if it
does and Bush can't win in 2000 and the tax cuts will never pass
and the economy will never recover and we're running out of oil
and housing prices are going to crash. If I had to blindly bet
with 1:1 odds on whether a motd prediction would come true or not
I'd be fabulously wealthy always betting against the motd. |
| 2003/10/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29595 Activity:high |
10/28 UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language
to dominate politics.
http://csua.org/u/4u2
\_ I think the particulars of his metaphor are WAY off. -- ilyas
\_ They need to learn the meaning of the word "brevity"
\_ Uhm yeah and leftists don't. Turn on cnn sometime.
\_ What makes you think Ted Turner is a leftist?
\_ Bahwahahhaha!! AMC?
\_ AMC is not a rightwing asshole. go suck a dick. -AMC
\_ You're not the AMC. The AMC is funny.
\_ Um...
\_ He's created a 'think tank'. Which ideas are these exactly?
Victory of the proletariat? Universal health care, 100 % income
redistribution? Enhanced race baiting and vote buying?
You are seeing (I hope) the death throes of Socialism / Communism.
\_ Hey, how do we make the freeper guy go away?
\_ well, when you figure out how to make "the freeper guy" go
away let the rest of us know so we can deal with the
tens of millions of these fuckers who are holding our
country hostage.
\_ yeah, the majority of voters, buncha fuckers deciding how
the country is run when it should really be the elite
liberal minority. we all know elections are just to keep
the people in fly over country from spreading east and
west and shooting us all from their suvs and pickups while
we're out enjoying nature, riding our linux powered bikes.
we should elect hillary empress because she knows whats
best for everyone. it takes a village idiot to vote (D).
\_ Well, he's right that most liberals sound like idiots. I certainly
am tired of hearing the same old lame propaganda from the 1890s.
Or wait, does that make me an evil capitalist oppressor, or just
a racist?
\_ both. you're also a dead rich white male fascist as well even
if we know from (white man's) history that you were brilliant
but poor and gave up what little you had including often your
life for this country. go look up what happened to the signers
of the D of I. several were shot/executed, and almost all of
them died poor after either having everything they owned
confiscated or donating it to the cause of freedom. fucking
dead rich white male capitalist oppressor racist bastards.
\_ 'Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized
society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's
an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers.'
Funny, what percentage of the (much lower) taxes in CA where spent
on "infrastructure" in the 60s and what percentage is spent now?
(answer: over 30, much less than 3 respectively) and who was it
(need you ask?) that supported enacting a 3% minimum? and who
opposed? hint: they need that money to give to those on "the dole"
\_ NO FACTS! DO NOT BRING FACTS INTO THIS! NO FACTS! Racist! |
| 2003/10/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:10724 Activity:high |
10/21 What if you are conservative on some issues, and liberal on others.
Do you call yourself liberal or conservative? How do you
make the distinction?
\_ Then you could be authoritarian or libertarian.
\_ authoritarian sounds too negative. Is there a more positive
term? And what if even on economic issues, you have
both liberal and conservative views?
\_ There's a reason Authoritarian sounds negative; because it
IS. Anyway, if you are a pussy who is afraid to take on
a negative label, why label yourself at all. Why not just
be a whiney "If you label me you negate me" liberal -phuqm
\_ It's not an absolute. You can have some liberal and some
conservative views, but still be overall a conservative
or a liberal. If your views are split about halfway, you
are a centrist. The libertarian party has a useful (although
a bit simplistic) tool which is a square with each apex
representing liberal, conservative, libertarian or
authoritarian. Most people fall somewhere between
those extremes. Take this:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
\_ I'm pretty sure the quiz is biased and makes people
tend to describe themselves as libertarian.
\_ I took this quiz at the Top Dog at 51st and Broadway.
At least I got a hot dog there. What do I get from
the website?
\_ Why do you need a label? Politics isn't a fraternity, or at
least it shouldn't be.
\_ I'm just discussing self-identification. We are social
creatures.
\_ Like Governor Arnold you call yourself "fiscally conservative
and socially liberal" - or vice versa.
\_ 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal' = 'libertarian'
We have a libertarian in office! Yay! -- libertarian
\_ then you grow up and learn to define yourself by what you
do and what you believe and not with soundbite friendly
labels that mean nothing.
\_ Look, labels are useful. They aren't 100% accurate and they
aren't needed once you have a better understanding of the person
in question. But, like most generalizations, they are useful.
Someday you may "grow up" and realize this, but i'm by no means
sure of that. -phuqm
\_ based on your motd posts, i can think of several labels for
you, but I'm pretty sure none of them are useful.
asshole and moron come to mind, but that's just not
useful.
\_ Still wrong. "asshole" is a perfectly reasonable and
"useful" lable. I apply it to myself all the time.
For example, if you have friends that are as stupid as
you are and who think similarly, you could say "that phuqm
is an asshole, don't bother with him" That would very
likely be useful to them. (And better it would probalbly
serve me too). -phuqm |
| 2003/10/18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29577 Activity:nil |
10/17 Huh, so Arnold won?
\_ Mr. Olympia? Yeah, he did.
\_ So no more Arnold movies? Oh well.
\_ Did you hear about the Florida recount? What about Monica
Lewinsky? |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10555 Activity:nil |
10/9 Anybody experience mozilla(1.2) mail (on rare occasions) truncate
sentences, like it will say "Arnie wo" instead of "Arnie won"?
It looks good before I send it out but it's lost letters at the
end of some lines by the time the recipient gets it.
\_ Have you seen the same thing in copies sent to yourself?
This may be on the receiver's side. I know mutt has a single
line display limit of 255 characters. --scotsman
\_ Upgrade to 1.4
\_ Does it fix it? Just wondering. Tried bugzilla but no hits. |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10541 Activity:kinda low |
10/8 "Arnold Schwarzenegger strongly suggested that he would call on
President Bush to provide federal aid to California." -nytimes
Crap! Stupid Californians need us non-Californians to bail them
out again.
\_ I hope the Pres. refuses. Though some might say that the reason for
letting the states stew was to prevent encouraging the states to run
for federal aid whenever they have trouble. However, we did oust our
Governor, so we are trying. Maybe that's an argument to rethink an
aid package.
\_ But that would leave less money for his golfing buddies who are
rebuilding iraq!
\_ CA gives more to the Feds than it receives each year.
\_ So does my state. What's your point? That CA shouldn't pony
up for its share of national defense?
\_ Which state is that?
\_ No, bitch, that both your state and ours should get a
larger chunk of that sweet federal pie.
\_ Keep your dirty paws off my pie!
\_ But! CA voters, voters on the West Coast mostly, like to
throw out their federally elected officials fairly often
that they build almost no seniority. Which is why CA gets
back so little. Look W.VA. miles of new highways going to
cities with hardly any people. Why? KKK Byrd
\_ Boxer and Feinstein have no seniority? Train harder
young grasshopper. (also see Pete Stark, Nancy Pelosi...)
\_ Yeah and look what they bring back... see any bases?
Any kind of bacon?
\_ CA should secede from the union. We can survive on our own.
We are the 5th largest economy in the world. The fed tax
we pay should cover our state deficit.
\_ i guess that's one way ahnold can be president
\_ Yeah... try that.. you forget about defense. Except for
San Diego, there's not much left. Even San Diego lost the NTC
and those enviro nuts want the carriers out of there.
\_ What could possibly threaten California militarily
except the US? And no amount of military force
could defend against that threat, anyway.
\_ Mexico?
\_ Don't need defense when you're no longer "USA", and
not poking you nose into middleast affairs.
\_ Let's see. North Korea invades the Republic of
California and then put tons of short-range missles here
pointing to the USA.
\_ Not possible. USA invades and occupies north korea
before they have a chance to invade new CA. You
think USA would let north korea to reach that far?
\_ Of course not. US would just slap CA around
like it does to Mexico.
\_ CA != Mexico.
\_ They _want_ us to secede. They'd invade,
slap martial law on us, and never have
to worry about winning the CA vote again.
\_ We have no oil. No worries.
\_ ??? We have oil, onshore and off.
\_ Why doesn't North Korea invade Canada, then? |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29569 Activity:high |
10/7 And Arnold wins it. The humiliating spectacle that is the United
States continues its great march forward! By the way, Davis sucks
ass too, California would have been fucked no matter what happened.
Bah to the whole thing, BAH I say. Silver lining is that everyone
seems to have seen right through Ward Connerly's idiotic Prop 54.
\_ how does Gary Coleman get 1900 votes?
\_ It does appear that a bunch of Latino voters voted for recall/Cruz
\_ People go to the polls in record numbers to vote and this is a
bad thing?! I'd like to see more of it, even if I disagree with
the results. |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29567 Activity:nil |
10/7 First exit polls say Davis is toast and Arnold is your governator.
One out of two isn't bad in politics.
\_ Nah...it'll be zero of two. |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10535 Activity:nil |
10/8 if Bustamante didn't run , Gray Davis would still be Governor.
\_ yeah, cuz moron democrats couldn't figure out a no on recal is a yes
vote for Gray Davis
\_ What the poster is saying that the yes on recall and bustamante
votes were very likely no votes if he hadn't run.
\_ ^did^had
\_ That is by far the 2nd dumbbest thing I have heard about this
election. More people voted for Arnold, with 134 other
candidates, than Davis in 2002.
\_ If McClintock doesn't run, Arnold wins by an even bigger landslide |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10529 Activity:high |
10/8 Can we call the governor "The Fuhrer"?
\_ Arnold is no fascist, but there is something disturbing about
the emotional justification people seem to have for voting for
Arnold, and how inextricably linked it is to his violent movies
and violent entertainment. I don't think its exactly healthy
for our democracy.
\_ http://www.statestats.com/edrank03.htm
Notice we're behind Florida now. We're clearly on a trend
to be America's Dumbest State! We #1! Woo!
\_ Nah, Alabama's gunning for #1, and they've got a lot of
experience.
\_ He's from Austria so he's a Nazi/Hitler clone? If he was from
some other country with >insert your favorite minority here<
\_ HAHAHHAHAHA you're going to try to claim that calling him
a Nazi because of his background isn't racist? BWAHAHHAA!
would it still be ok to make racist comments about him?
\_ Do you know what racism _is_? Prejudice yes, racism no.
\_ [ censor me, I'll censor you, fuckwad ] |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10526 Activity:nil |
10/8 Women supported Arnold (and other demographic trivia):
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/recall.exit/index.html |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10524 Activity:high |
10/7 Gray gave a very nice speech. He's clearly not going to be leaving
politics. Also, exit polls gave Tom a 53% positive rating across all
voters. I hope he runs against Boxer.
\_ This is a punch in the stomach of state democrats. I hope they
learned their lesson. In the meantime, Go Arnold!
\_ Yeah, it was a punch in the stomach 3 years ago when Bush won.
Boy, did I learn my lesson because today America is much
better than it was 3 years ago, right?
\_ We're talking state politics, right? So stop talking Bush
here. Davis was a nasty politician, just a notch above
corrupt. The governorship was for sale to the highest
bidder. If he was even 1/2 the governor that he was during
the last few weeks, he'd still be in office. But we all
saw thru the charade. He's gone, and good riddance. I'm
not pro-bush. I hate him. I hate most republicans, but when
the democrats go this wrong, this will send a message that
they better listen to. And don't get me wrong, the mesg goes
out to republicans, too, because they are just as much to
blame as anybody for the mess we're in. This lets Sacramento
know that the people will vote them out if they don't do
their job. My only regret is that there won't be a
"Kindergarten Cop II". Damn!
\_ Oh, for the love of Christ-- the governorship is still
up for sale, it's just that the price has gone up. Instead
of selling relatively cheap to Indian Casinos and Labor
Unions, expect the Governator to be kind to big Energy in
exchange for big political payoffs now and later. Say
goodbye to any chance of us getting more than pittance
from Enron, et. al.
\_ You're so 2001. We already weren't going to get
anything more from anyone on the energy bills. If you
thought otherwise it was just some caffeine induced
starbuck's fantasy.
\_ Arnie will prove you wrong.
\_ You know what? I hope you're right. I hope Arnie
will turn out to be that rarest of critters, a
truly uncorrupt, fiscally responsible, truly
compassionate conservative. If he does, I will
gladly post my most humble apologies right here.
In the meantime, even though I voted no on the
Recall, I will gladly admit that I am happy to
see Davis on his way out. If only we'd impeached
him instead....
\_ I hope this will send a message to the white house, too.
\_ nope. I am a democrat and I am not sure what "lesson" have
I learned, other than the fact not voting for Bush means
get screwed big time by Texas cowboys on Energy supply
and no federal intervention because the whitehouse and
the Kenny Boy is in the same club.
\_ I'll spell it out for you: there's no aristocracy in this
state. The people count and they're tired of seeing a jerkoff
like Davis blatantly sell out their interests to anyone with
a dollar and a bill they need signed. We have power and they
better wake the fuck up. That's the lesson to our worthless
"take a walk on that bill" legislators.
\_ The people are easily led and willing to believe that a
rich and ambitious man won't sell them down the river to
further the aims of the super-rich and politically
connected. Your masses, sir, are asses.
\_ They knew when they were getting screwed by a publicly
known corrupt politico and dumped his fat corrupt ass.
The people are just people and sometimes they fuck up
but this wasn't one of those times. If the election
had gone the other way you'd be here screaming how
brilliant the people are. Are you the same poster from
above who thinks BA voters are somehow special and
extra smart because the majority voted against recall?
\_ I loved how he was introduced: "best gov in the history of calif."
\_ Best governor in the last 11 months for sure!
\_ "It's a tumah! It's not a tumah!" |
| 2003/10/8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10519 Activity:high |
10/7 <DEAD>www.recallarnold.us<DEAD> Collecting links to all the sites popping up all over the place that are starting to push for The Next Logical Step. -alexf \_ It would be political suicide for the Democrats to start a recall on Arnold. Not only would it be difficult to get enough signatures, but it would *never* pass the general vote and the party would be *brutally* punished in 2004. As a conservative I can only hope that the leftist go for it. They might as well just shoot themselves now and save the rest of us the trouble of seeing suicide in slow motion. *PLEASE* try to recall Arnold. I'd love to see the Dem party implode and CA vote (R) in 2004. --Tom voter \_ The recall is only a mockery of the political process when the democrat gets recalled, eh? \_ Uh- it's a mockery when you start the recall before the person even takes office. The other guy had 5 years on record leading to the steps. \_ It's still a mockery. It's just tit for tat. What, only Republicans get to take advantage of shit? \_ What the guy above said. It's still very much a mockery. But what would you rather have -- mockery or Ahnold in office? And who do you think would be more likely to actually push through legislation to kill this recall loophole for good (that is, raise the 12% barrier to something more respectable, etc)? \_ Arnold got 47.7% (91% reporting) out of a field of 130. That's a landslide no matter how colored your glasses are. If people don't vote, fuck em. They don't count. \_ The one thing you're missing: in a real democratic election, Gray Davis would have been able to run. How many people would've chosen Davis over Arnold? (Let alone over Bustamante?) \_ Don't kid yourself. Everyone understood that a Yes on recall was a Yes on Arnold. Gray was running against himself. If he can't win a simple yes/no, he sure as hell can't win against a human being. \_ dumb fuck, a no on recall is a vote for Davis to something more respectable, etc)? -alexf \_ Ahnold in office. You people can't have it both ways. Getting rid of a moron governor is a much better reason to put up with 'mockery' (which is an odd way to define the law of the land) than tit-for-tat which is just petty. So either drop the mockery line or stand above the gutter yourselves. \_ It isn't a loophole. It's the law. Loophole doesn't above the gutter yourselves. mean what you think it means. |
| 2003/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29562 Activity:nil |
10/6 That was fast. The "Arnie is a rapist" stories are already falling
apart. Maybe it's a Vast Pro Arnold Hollywood Conspiracy! VPAHC!
\_ Why do you say that?
\_ You'll see but probably not until after everyone has voted and
it's too late to help clear his name as per LA Times planning.
\_ There are still people going around with anti-Nazi signs. I guess
the lesson here is: dirt works.
\_ That's it. This is too much. I have to vote for Arnie now. |
| 2003/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29556 Activity:nil |
10/6 I just got a robocall from a leftist org claiming to be a republican
org telling me to vote no on recall and no on the race measure and
ragging on Arnold. The only thing missing was an appeal to vote for
Cruz. "I is a raypooblikan and i is so dum i is votan fa Cruz!" |
| 2003/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29554 Activity:high |
10/6 Just think: tomorrow, regardless of the outcome, the greatest source
of stupid trolls in the history of the motd will be at an end. Praise
Jesus!
\_ You say that just months before the 04 election cycle begins.
\_ Not too worried about that. Everyone on here knows Bush is
a twink, except for one freeper that no one listens to anyway.
\_ everyone knows? troll harder.
\_ ^Jesus^Allah and Mohammed his Prophet^.
\_ no because then we can do the Dem hanging/pregnant/what chad thing
and the Dem minorities-are-too-stupid-to-figure-out-how-to-vote-so-
-we-need-a-do-over thing and the various Dem attempts to recall
Arnold which will go nowhere and the endless debate of the gridlock
caused when the legislature refuses to try to work with a (R)
governor.
\_ Sigh. Trolling again. You don't understand the voting machine
issue in the slightest, do you? You don't understand the
distrinction between saying minorities are too stupid to vote,
and saying that voting machines that are prone to error
(regardless of who uses them) are heavily concentrated in
minority districts?
\_ Good call. Pick one thing and ignore the rest. That always
works on the motd. By the time anyone notices the thread will
be too long to read and then erased and you can feel smart. |
| 2003/10/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10512 Activity:nil |
10/7 Remember when you're in the voting booth today: it will be your
fault afterwards if everything gets more fucked up. A vote against
the recall means more of the same. A vote for Cruz means more of
the same x10. A vote for Arnold is a vote for gridlock. If you
really want to change the course of CA, then you have to start at
the top and do it for real. This goes double for you jobless or
underemployed people. The welfare state never created a job for
anyone.
\_ so what you're really saying(since Arnie, Davis and Bustamante are
the only candidates with a chance) is that if you want to change
anything, you have to vote out the crooks in the legislature
in the next real election.
\_ Won't happen. The ledge in California is just as gerrymandered
as in any other state.
\_ Yes. However, due to the incredibly gerrymandered lines in this
state, there's no chance of that happening either.
\_ Yes, please do vote for McClintock. We're counting on it.
-- Democrat.
\_ I did and was happy to do so. The worst that will happen is
Cruz will fuck up the state for the rest of Davis' term and
that'll be that. As a real conservative I have no need for
faux conservative-lite like Arnold. If I can't get the real
thing, it doesn't matter which fraud is in office. |
| 2003/10/7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10500 Activity:high |
10/7 Georgy Russell physically attacked by Ahnold supporters
http://www.georgyforgov.com/press14.php
\_ Why the heck was she at Arnold's rally? Not saying she deserved it,
but just being there was asking for trouble.
\_ She and some supporters were protesting Ahnold as a "groper."
The classy way of dealing with this is to have security remove
the demonstrators, but the brown-shirts of Arnold's Army
apparently didn't get that memo.
\_ Yeah, and if she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking to be
raped, too.
\_ nice of you to take an extreme. a more appropiate example
would be to wear a dodgers jersey at candlestick or pacbell
\_ Which is perfectly legal, acceptable, and normal thing to
do. You think people should be beaten up for it?
\_ of course not. but there are people out there who look
for any excuse to cause trouble. not everyone out there
cares what's legal or acceptable or normal, and those
are the people georgy should've been wary of.
\_ So no one should protest for fear of retaliation?
Hmmm. Love that 'murican spirit.
\_ ok, point taken. if she's willing to subject
herself to that, more power to her.
\_ Who writes "in her now trademark wit" about herself? |
| 2003/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10492 Activity:nil |
10/6 This weekend, I got a bunch of prerecorded phone calls asking me to vote
for a specific candidate. Thanks Arnold, Davis, and Bustamante. That's
just what I wanted.
\_ you can thank the Do-Not-Call list for that.
\_ nonsense. They were able to do that before the list. Also, it
walks a fine 1st amendment line to stifle political expression
by not letting them call you. You wouldn't have a list at all
if no one was allowed to call you at all. Government is about
compromise.
\_ No it doesn't. It's not 1st amendment once it hits my phone.
It's property rights. If they want to talk to me, they can
knock on my door.
\_ THANK YOU! Does anyone have any info on when 1st Amend.
started covering a) advertizing, and b) phone calls?
\_ Yup. First amendment means you may say what you have to say.
it does not mean you can force people to listen.
\_ Are they breaking the law by knocking on your door? It is
your property...
\_ i think i remember that some local "mormon ban" laws
have been ruled to be constitutional. personally, i
enjoy telling them to fuck off. particularly since
unlike the telemarketer who's just trying to feed their
family by doing a shit job, the door to door
religeous nut is some self-righteous asshole who's
decided to harass me in their spare time for free(
after giving a large portion of their income away
to the religion.)
\_ Unfortunately, no, they're not and your phone is no
different. |
| 2003/10/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:10486 Activity:high |
10/5 Arnold's Enron Secret
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16902
\_ That guy sounded compelling except a) no references and b) the
"Hitlerian mustache" comment at the end.
\_ and umm, isn't the state budget deficit more like 36 billion?
\_ Thanks to cuts, cuts, cuts, and the car tax, we're passing
$8 billion to next year.
\_ I believe there were something like $11B in loans to get
through the year. That's going to hurt, especially with
the piss-poor bond rating CA has now.
\_ The courts over turned the loans as illegal. No loans to
carry over into next year. The budget is busted. Now
they *must* raise taxes or cut all the stuff they added in
last 5 years. If we have 1994 levels of income we should
roll back spending to the same level. End of story.
\_ They're doing this in Alabama. Its great! High school
kids are paying textbook fees and they've fired half
the bailiffs in the state, among many other instances
of "fraud and abuse" ferreted out.
\_ Kids here already didn't have books. They need to
break the teacher's union so the money being dumped
into education will actually get to the kids.
\_ GAH! More like they need to break the text
book oligarchy's stranglehold and move to
free Internet-published text books. Need
chapter 7? Print it out on recyclyed paper.
\_ Yeah, we all know how accurate the information
on the Internet is.
\_ You'd be surprised at how bad some
textbooks are.
\_ If the state can dictate curriculum, why
can't it write and publish online text-
books?
\_ Do both. I had forgotten about the textbook
industry's crimes. Bust the teacher's union
and the textbook industry as well. Works for
me. --guy you replied to about unions
\_ Just raise property tax to levels similar to other
states.
\_ Then the only people left in the state would be the
rich you hate so much and the illegals tending their
gardens and raising their children. The only way to
pay property tax on a home that's gone up in price
in a state where income increases don't match
housing value increases is to sell your home and
leave the state. That's why we had prop 13 in the
first place. I'm trying not to be overly rude here
but other states don't have our whacked out property
value rate of increase vs. income rate increase #s.
\_ That income and property values are so out of
whack is indication that something is wrong with
the property values. Don't worry, lots of people
would move in from out of state to take over once
the property values go down. Stupid Californians
fucked up their state. They don't deserve to run
it anymore. Get the heck out.
\_ More people are already moving in, right now.
That's what makes property values so high. It
isn't something you can legislate away and any
_public_ official who tried to destroy property
values would be hung in public and rightly so.
\_ Actually there is a net outflow of people
to other states.
\_ But total increase in population due to
immigration.
\_ Property values held up well in all the
US metropolitan areas even though they have
higher property taxes. Seems like there
is a lot of worry about property values in
California. Smells like a bubble to me.
It's going to be pricked one way or another.
Crappy economy, high crimes, lousy
educational system, lack of business
investments, high income people from other
states not moving to California because
of expensive houses, and high income taxes,
etc., bankrupt state government. None of
the above will help with property values
\_ So many times people have predicted this
for the very same reasons, since at least
the early 60s. So many times they have
been wrong.
\_ If that happened probably 1/2 the state would have to
sell their houses tomorrow and go back to renting..
property values would plummet plummet, markets would
crumble crumble... sorry, Hudson Hawk moment. But
it's true.
\_ Raise property tax while reducing income tax.
Burst the housing bubble. This will attract
lots of high income people from out of state to
come to the state, and attract business
investments too.
\_ Reduce income tax? How exactly is that going
to help all the old people living in their
home for the last 40 years which is now worth
so much on paper that their social security
can't cover even a small part of the tax
without prop13 laws to protect them? You
either weren't here when prop13 was passed,
you're too young to remember, or you're a mean
vicious person who wants to destroy people's
lives. I prefer to think you're just young.
It makes me feel better to think the least
worst thing about you.
\_ Arnold and Buffett are going to repeal
prop 13.
\_ Heard of home equity loan? What about
old people who rent, or who live with
reason I will not vote for him. there's just too many others.
their relatives and are still working
to make ends meet? Or old people who
depend on their children (who pay
income taxes) for support?
\_ I heard about it last week. Sounds credible but that's not the
reason I will not vote for him. there are just too many others.
The main reason is that he's clueless based on what he said
he will do. For example, he wanted to open the book and audit
everything. That sounds good to uninfomed Californians, but CA
already has independent auditors to do that (according to SF
Chronicle) and the state budget is online for anyone view it
Second example, he wants to repeal the VLF. (It's nice for me,
since I drive an expensive car.) The problem is he couldn't
explain how he'll get the $4B to replace the VLF. Repealling the
\_ they should roll back to 1994 population, housing
prices, gas prices, etc.
sources of revenue to fill it.
Arnie will provide.
VLF is devasting to the local governments if he can't find other
sources of revenue to fill it.
\_ Don't worry your pretty lil head about such complex things.
Arnie will provide.
\_ You misspelled "hooters."
\_ If you're truly concerned about the economy, you should be
voting for Tom.
\_ Guess how much of California's energy Enron supplied during the
summer of 2001 - less than 4 %.
\_ I don't see how that makes them any less sleazy, or how it
changes Arnold's intent in participating.
\_ There was no fraud accusations against Enron until the fall,
the company was solvent. Gray Davis had many of these
these meetings with Enron, as he should have, Enron was
the largest energy company in the nation. Davis has yet
to return 100's thousands from Enron.
\_ I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than this. There were
several suppliers taking advantage of the badly-deregulated
system to gouge us. |
| 2003/10/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10471 Activity:nil |
10/4 I love motdlogic. If someone suggested here that a bass guitar player
would make an excellent software engineer without any training, you'd
laugh him off the forum. But a bad action movie actor to run the
the world's fifth largest economy? That's a-ok!
\_ Yeah, I've reconsidered and now Arnie is my last-place choice for
replacement. A guy who knows nothing, won't debate, and doesn't even
have any record of leadership (being an actor is about following
directions), not got my vote.
\_ You forgot the number one rule: anyone the press hates *that*
much has to be doing *something* right.
\_ yeah, like Saddam, or Hitler
\_ Welcome to democracy.
\_ he's also ahead in the polls in the most populous state in the
U.S. i don't see why you're blameing the motd. he's probably
less popular on the motd than in california at large.
\_ So should we only vote for economists or politicians? I'd be fine
with only voting for economists. But since when do economists run
for public office?
\_ This is contrary to what was intended when this country was founded.
The idea was that serving in public office was a duty, like jury
duty, not a career. They never intended for career politicians to
exist. Term limits were an attempt to resurrect the concept but
the term limit laws didn't go far enough. Right idea, though.
\_ Obviously you know nothing about government. Term limits
are an exceedingly bad idea, and it is what got us into
this mess. The government is the largest entity you have
to deal with, and people need time to learn the ropes.
If term limits were implemented in the federal level
the House would be a non-functional body. There needs
to be, and should be career politicians. If you don't like
it then maybe we should hand over government to you and you
can try to deal with the daily headaches of governing.
\_ The House is already a non-functioning body. WTF are you
talking about? It's *you* who doesn't know how the government
works. You think it was really cool to have a doddering vet
of the War of 1812 in there for a few centuries like Strom?
Get your two or three terms and get the hell out. It should
be like jury duty, not a place to suck off the public teat
and drink in the power for life. Shit, I even think Strom
was kind of funny at times and here and there he did do
some good things, but 60+ years in office? Fuck that.
\_ Though if anything, term limits as currently implemented have
just made special interests more powerful, because newly
elected candidates are that much more beholden to the money
that got them into office. We need serious, hardcore
campaign finance laws for term limits to be effective, but the
courts seem dead set against that. Also, things are a lot
different than they were in 1792.
\_ I agree term limits alone aren't enough. I had this very
same conversation over dinner tonight. However, I don't
agree that things are different from 1792. People are still
people, power still corrupts and absolute etc etc etc. Some
things never change. Like old crusty career politicians.
\_ Yeah, but the country is something like 200 times as large
population wise as it was in 1792. You don't think that
General Motors needs the same corporate structure as
the mom and pop grocery down the street do you? Our
government is large and complicated enough to require
career politicians. Note that I have change my position
on this after watching what has happend to California
since we instituted term limits. -AML
\_ Career politicians don't run the country. The
beaurocrats do. That's why you end up with so many
fucked up laws. The people voting on them already don't
don't what they're voting on or what effect the bills
might have so how is being in office for a few decades
good for the rest of us?
courts seem dead set against that. |
| 2003/10/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:10466 Activity:nil |
10/3 Does anyone have a good link to a discussion of the pros & cons
of giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? I didn't hear
about it until a couple of days ago, and it seems rather far-
fetched, but someone must have presented some good reason or
it wouldn't have happened, right?
\_ RANT! GROWL! MESSICANS! GRRR!!!!! DAVIS!!!!! ARNOLD!!!!
\_ pro: they're driving anyway and we need slave labor
\_ That's it?!?!? If they're too broke to pay for insurance,
what's the point of giving the license that will let them
get insurance? And if they *do* get driver's licenses,
what prevents the INS from tracking them and deporting
them if they are illegal immigrants?
\_ The INS? Nothing. You forgot about the importance of
slave labor.
\_ the INS bit is easy, you don't let the INS use the DL
database. Other pros: if you make laws so that people
stopped without a DL get checked in the INS system and
deported, while poeple with DLs just get a speeding
ticket, suddenly there are going to be a lot less
unliscensed, uninsured drivers out there.
\_ Like that would happen. They already don't deport illegals
who have "established connections to the community". They
just let em walk. Almost no one gets deported. There's
never been a serious effort to stop the influx or kick out
those who are found when anyone bothers looking. This is
a load of bullshit.
con: they shouldn't even be here, they're going to use it to vote,
it can be used to elevate an illegal to the same level of
concern in the government's eyes as tax paying citizens.
\_ DL alone is not a valid enough id to register to vote.
\_ Motor Voter! Howdy! That's all it takes. Fact. I'm
a citizen voting every election for 15+ years and I've
never showed anyone any real proof of anything to vote.
\_ Anything which adds drivers to the road is bad. I don't care
who they are. More drivers means more idiots on the roads
and more pollution. We should raise the driving age to 18 to
balance things out.
\_ Under 18 drivers aren't a significant percentage of drivers out
there. Furthermore, even if we increase age limit to 18, they're
still going to be inexperienced drivers on the road. Yeah, they
will be more mature, but still not confident on the road.
\_ let's change the minimum driving age to 80, video tape it,
sell the tapes, and use the revenue to pay for good public
transit in california. this will also save money on health
care for the elderly.
\_ public transit can never entirely replace private transit.
it cant *never* be that flexible due to it's very nature.
\_ try visiting tokyo sometime.
\_ the rest of the world isn't built like tokyo. try
visiting *any* large American city. Actually, try
visiting just small city, town, village, or farm in
the US. Hint: this is a bigger place than tokyo and
Not really. Ever seen Tokyo? -John _/
frankly who the hell wants to live like the japanese
do? I'm a man, not a sardine.
\_ what's really amazing is that i got three serious
replies from my "let the elderly kill eachother
on the roads" troll.
\_ not really. that part was ignored but you
can give yourself a few troll points if you
like. its not like anyone keeps track or
cares. |
| 2003/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10459 Activity:kinda low |
10/3 I'm thinking of voting for McClintock now. Can you give a somewhat
moderate republican reasons not to? Go wild, I'll decide what I agree
with and what I don't.
\_ I'm not a conservative, but it seems to me that this is analogous
to the quandry facing a liberal in the 2000 presidential election.
you could vote for the guy who stands for something but has
no chance of winning(nader/mclintock) or the guy who might actually
win(gore/arnold). I can think of no other reason for anyone
with half a brain to vote for Arnold. I *strongly* urge people
to download the debate from http://www.cspan.org if you missed it
and watch the whole thing. if you look at how arnold talks about
issues and conducts himself with other people, this is not
someohone who is going to be able to get anythying done
in a state where the legislature is fighting him.
\_ Yep. Californians were stupid to re-elect Davis and are stupid
again to elect Arnold. Vote for the one with most experience!
\_ Experience alone is not the best way to go. Here's my
obGodwin's comment: by 1944 Hitler had a lot of experience
but I wouldn't suggest voting for him.
\_ Why not? He had charisma and principles, and promised to
fix the injustices of World War I! Damn polish corridor.
\_ True, it was mostly just the Jews, gypsies, queers and
other undesirables he was gassing, so hey, ya know,
everyones got to hate someone!
\_ Look, Arnold has a lot of independents and moderates, they are not
going to vote for a guy who is pro-life, even if the Gov. has no say
say in the matter.
\_ Cruz
\_ McClintock may seem like the smartest individual running in the
California Gubernatorial race, and may be straightforward and
honest, but one quick look at his standings on social issues should
scare away any moderate, be it Republican or no.
\_ he's smart, and he's principled on social issues. He's great.
\_ McClintock is the only canidate I've seen with an actual plan for
the budget. Serious about spending cuts and such. Has real
numbers and percentages about what should go to what. Arnold
always seemed kinda sketchy on the subject, nevermind about
Bustemonte.
\_ I can tell that you're well informed, what with the spelling
of Bustamante that you've invented here.
\_ spelling flames always put em in their place! sick em!
\_ you misspelled "seck um".
\_ no, I correctly spelled "sick em". thanks!
\_ Not if you meant, "sic 'em!"
\_ I said what I meant. You understood. Now go
stick your head in a pig, you vermin.
\_ Well, it comes down to this. I hate Davis. I believe that
Cruz is actually worse than Davis, I was going to vote for
Arnie, but now I don't think I can go against my standing
on what Bill Clinton did and Arnold also did (granted Arnold
admitted it, didn't lie about it, and didn't commit purgery
while holding office, but he was still wrong and I'm not sure
I want to allow his mindset not to hurt him). I am pro-choice
but I think McClintock is all I have left (or georgie). -op
\_ "Purgery"? Are you accusing Clinton of bulimia?
\_ and Einstein was in the lower 30th percentile in spelling
as well.
\_ While that may be factually correct, it's contextually
irrelevant. Nice try.
\_ Weird. That was exactly the right context. I don't
think context means what you think it means.
\_ Don't be stupid.
\_ Sigh. Why bother posting non-comments like
this? If you've got nothing to add, just
don't. The motd already has enough noise.
\_ Right, and your post helped that SO much.
\_ You are brilliant! Two spelling flames in one thread
while holding back anything intelligent in reply! That
is a master stroke of debate strategy!
\_ Here's how I see it. I don't think it's good to have Arnie become
governor. I'm opposed in principle to this recall election. I don't
particularly care about Davis one way or the other. I think a vote
for McClintock is a throwaway vote. I hate Bustamante; wtf is he
particularly care about Davis one way or the other. I think
a vote for McClintock is a throwaway vote. I hate Bustamante; wtf is
he even in the election for? Wtf is a "backup"? Is he or is he not a
even in the election for? Wtf is a "backup"? Is he or is he not a
Democrat, if he is why is he running against Davis? Slimeball. Then
there's all the other candidates which are also throwaways. It's
either Davis, Arnie, or Busty, which is why I'm still voting no on
recall and yes on Arnie. I'd prefer McClintock over Arnie but I feel
he just helps Busty. I guess I might consider Busty in spite of my
distaste, but then, Gov. Arnie has the entertainment factor.
\_ How can you live in this state and not care one way or the other
about Davis? And you're going to vote with that level of
indifference and apathy? What for?
\_ ok, correction: I dislike Davis. But everything is relative.
The only people I might actually *like* have no chance.
\_ My guy isn't going to win but I'm going to vote for him
even if it means the so-so guy loses to the scumbag.
\_ The only advantage I see for Arnold as Gov. (as a conservative)
is his star power helping more R's getting elected to the
legislature (which is where the real changes need to happen).
He himself doesn't believe in a single conservative principle.
\_ On Bustamante: What were the Dems supposed to do, stick to
their guns and field no candidate in case the recall went
through? This makes no statistical sense. Offering folks
a way to get rid of Davis _and_ keep the state liberal
makes a ton of political sense.
\_ Just think about it for a sec. Bustamante claims he wants ppl
to vote "no on recall, yes on busty". But the only way Busty
would get elected is if people vote yes on recall. The Dem
party can't have it both ways, they either support Davis or
not. Busty in the race just makes Gov. Arnie more likely.
The only reason republicans have multiple candidates is
McClintock's obstinacy and the fact that there was no primary
so there's no way to say who's the official repub. candidate.
\_ Thought about, and I still can't make sense of not
having a Dem in the running, should the recall go
through: remember, there are two votes going down
here; on one, it's Davis vs. himself; in the other,
it's Arnold vs. whoever the Dems run; if the Dems run
no possible replacement candidate, they can't possibly
beat Arnie if the recall goes through, right? Running
Cruz on a "No on Recall, yes on Cruz" ticket covers
both bets.
\_ It's the politcally smart thing to do. If it was the
other way around and my party didn't put a candidate
up I'd be screaming bloody murder. It isn't the
principled thing to do.
\_ Well it only covers the situation where the No votes
on recall aren't enough, but are enough to get most
votes for Cruz while the Yes-on-recall votes are
scattered amongst the field. But the problem is that
recall and yes on Arnie. I'd prefer McClintock over Arnie but I feel
he just helps Busty. I guess I might consider Busty in spite of my
distaste, but then, Gov. Arnie has the entertainment factor.
Cruz is not a good candidate and is not going to get
all or I expect even most of the Dem replacement vote.
Instead, I expect that a sizeable group of idiots will
vote yes on recall and vote for Cruz. |
| 2003/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10456 Activity:nil |
10/3 The Arnold camp has really pulled it off this time. They managed to
create a false scandal and then reap an extra 2% from it! Those
bastards! http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/politics/2530527/detail.html |
| 2003/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10455 Activity:nil |
10/3 MARIA: You really don't like politicians, do you?
ARNOLD: I like two or three, but I'm not really sure about
one of them. I don't think the system works.
MARIA: How would you have it work?
ARNOLD: We need a system where the politicians sit down and
discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of
all the people, and then do it.
MARIA: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that
people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ARNOLD: Then they should be made to.
MARIA: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ARNOLD: I don't know. Someone.
MARIA: You?
ARNOLD: Of course not me.
MARIA: But someone.
ARNOLD: Someone wise.
MARIA: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
ARNOLD: Well, if it works...
\_ source?
\_ Star Wars ep2. A quick google could've told you that.
\_ It actually sounds a fair bit like Arnold. Also, you're
kinda nerdy.
\_ no, recongnizing quotes from star trek I is nerdy.
it's just star wars.
\_ The Star Wars geeks always make fun of the Star\
Trek geeks, when in fact they are closely related.
\_ ok, fine. "star wars geeks" and star trek
geeks are closely related. the point is that
millions of non-geeks have seen star wars, whereas
*only* star trek geeks have seen, say, star trek
6. I'm not trying to start some partisain debate
here. i'm both a star trek geek and a star wars
geek.
\_ I wasn't the OP. I just took it upon myself to see if
I could answer my question. You could have done the same.
\_ You're all losers trying to equate Star wars/trek with anything in
the real world. Go away and die, please. |
| 2003/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10452 Activity:nil |
10/3 Does McClintock have a chance now? I think (hope) Davis will still
be recalled. Perhaps the Democrat-controlled legislature will
prevent any wacky pro-life or tax cuts for the rich moves. Does
anyone think there will be reliable poll data released before
Tuesday?
\_ No because the people have seen through the LA Times' sleazy
last second hatchet job. I'm still voting for Tom anyway.
\_ Because of Arnold's confession yesterday (I'm sorry I got caught) I
can't cast a vote for him.
\_ http://helptom.com
\_ Are you referring to the serial groping or the Hitler comments?
\_ Does anyone think Republican officials are kind of steamed that
they finally endorsed Arnold, then the LA Times showed he was such
a cad? Let's assume it was totally scripted by the left-wing
Davis-sympathizers and media, too.
\_ There was nothing new in the LA Times.
\_ Has anyone else changed their mind due to these revelations?
I am still voting for the recall, but was trying to decide
whether or not to vote for Arnold. I had pretty much decided
to, but then this came out. Now I am voting for Georgie. -AM liberal
\_ I'm going to switch my vote from Arnie to McClintock, and
hope to god Bustamante doesn't win.
\_ I hope Bustamante doesn't win. He's weak. I am for the
recall, I don't think CA is better off with any these
candidates.
\_ Actually, while I'm against the recall on principle,
I like the effect it's had on Davis-- he's finally
doing some of the radical things I look for in a
liberal candidate. If another recall would make him
declare amnesty for illegal migrant workers, legalize
dope, and put together a statewide universal health-
care system, I'd sign the petition.
\_ Come on, that's too obvious. Your troll fu is weak.
\_ It's a valid point.
\_ Maybe gov office should up for vote every year.
\_ The problem is we don't have elections in CA
anymore since the whole state is so incredibly
gerrymandered. Almost none of the people in
office have any chance of losing their seat.
\_ Well, no. Because of term limits. But other
wise you are right.
\_ They just swap seats. Term limits hasn't
helped as much as I'd hoped. You still
get "safe" districts where one party is
absolutely guaranteed to win the seat. |
| 2003/10/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10448 Activity:nil |
10/3 You all know what Arnold has been doing is better classified as
sexual assault than groping right? Groping is what you did when
you managed to find a date this year.
\_ Most g33ks can't tell the difference since you get points
for either in a dating sim.
\_ Oh, I dunno... I've done some of the same things and got laid
like that. You just need to pick the right girls.
\_ uh, yeah. i do those things all the time, too. just always to
the same person, who i happen to be married to. obviously
grabbing nipples or buttocks isn't automatically assault, but
in the context in which arnie did them, they certainly are.
also, holding the governor of America's most populous state
to higher standards than your average sodan seems to me like
a good idea.
\_ you know that in CA that's still sexual assault even when
it's your wife? you do not have the right to rape your
wife in CA. what you're doing to your wife is no different
in the eyes of the law than what Arnold has been accused of
doing. we didn't hold the former President of the United
States to a higher standard than the average sodan so why
does character suddenly count when it's our Governor? If
character counts then you should by the first one out there
voting to get rid of Davis. Now go live by your principles,
stop commiting sexual assault on your wife, vote against Davis
and vote for someone with character for Governor of CA.
\_ LESBIAN SEPERATIST HACKORS UNITE!!!! ALL SEX IS RAPE!!!
\_ Heh, you laugh but I dated one who was like that.
\_ This is one of the stupidest replies I've read on the
motd, ever.
\_ *laugh* You sure did a *great* job of countering
everything I said. If you've got nothing to say, then
say nothing. If it was so stupid it should be easy to
correct me. All you've done is waste bits. Here, let
me save you the trouble of writing the obvious reply.
You're thinking, "it was too stupid to correct, it was
so obviously stupidest!" Let's go on from there.
\_ There is no indication that what he did to his wife
was nonconsensual, you just made that assumption.
\_ I think 'did to his wife' ought to have been
written 'did with his wife'. |
| 2003/10/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10445 Activity:nil |
10/3 So does Godwins law make this thread over before it begins?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/national/03BOOK.html?hp
\_ There's absolutely no way that this could be discussed in any
rational manner for more than four lines in the motd |
| 2003/10/3-4 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10442 Activity:nil |
10/3 Any Jews here would like to comment on the Arnie's father being a
Nazi? Would you not vote for him because of that? This sins of
the father doesn't work in the US. But I can imagine it working in
Europe and Asia.
\_ Sure. Nothing to do with it. Voting for Tom anyway. Arnold isn't
a conservative. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10427 Activity:moderate |
10/2 Hey, everyone who was calling Bustamante and Davis "oily" should
check this out:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6913655.htm
\_ He's spending his own money. The twist is he just wants to get it
back afterwards. This is a "rich person's advantage" more than
a loophole. Post again when you want to have laws that eliminate
the advantage that people with money have.
\_ Guess you didn't see the part about the law he was violating?
\_ Do you understand what "loophole" means? Irrespective of
the implicit bias that goes along with the reporter saying it
was one.
\_ Mmm mmm, and dodging the spirit of a law through a loophole
is ethical how? Oh wait, I get it, this is part of that
whole "Republicans can do no wrong, Democrats can do no
right thing."
\_ First of all, "loophole" means it wasn't illegal.
Second, it's the reporter's, the Berkeley attorney's,
and your opinion that the spirit of the law is being
broken. I don't have the same opinion.
\_ Right, because you're a republican, see above.
\_ Actually, I'm a Democrat. I think the article
is weak, and you need to throw something that
sticks. Like Arnold sexually assaulting women
or Wilson's CIA wife being outed or Rush
making a stupid statement as an NFL commentator.
\_ Wrong. Loopholes are following the word of the law
while avoiding the intent of the law. If Bustamante
were rich, he could "loan" himself millions and then
the casinos could cover them after the election.
\_ ^Wrong^Right. Otherwise the rest of what
you said is accurate.
\_ Yeah, I was smoking one of my 4 joints.
\_ Did you at least share with the anecdotal
cop?
\_ ``Wealthy candidates can loan their campaigns more
than $100,000, then have special interests repay
their loans. Proposition 34 closes this loophole,''
That's what the ballot initative said. That's what
voters voted for. But I guess your opinion is
that Arnold is not acting in a contrary fashion to
what is described above. -nivra
\_ The only problem is, why does the reporter
call it a loophole then? It would certainly
have more impact if the headline said,
"Arnold violates campaign finance law ..."
\_ Perhaps he (or his editor) feels that's better
left for the court to decide. The lawyer
quoted states clearly that he believes it's
against the "letter and spirit of the law",
and thus is suing. --scotsman
\_ Did no one read the damn article? Because the
FPPC ruled ~1 yr ago that personal loans
received by the candidate from a bank
>100,000 would be allowed only if the bank
is doing this during its normal course of
business. I don't know why the FPPC ruled
this way, but it certainly goes against the
way the intent of the law as it was phrased
to the voters on the ballot. -nivra
\_ Because Arnie is doing the same thing that Bustamante
was doing, but Arnie gets away with it because he's
rich. That's literally how self-loaning works.
Bustamante isn't worth $4M but Arnie is. So he makes
the loan, and after the election, someone else pays
for it. Voters get the details later. Bustamante had
to report whose covering the loan for him before the
election. Hell, the Indian casinos may be covering
Arnie's action too. Loophole... |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10425 Activity:very high |
10/2 Let's see, in the last week we've had:
The Plame Affair
Rush gets fired from ESPN for being a racist
Rush gets exposed as a pill popper
Arnold admits being a groper and harasser of women
Kay says WMD will not be found in Iraq
Iraqis riot outside police station claiming bribes required to apply
Yay for right wing meltdown week!
\_ Neo-cons are just trying to make republicans look bad temporarily
so people will either keep Davis or put in Bustamante. That way
they can still blame the mess in California on the Democrats
when Bush runs for re-election. Just a theory. ;)
\_ You read alt.conspiracy every day too, huh?
\_ Nope, just naturally paranoid.
\_ - Claims of Rush being a racist are absurd--the comment was on the
media. The criticisms of Rush's comment have been racist.
\_ "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in
the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black
quarterback do well." -Rush Limbaugh
racism 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
prejudice 2 a (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning
formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
\_ The second part of the quote: "There is a little hope
invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the
performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The
defense carried this team." --- Anyone that knows
football knows that this is blatantly wrong. McNabb has
been incredible on the field. This is Rush showing his
bias against black QB's, and then not understanding
why everyone else was saying he was so good, and
therefore attributing the media accolades to media
racism. -nivra
\_ whether Rush is right or not on his opinion is
irrelevant. The question is whether his statements
are racist or not. Rush's statements never implied
that McNabb is bad because he is black. he was talking
about the media. In fact, Rush thinks McNabb is
good, but not as good as he is portrayed by the media
\_ His statement belies the fact that he has a lower
opinion of McNabb's worth than the media. His
attribution of this difference due to race belies
the fact that he thinks about race himself, and
believes that the media does as well. This is
racial prejudice. -nivra
\_ Wow, that's a cool way to flip everything on it's
head! Rhetoric 100 with Jameson?
\_ Rush's opinion:
McNabb = +3
Media Perception:
McNabb = +6
Rush's goal: explain the +3 difference
between reality and perception.
Rush thinks McNabb is good, but not
+6 good.
\_ That's double-plus good, brother.
\_ Ignoring the point, but nice attempt
at creating a false reply with a
witty literary reference.
\_ Agreed. The charge of racism lies in how he
chose to explain the extra +3. The fact that
his knee-jerk reaction was media "race" bias,
combined with the other factors I mentioned
below, such as his implicit support of people
who have outright expressed racism, such as
Lott (albeit when he let his guard down),
point to the fact that he is most _likely_
racist. Not definitely, just likely. -nivra
\_ If being knee-jerk about accusations of
racism makes one racist, then just look to
your left to find all the racism you can
stand.
\_ let's face it. We all have prejudices
of some sort. all of us, white, yellow,
black. I guess the Right thinks that
the Left only thinks the Right is
racist. In reality, we all have
prejudiced views one way or another.
The Left is as guilty as the Right
in these things.
\_ I can read the dictionary, moron. His comment is that the
media is making a bigger deal of the QB than they should
because of his race (that is, the press want to present a
good example of a black QB). That is a criticism that the
media is racist.
\_ Analogous statement:
"Colin Powell only got appointed because he was black."
\_ Your analogy would be better if Colin Powell was
an elected official --aaron
\_ fixed.
\_ except it's still wrong.
\_ And before Rush stuck his stupid head into this, nobody
had mentioned race at all. McNabb was judged on his
acheivements as an *individual*. Only after the dumbass
made his "commentary" was McNabb being judged as a
*representative of the black race.* *Rush* is the one
obsessed with race, not the sports media. Clearly you
are NOT a football fan or a follower of the sport.
\_ He's not saying that and you know. He was commenting
on the press making the guy into a better athlete
than he is *because the press* wants to see a black
QB doing well. Anything else is from your own head.
\_ I'm a different poster from the above. I agree
that his comments are more directed towards the
media overhyping black quarterbacks than a statement
on McNabb being not good because he is black.
\_ But the media isn't overhyping black quarterbacks.
\_ But they are.
\_ ... which is why he's racist.
\_ You have terrible logic. The media
isn't overhyping black quarterbacks.
This implies that Rush thinks that
McNabb is not as good as he really is.
This does not imply at all that he
thinks that McNabb is not good because
he's black. Rush may have thought that.
But he certainly didn't say that or even
imply it.
-not generally someone to defend Rush
\_ Mm, I think it's pretty clear that Rush
is suggesting there's some sort of
affirmative-action effect going on
for the black person.
\_ That doesn't make him racist.
I know that affirmative action
Logically, you are correct. _/exists. I know that some
You cannot conclude that minorities got into Berkeley
Rush must be a racist from because of their race. I mean
his statement. However, this is a fact. I know this
taking into account: fact. Therefore, I'm racist?
1) He was wrong about the I know. This is different
presumed media bias. because Rush was wrong about the
2) His reasoning that affirmative action, but it still
identified race as the doesn't make him racist. Maybe
most likely reason for he thinks that McNabb isn't
his assumed media that good (maybe because he's
overestimation. racist, or maybe because he doesn't
3) His history record of like the Eagles, who knows). And
conservativeness, and then he thinks that the media has
support of conservatives a bias towards blacks. He puts
who have been blatantly these 2 ideas together. That's not
racist. enough to conclude that he's racist.
One can conclude it is \_ I agree. -- not white
likely that he iss a racist \_ me too.,
or at the minimum, has \_ You go through such logical
racial prejudices. -nivra contortions to defend this idiotic
\_ are you saying that windbag, and then you wonder why
conservatives are black people think white folks
racist? are out to get them.
\_ reread, then see Lott, \_ Please see the definitions
Trent & Dixiecrats -op of racism and prejudice again.
\_ see new upcoming
thread
\_ dude, this is hard to \_
format. how do you do 2: discriminatory or abusive
it? behavior towards members of another race.
overwrite-mode _/ I don't see Rush being a racist based on
-nivra the definition of racist.
exists. I know that some
minorities got into Berkeley
because of their race. I mean
this is a fact. I know this
fact. Therefore, I'm racist?
I know. This is different
because Rush was wrong about the
\_ he's controvserial because he has
opinions that not everyone shares, only
about 25 million people listen to his
radio show every day.
affirmative action, but it still
doesn't make him racist. Maybe
he thinks that McNabb isn't
that good (maybe because he's
racist, or maybe because he doesn't
like the Eagles, who knows). And
then he thinks that the media has
a bias towards blacks. He puts
these 2 ideas together. That's not
\_ The statement is actually more clearly described as
"racially insensitive". However, some of the
secondary definitions of "racist" cover racially
insensitive remarks.
\_ "racially insensitive" is a meaningless phrase.
it means whatever a self-created victim wants it
to mean.
enough to conclude that he's racist.
\_ I agree.
\_ Thanks, so your answer is "zero, but I read what
some other guys think!"
\_ I agree. -- not white
\_ me too.
\_ You go through such logical
contortions to defend this idiotic
windbag, and then you wonder why
black people think white folks
are out to get them.
\_ Please see the definitions
of racism and prejudice again.
\_
\_ dude, this is hard to \_ Please see the definitions
format. how do you do of racism and prejudice again.
\_ What part of "independently confirmed" do you not
understand?
\_ You know what an "allegation" is? It's what the
National Enquirer reports after paying off someone's
maid.
it? \_
2: discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards members of another race.
I don't see Rush being a racist based on
the definition of racist.
\_ irrelevant whether or not it is true that
the media is overhyping black quarterbacks.
it is just an opinion. he was hired by ESPN
to be controversial and not a typical
sports commentator patsy.
\_ The reason he's "controversial" is because
he's bigoted.
\_ what about all those people and sports
writers trying to promote the
"Great White Hope"
\_ I'm a Tom voter. I still think doing a hit job a few
days before the vote is incerdibly transparent.
\_ Rush *IS* a racist. Period. He is also a homophobe.
His show is filled with hateful comments, with
hints of truth in them. A hint of truth != a pound
of objective reality.
\_ He may be a racist, but the statement he is being
criticized for was not racist.
\_ The statement is actually more clearly described as
"racially insensitive". However, some of the
secondary definitions of "racist" cover racially
insensitive remarks.
\_ Curious, how many hours have you listened to his show?
\_ http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html
- Rush story about pills is in the National Enquirer. Please, if
you're going to discount conservative sources, discount tabloids
too at least.
\_ Which took 7 weeks and only got printed a week
from the election? You really believe the LA
Times isn't grinding an axe and this is good
journalism??
- The Arnold story is old--it's troubling, but so is the holding back
of the story until the week before the election.
\_ Idiot. Even Fox is covering this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98871,00.html
\_ "The New York Daily News, without identifying its source,
reported Thursday that Limbaugh was being investigated by the
Palm Beach County (search) state attorney's office. The
newspaper said it had independently confirmed the
allegations, which were first reported by the supermarket
tabloid the National Enquirer."
Source is still the National Enquirer.
\_ What part of "independently confirmed" do you not
understand?
- The Arnold story is old--it's troubling, but so is the holding
back of the story until the week before the election.
\_ Tell that to all the women he humiliated and who didn't pursue
charges for fear of losing their job.
"What could you do? He was the highest-paid actor in the world.
I was a peon," [one victim] said. "The only thing you could do
is stay away from him."
\_ Wah! A week before an election I've got no sympathy. If
they were so concerned we should've heard about it 2 months
ago (or more). But that wouldn't have been politically
useful.
\_ Actually, we did hear about his behavior. Anyway Arnie
admitted it. But if you already thought Arnie is the sort
of person you want to see be the governor, I doubt this
information would change your mind. Arnie has too much
subconscious goodwill from being a movie star.
\_ It was in a UK newspaper shortly after he announced his
candidacy. The LA Times just sat on it to release it 1
week before the election.
\_ You could also say that the LA Times had spent the
last seven weeks collecting as many cases as they could,
so Arnold couldn't just dismiss it as an isolated
incident. The reporters wanted to show a lifetime
pattern of behavior. Irrespective of the political
edge to it, doesn't it change voters opinions of Arnold,
especially for the women voters?
\_ Then why was there no new information in the LA Times
story? It had the same info as the UK story.
\_ The general idea is the same, but the specific
examples are either reconfirmed through re-
interviews, or entirely new.
- In Kuwait, WMD smugglers were caught trafficking $60M of chemical
weapons OUT of Iraq.
\_ Which has about as much credibility as the Enquirer story,
so shut the hell up.
- (I haven't heard the Iraqi police story) |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10424 Activity:high |
10/2 So Arnie groped women. So what? Clinton also groped women and used
a cigar on Lewinsky. I'm still voting for Arnold.
\_ for me the "so what" is that the same ultra-conservative republican
power brokers that were willing to go to any lengths to bring
down Clinton over this not only don't care, but are 100% behind
him. why doesn't that seem to bother anyone?
\_ Will. To. Power.
\_ Please name these nameless ultra conservative power brokers.
\_ See, most people have this notion of "consent", and they think it's
important. Without "consent" it's called "assault". Tune in
tomorrow when we discuss what a "lie" is and why it's bad when used
to start a "war".
\_ They don't call it assault in france, italy, japan, etc.
It's just normal there.
\_ Why are they speaking out only now? I mean, they never filed
charges or spoke out (even anonymously) until now. Just because
he's running for gov, it's only now important the truth be
revealed? I guess being violated by only a big-shot actor is not
enough to demand justice.
\_ How long did it take for Flowers or Jones to come forward?
\_ A few weeks.
\_ I hope someday a woman you love has a long talk with you
about what it can be like to come forward with this type of
allegation. That is if you know any women. --aaron
\_ My wife was grabbed on campus. She went straight to the
cops and somehow isn't permanently psychologically damaged
for life. She doesn't walk around calling herself a victim
or go to therapy 5 times a week. Weird, huh?
\_ Several of the women came out anonymously, according to the
LA Times article, so it's not like we know who they are.
All I'm wondering is what the motivation is. It isn't
solely because of what happened to them.
\_ Stop pretending to be dense about it. You can't
imagine why a woman who felt taken advantage of by
Arnold might feel he isn't fit to be governor? How
she might consider paying the pain of coming forward
due to the prospect of him being elected? --aaron
\_ *laugh* Do you feel their pain, aaron?
\_ Have you ever actually talked with a real girl?
People are a lot more complicated than sheep,
even the blow up kind that you're probably more
familiar with. Especially in regard to trauma
where the victim is often more socially
stigmatized than the criminal. -sax
\_ Any reason you talk to traumatized girls, sax?
Are you looking for a cheap lay on the rebound,
or are you just that kind of sensitive new age
guy?
\_ Which still begs the question of why they came
out. You're saying they value politics more
than their personal pain.
\_ Stop Trolling.
\_ It's a valid point. Calling it a troll
doesn't magically make it go away. What
you simple mindedly call a troll is the
very thing being debated, fool.
\_ Paula Jones charged that there wasn't consent. While defending
himself from the lawsuit, Clinton lied about Lewinsky and
tried to get her to lie about it. That's a bit worse.
\_ technically, a bj isn't sexual intercourse, so he sort of told
a half-truth instead.
\_ Don't get all lawyerly on us. You're now comparing a bj
of an intern that worked for BC to some random and nameless
women who, days before we vote, suddenly start claiming
he touched them. Gee, what a shocker.
\_ did you miss the part below where this is old news?
It's only sudden news in the American media.
\_ Let's put the woman issues aside for now. Do you want someone
spends $100k on car washes annually, $4k on haircut, etc to manage
your state's budget? If he's elected, I wouldn't be surprised
if he authorizes a hummer for every elected officials.
\_ 1) you're stupid, there's a difference between what he does
with his own money, and our money . . . just like there is
a difference between how he runs his businesses and his
personal life.
\_ TBD.
2) if he authorizes hummers, then I'm running for office
(for either kind).
\_ Does it bother you that BC held up airport traffic so he could
get a haircut?
\_ You know this never happened right?
\_ I know for a fact it did, thanks. History isn't so easily
rewritten.
\_ it didn't cost us $87b.
\_ good way to divert the topic and ignore the point. well
no, not really actually since you're busted doing it.
\_ i fear the candidate who wants to make money being Governor
so he can do the things you describe
\_ Arnold has lots of money and he is doing that already.
What I fear is not Arnold but his *advisors*. You see,
Arnold is not going to run California. He is just a puppet.
"When your muscles feel like they are about to explode, when you are sure
that you can't do another rep, you stop- Only if you want to come in
second place." -Arnold Schwarzenegger.
\_ Uhm, no. I don't.
\_ gropes or not, you have to admire him. -ax |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10422 Activity:nil |
10/2 "During the production of the 1991 mega-blockbuster Terminator 2:
Judgment Day, a producer on that film recallfortyish female crew
member, who was wearing a silk blouse. Arnold went up to the woman,
put his hands inside her blouse, and proceeded to pull her breasts
out of her bra. Another observer says, "I couldn't believe what I
was seeing. This woman's nipples were exposed, and here's Arnold and
a few of his clones laughing. I went after the woman, who
had run to the shelter of a nearby trailer. She was hysterical but
refused to press charges for fear of losing her job. It was
disgusting." Arnold the Barbarian: Premiere Magazine March 2001
\_ confirmed by Arnold, he's behaved badly.. voting for McClintock
\_ confirmed by Arnold where? url-p
\_ that he was a bad boy, but he doesn't identify specific
occurrences
\_ Right... So saying this story is confirmed by Arnold
is a ... tad misleading. Don't you think?
\_ It's all over the news. Check yahoo news. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10416 Activity:nil |
10/1 Let's say Davis gets recalled and some republican, presumabley Arnie,
gets elected. Then some democrates get together and decide to have
a recall in a couple months. they succeed, beating arnie with some
wildly popular democrat celebrity. This pisses off the republicans,
who then stage another recall and take over with an even more amazing
republican celebrity, etc. etc. etc. when does it stop? doesn't
anyone see this as a bad direction to go in, even if you hate davis
and happen to like one of the potential replacements? In civilised
states removing the governor from office ins something only the state
legislature can do.
\_ It stops when Arnold takes over because the people won't do another
recall. It simply won't pass. Arnold doesn't have a lengthy and
well documented record of crimes against the people of this state.
\_ yeah except for molesting all those women. And violating his
immigration.
\_ urlP
\_ you can't violate immigration laws in CA. we don't have
any. and he's a kennedy now so what he did to those women
fits right in with the rest of his family.
\_ wow, you just figured this out?
\_ it dopesn't stop. we're doomed.
\_ when the democrats grow up, it'll stop
\_ From this comment, it sounds like it's not just the Demos that
need to grow up.
\_ You make it sound like its easy to get a recall election ceritifed.
\_ And it is.
\_ Which is why it's only happened once but it's been tried
dozens of times. At least pretend to know something.
\_ Dozens of times? Cite, please.
\_ The sky is blue. Go read a fucking newspaper. It's
been mentioned in dozens of articles. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10408 Activity:high |
10/1 Oh gawd. Check http://latimes.com for an Arnold expose on his treatment of women. I still might vote for him, though, as bad as it is. \_ Don't be a hater. \_ *laugh* If it was ok for Bill Clinton, if it was ok for the entire Kennedy clan, then I say it's ok for Arnold! \_ Wow. You have no idea what 'consent' means, do you? I pity your SO. \_ Reading problem? Don't they teach basic reading comprehension to freshmen anymore? \_ For Clinton, it was consensual. For Arnold, that's sexual harassment. \_ Monica worked for him. It's called "sexual harassment" when it's your boss's dick you're sucking or his cigar going into your vagina. I noticed you ignored the entire Kennedy clan's many decades of rape and murder. What about that? Were those rapes consentual? \_ What a bullshit rationalization. \_ Go look up "sarcasm". \_ The funny thing is this was on wall a month ago. It was reported in a UK paper back in August. See: http://tinyurl.com/kj1n And no new information in the Times. Why is the Times reporting it now? \_ "The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race. And none of the women approached the newspaper on her own. Reporters contacted them in the course of a seven-week examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and off the movie set." \_ So they didn't report or even refer to the UK paper's story until the week before the election? Because they wanted in-depth info? They didn't add any details to the UK story. The timing is just a bit suspicious. \_ My impression was that the LA Times reporters re-interviewed the people from the UK story, and uncovered new examples of Arnold's bad behavior. As for the timing, you could say they were trying to get as many examples as they could before the election. \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the election, and hence timed it for most political clout. They could have easily issued a preliminary story and then had a big followup. \_ That wouldn't be politically expedient. \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the election, and hence timed it for most political clout. They could have easily issued a preliminary story and then had a big followup. |
| 2003/10/1-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10407 Activity:kinda low |
10/1 Informal CSUA voting. Please vote only once (don't be a hozer).
Recall Davis
Yes: .................................................................
.................................................................
.................
No: ...........
\_ I like how the number of No votes changed from 5 to 9 votes
in the space of two minutes ... hoser.
\_ What about the number of yes votes? Sheesh...Besides,
saying "don't be a hoser" on the motd is like asking
people to spare the air by not breathing for a few days.
\_ The No votes showed the ballot stuffing first. The
Yes votes only appeared after I pointed this out.
I feel like a moron.
\_ trust your feelings.
\_ Yo, it's a motd poll. Whatever. That's to both of you.
Bustmante: .......
Camejo: .
Schwarzenegger: ......
Tom: ...
georgy@soda: ...
!psb: ..
\_ does the fact that Arnie is an idiot, knows nothing of government,
and refuses to give any specifics of what he will do not bother you?
\_ your opinion doesn't bother me at all but I'm voting for TM
because his views most closely match my own on topics important
to me that the governor has some control over. I hope that
properly answered your loaded & rhetorical question.
\_ well if you're voting for TM I wasn't talking to you.
\_ you weren't talking to anyone. it was rhetorical.
\_ According to the L.A. Times poll, everyone knows he has
considerably less experience than the mainstream candidates,
but he ranks at the top in leadership. I think of Arnie as
someone who wasn't in the club when he got to America, but
leveraged his musclebuilding into acting, then into small
community contributions, running businesses, and then ending
up governor of California. I think people approve of this.
Implicitly, they do not consider him an idiot. As for not
giving specifics, people are motivated primarily by "kick
the bums out" and avoiding "business as usual". They are
satisfied as well when he says it will be "Governor Arnold,
not Governor Wilson". By the way, someone is overwriting
posts like mad (not just mine).
\_ Ok. Well, I'll actually vote No on recall and Yes on Arnie.
Just because I hate Bustamante.
\_ Just curious, why do you hate him? Because he's Mexican?
\_ Why do you automatically assume race is an issue?
\_ Bustamante is a twink. He also has zero charisma.
\_ Bustamente seems more oily than Davis. As much as
Davis has dissed him, he seemed to salivate over the
revenge aspect of running against Davis and leading
in the polls, more than wanting to save CA.
\_ Wowwee, now that's what I call an informed opinion.
\_ Well, if you want something more hard, he's
a part of the Democratic establishment that
increased spending to a level where we're in
the hole that we are now. They shouldn't be
rewarded by replacing one Democrat for another.
In any case, do you disagree with my earlier
characterization? Doesn't it just SEEM right?
\_ I firmly disagree. Its fairly obvious that
your prejudice against anything Democratic
is clouding your judgement. You need to
relax.
\_ actually, I am a Democrat. They just
overspent by way too much. Bustamante
and Davis should not be representing this
party, and those politicians may have
gotten too full of themselves, what
with the "conservative" stupidity going
on in the rest of the country.
\_ I think our idiotic initiative system,
the special interests that have ruined it,
and the stupid California voters that
passed the budget restrictions that
lock up 2/3rds in the money in this
state are the real villians. Not to
mention Enron and the other energy
companies that screwed us. I don't know
why I bring this up though, because it
gets deleted every time I do.
\_ Wah! I write to a dynamic file that
hundreds have access to and my posts
are so brilliant it must be that i'm
being silenced! its a VRWC i tell ya!
\_ It still doesn't change the fact
that Davis brought up the deficit
after he got elected, and attacked
Riordan so he could face Simon.
He's a coward.
\_ I love this complaint. It's as if
no one had the opportunity to say
"We're in trouble on the budget"
other than Davis. Was he doing the
numbers in his closet?
\_ And how is replacing him with
someone with zero political
experience and a cabal of
Pete Wilson advisors going
to solve our problems?
\_ It sends a message, one.
Two, Arnie's governance would
be one of delegating
responsibilities. It really
doesn't work in Dubya's
administration, but I think
it might work better on the
state level. He's a different
person than Ventura, very
charismatic, and it might just
work.
\_ right, Ventura's politics
were/are way better.
\_ I can't see what facts you
are basing number 1 or number
2 on, so I guess I'll just
have to think that you're
going on some sort of faith
in Arnold's powers. Fair
enough. I for one am
concerned about a government
of ex-Wilson cronies, as
Wilson was a terrible
governor. I also think
Arnold's effectiveness is
going to be questionable
given a firmly Democratic
legislature and voting public,
not to mention the strangeness
of the budget process given
that 2/3rd voting requirement
and all the spending mandates.
I also think he's going to
be subject to a recall of his
own, and I'm very afraid
given the state of California
politics that we will soon
be subjected to an endless
series of tit for tat recalls.
_/
It's not that I think Arnold will do a better
job, but he hasn't demonstrated the cowardice
that Davis has (see earlier post). Arnold
has the promise of doing an adequate job.
You're all about, "Who's likely to do the
best job?" which is entirely valid. I'm
all about, "Davis showed he was a coward,
boot him. I don't want my vote indicating
I condone his practices" which to me,
trumps that.
\_ I wouldn't call it cowardice. Just plain
brutal cynicism. Davis is a bastard.
\_ Fair enough, thanks for the reasonable
debate (on the motd no less!). I guess
we'll just have to see how it all turns out,
as Governor Arnold looks sort of
inevitable at this point. For me, this
is yet another reason to consider moving
out of Cali (*sniff* *sniff*).
\_ Arnold has demonstrated even more cowardice!
He refused to debate Davis or the other
candidates except that one scripted thing.
He also refuses to say anything specific,
for fear of criticism.
\_ But you see, the Democrats have already
had their chance. Arnold just had to
show in the first debate that he
wouldn't go psycho, and he didn't. That
means I'm going to vote for him.
I certainly don't blame your logic, since
the L.A. Times uses it.
\_ this is the thread that doesn't end
it just goes on and on my friend
some people started trolling it
not knowing what it was
and they just kept on trolling it
forever just because
this is the thread that never
ends, it just goes on and on my
friend.
\_ I don't feel like writing an essay about the man.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with his plans, I feel
that he doesn't represent my interests, and I have a
personal distaste for him based on what I've seen of
what he says and how he operates. The "oily" description
sums it up as much as anything.
\_ I predict that Arnold will win and the first thing he will have
to do is raise taxes, pissing off the Republicans to no end. -ausman
\_ Shrug. I predict you're wrong. (heh) |
| 2003/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10393 Activity:nil |
9/30 Bustamante: "They are against food"
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider
\_ You know, it's sad how little the context redeems this quote.
\_ I'm tempted to read the link but I think I'll skip this one.
\_ Ok, I lied. It was too much. I understand what he was _trying_
to say after thinking about it in context but he's still an
anti-American, blame-America-first, kill-whitey kinda guy. |
| 2003/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10384 Activity:nil |
9/29 This has probably been covered already, but what is the prevailing
rationale, if any, on the part of recall proponents as to why this
recall is merited? Considering that we anyway have elections every
4 years, Davis won, and the stuff ppl complain about is no different
than what they complained about before the election? And does anyone
doubt that if he gets recalled, the replacement will also get recalled?
\_ no, you're right, it's dumb, it sucks that the rest of
us have to suffer due to a quirk in the law, and it sucks
that this stuff has to be test driven in one of the world's
largest economies and America's most populous state.
\_ a quirk in the law? the recall isn't a technicality.
\_ Davis needs punished for sucking. Cutting Davis' career short is
reason enough for me (conservative policy is more likely to help
california also). -- petty and vindictive
\_ so when democrats decide to try to recall a republican govorner
a few months into their term and win, only to be recalled by
angry republicans whose candidate is recalled, etc., will
that have been worth it? the whole thing seems like a bad
precedent for an already over politicized state.
\_ Over politicized now? Check the polls. Lots of democrats are
for the recall. If it was only politics, that wouldn't be the
case.
\_ You *might* buy enough signatures to start a recall against
Arnold but it'll *never* pass the general voting population
a few months into his term. Don't confuse the minimum req'd
sigs to start a recall with step 2 where we all get to vote.
\_ Troll, he's getting recalled primarily for lying his ass off about
the true state of the economy before his election and then dumping
the truth on us only after he thought his position was secure. He
is so cynical it even makes me ill and I've got really thick skin.
The rest of his corruption, lying, incompetence, and stupidity is
just icing on the recall cake. Davis is dead. Unless someone gets
Arnold on tape raping under age nuns, it's over.
\_ Sadly, no matter who is elected, this state is still Fucked (tm). |
| 2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10377 Activity:nil |
9/29 I keep waiting for Ahnold to go bananas.
\_ Go Arhnold! Still, the "south park"-like flash movie on
Arianna's site is funny.
\_ But is it changing your vote in any way at all?
\_ No, not at all. I just hope that Arnold can pull
everyone together, instead of becoming another Ventura.
My guess is that now the demo's will put up roadblocks
to anything meaningful until 2006 and say, "we told you
so." I do think that voting for a moderate is the way to
go...Maria will keep him honest. |
| 2003/9/29 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:10360 Activity:nil 66%like:11978 |
9/28 What is worst in life?
To crush your lead in the polls
to see it driven before you
and to hear the lamentation of your advisors and handlers
\_ And just who are you talking? Even Democratic polls have
the recall in the bag and Arnold leading.
\_ I was confused by this, too, so I decided it was best to just
ignore it. That which does not kill you, makes you stronger!
Crom!
\_ And the Conan thread wins by virtue of surviving nearly
24 hours without being commented on or deleted! Congrats,
Conan thread!
\_ I think we were all just stunned into confused silence. But
no more! The chain is broken! The sleeper has awoken! The
mighty troll god is loose!
\_ Then we must summon Thor, Jotun-Slayer and Troll-bane!
\_ No! Not Troll-bane! ACK! --Troll Lord #1 |
| 2003/9/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10341 Activity:nil |
9/26 Anyone know anything about Garrett Gruener? I just visited http://gg4g.com. He seems legit, and pretty interesting. \_ Yeah, I've gotten pop-up-adds from him... \_ Garrett's a great guy and throws a nice party. OTOH, this does not a governor make. --ex-Ask Jeeves employee |
| 2003/9/25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10325 Activity:very high |
9/25 I missed the debates and the rebroadcast was so late I fell asleep
before it started. Vote for who you think presented the best plan
to restore California's economy and job situation:
Arianna: "Bush is bad!"
Arnold: "Bring business baaack."
Cruz: "I am so ashamed."
Peter: "Free Manifestos for all!"
Tom: "Keep your bloody gubmint hands off my money!"
Gray: "Am I still here?"
\_ You know, this is pretty close to my intepretation of the debate.
\_ I want Davis out because he's the type of coward that didn't want
to face Riordan but the weaker Simon instead. And he "sprung"
the budget deficit on us. Bustamante just seems slimy.
I'm voting Yes on Recall, and I'll be voting for, between Arnold
and McClintock, who is more likely to get more votes.
I wouldn't be upset, though, if Bustamante won -- the main point
is Davis gets booted. Two weeks from now he better not be
gloating over the failed recall and then going back to business as
usual.
\_ Oh man. Bustamonte would be so much worse than Davis.
\_ Keep repeating it, it must be true!!!
\_ Oh man. Bustamonte would be so much worse than Davis.
\_ Make sure you spell his name right on future
repetitions, mmm kay?
\_ I thought that spelling looked wrong. Thanks.
Oh man. Bustamante would be so much worse than Davis.
\_ Political debates are completely meaningless these days anyway -
viewers only hear what they want to hear and see what they want
to see, and it largely becomes a contest of who looks best on
television. This is nothing new - the JFK vs. Nixon debate was
probably where it started. And even after the debate is over, who
"won" is almost entirely a matter of media spin - cf George Will
coaching Reagan for a debate, and then praising his performance in
a later column.
\_ I disagree. We got to see Arnold wasn't a complete buffoon,
Say what? We got to see that Ahnold believes that if _/
you shout louder and repeat your words more, you can
silence the opposition. That's not going to change
anyone's opinion of him as a buffoon. --erikred
Bustamante is a oily politician, McClintock is a cut-taxes
Republican, Camejo is the intellectual Green who has no chance of
winning, and Arianna really is a be-yatch.
\_ There you go, proving my point. You see what you want to
see...
\_ Arnold didn't show himself to be a "complete" buffoon.
This would result if he were timid, became red-faced and
started shouting obscenities, or demonstrated a level of
political knowledge less than the average Californian
(which is pretty darn minimal already).
\_ [I don't believe in censorship, but if you're going to use
that kind of language, you can bloody well sign your posts
or expect to be deleted.]
\_ You *do* believe in censorship. You just deleted a post
expressing an opinion because they language used was too
spicey for you despite the fact that the motd is covered
in similar language every fucking day. Oops! Did I say
"fucking"? Will do wield the Puritan Axe of Censorship
on this now, too?
\_ No.
\_ To put it another way, don't try to spin this. You're
much better off deleting the "arianna is a c*nt"
comment and writing "That language doesn't belong on
the motd". This is much more reflective of what you're
really thinking.
\_ True. [poster]
\_ Arianna really disgusted me yesterday. I lost a lot of respect
for her vindictive attacks against Arnold. She really brought
some important issues to the table in previous debates and
news conferences, but yesterday with all the candidates at the
table and issues to discuss, she dropped the ball and came
to the table in order to try to destroy Arnold. She failed
at that, and destroyed her own credibility. As an independent,
and someone whose voice is suppose to be different, she
sounded like most of the drivel that is spouted in tabloids
and the hallways of sacramento. Arnold held his own against
her, but it wasn't pretty and kinda sad that two grown ppl
had to display such school yard antics. Whether you agree with
their politics or not, Camejo and McClintock were the only
ones that made a real impression on me. Both don't really have
much of a chance, though.
can't compete with men in politics so you're a
\_ someone overwrote this, I put it back for you
I think of Boxer or Feinstein, and I don't think they
\_ thx.
\_ If Arianna was a man, you wouldn't be saying this. Sorry
but its true.
\_ I knew someone would say this, and you're wrong.
\_ doesn't Arianna radiate that "I am a woman, so you
better treat me nicely" attitude, combined with a
"If you insult me, it must be because you think women
can't compete with men in politics so you must be a
chauvinistic bigot" way of thinking?
I think of Boxer or Feinstein, and I don't feel they
operate in this way.
\_ When Ahnold kept offering her a role in the next
Terminator movie, I couldn't help but picture
him stuffing her upside down into a toilet.
\_ On a side note, the democrats keep saying this is a circus.
I'd rather have an inclusive circus, than the exclusive 2
horse pony of the usual democrats/republicans fiasco that
we usually have. If we had a more open political process,
then we wouldn't have had 2 such distasteful politicians
to choose from last election. Either choice, you lose. We
need a change in politics to make elections like this the
norm, instead of the exception. Bring on the circus!
-usually fat sysadmin/sheepfucker
- usually democrat/indie
[CENSORED: -usually fat sysadmin/sheepfucker
\_ So fat sysadmin/indie == fat sysadmin/sheepfucker? I
did not know that. Thanks for your enlightenment. If
Rhiordan ran instead of Simon, I would have voted for
him as a member of the fat sysadmin/sheepfuckers party.
Got wool?]
\_ The fat/sheepfucker motd censor is so funny.
\_ I think Huffington rocked.
\_ She had my respect (not vote) until yesterday. |
| 2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10297 Activity:low |
9/23 Darrell Issa must be manic-depressive or something:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/23/ISSA.TMP
\_ Sour grapes?
\_ In a way, but not like you mean. More like if the party can't
get something positive out of the recall then they shouldn't
support the recall. makes sense.
\_ B-b-but...but I thought the recall was about DEMOCRACY?!
\_ You must have missed his speech when he dropped out of the race. It
was surreal. |
| 2003/9/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10279 Activity:nil |
9/22 This is an interesting election. We have Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, Mary Carey and Angelyne. And we also have
Michael Jackson, Edward Kennedy, Robert Dole and Richard Simmons.
\_ thank you for that stunningly insightful commentary. |
| 2003/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10230 Activity:nil |
9/17 Mary Carey has no breast implants.
http://et.tv.yahoo.com/celebrities/2003/08/20/marycareyintv
http://www.marycareyforgovernor.com
\_ I did not have sexual relations with that woman
\_ It's just that someone said she's a "Pr0n0 princess with fake
tits" yesterday. |
| 2003/9/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10212 Activity:nil |
9/16 So who is the hottest candidate for governor?
\_ Brooke Adams: http://www.brookeforgovernor.com
\_ Georgy's hotter than that.
\_ Typical nerdling lack of taste in women. Brooke is out of your
league so your brain goes into denial mode and decides she's
inferior.
\_ Mary Carey, of course! http://www.marycareyforgovernor.com
\_ gach! Pr0n0 princess with fake tits. whatever. |
| 2003/9/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10210 Activity:low |
9/16 Clark has announced his entry into the '04 President's race. Would
any of you vote for him? Does it matter to you that he has no
previous political experience?
\_ He hasn't announced yet. He's called for a news conference
tomorrow. He can always do a reverse-Arnie and say he's not running.
\_ I've seen links that said he announced. Can't trust the net
anymore! :-)
\_ Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18454-2003Sep16?language=printer
\_ Neither did Pinochet, Idi Amin, or Eisenhower, and see how well
they turned out....
\_ so what is this about Clark being involved in the Branch Davidian
craziness at Waco? I've seen a lot of obviously very partisan
stuff about it and was wondering what the hell really happened.
\_ ?? Haven't seen a word about it. I thought Waco was all about
the ATF and some FBI?
\_ that's what I thought too, but check out the first hit
on a google search of 'wesley clark waco'
\_ Neocons will spread any lie to further their cause.
\_ In other news, Senator John Edwards (not the psychic) announced
his candidacy on the Daily Show (Comedy Central) last night, but
the papers are saying he announced it this morning in his
hometown. What up wit dat? |
| 2003/9/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10199 Activity:low |
9/14 Federal appeals court delays recall!
All I can say is: HAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA!
\_ Cool, all I can say is, 6 more months of incompetent non-leadership
from the lame duck governor who is going to continue his standard
pandering and mass sell out of the general population in an effort
to buy more illegal alien votes. Whoop-di-doo. So glad to live
in CA. If you weren't a student, you'd care more.
\_ "Illegal alien votes"? Troll.
\_ Drivers license for illegals + motor voter law =
Illegal alien votes
\_ Bzzt. You really do suck up everything you hear on the
radio, doncha?
\_ Nice comeback. Wouldn't want to actually address the
issue.
\_ If it were an issue. Verification of voter
registration is an entirely separate process.
You brought up the point. The burden of proof
is on you.
\_ Wow, pot kettle black eh? Troll.
\_ No pots and kettles. He refused to address the
issue. Getting nailed on it doesn't make the
hammer into a troll.
\_ You put forward a baseless claim. As I said,
the burden of proof is on you.
\_ It isn't baseless. Anyone who can get a
driver's license which will soon be every
illegal gets paperwork for voting. There's
no other checking, genius. Illegals driving
\_ Prove this. This is what your entire rant
is based on.
== illegals voting. 2+2 still = 4 outside
your little ivory towers.
\_ Just because someone can break the law
does not mean that they will. Not
everyone has the criminal/Republican
mentality. Illegals tend to be more
afraid of law enforcement that most,
so I bet very very few will engage
in illegal voting. I think you are worried
about something that will not happen,
but let's keep an eye on it and see.
If it becomes a problem, then we can
do something about it.
\_ illegal alien votes => those with relatives/sympathy for
illegal aliens => the Hispanic vote
\_ If you really believe this, then explain why the hispanic
vote is so influential, yet prop 184 passed.
\_ Surely you mean Prop 187, right?
\_ there are more white people
"The Times's exit poll that year found that 23 percent
of Latino voters supported Proposition 187 and
77 percent opposed it." http://csua.org/u/4bs
\_ Do you really think the recall would have passed?
\_ Absolutely. Hard core support to recall, soft support to
not recall. It's a done deal if the election is in Oct.
\_ I'm not a student. Ah-nold would have just made things worse:
O'REILLY: Yes, I know, but do you have any ideas that you can
offer the other governors or the president of the United States?
All of them seem to be confused about the issue. Do you have
any ideas on how you can control the borders?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think we just have to-I think we just have to
bring leadership there and really make sure that the-explain
the case, that how bad it is for the state and how bad it is
for the country to do that-We have to work on those kind of
issues together, the border states.
\_ It's not his fault, his scriptwriter didn't anticipate the
question.
\_ You're avoiding the issue. The issue is Davis is an
incompetent and criminal boob. Thus he needs to go. Arnold
giving a politician's answer to a question doesn't make me
want that Davis scumbag in office any more. It has nothing
to do with it.
\_ What makes him criminal?
\_ Selling his signature for campaign cash quid pro quo?
Isn't that enough? Have you been out of CA for the last
few years?
\_ It's the 9th circuit. They might as well not exist. Off to the
supreme court we go. And since when does a federal court get
involved in a state election.
\_ Are memories that short?
\_ *cough*Florida*cough*
\_ Is your chad hanging?
\_ That was an election for a FEDERAL office. You know, President
of the United States?
\_ No facts! Do not bring facts into this! Everyone knows
the SC conspired with the right wing to steal the election!
Even though by every measure and later re-re-re-re-count
Bush still won! No facts!
\_ Wow, I have to call troll. Your "not exist" comment is
laughable in the face of the actual 9th circuit statistics.
\_ You mean the 70-80% overturn rate?
\_ Thanks for deleting my question rather than answering it.
Got any evidence to back up this statement?
\_ I'm "involved" in the legal profession but not a lawyer.
The 9th Circuit is known for being a bunch of fuck nuts
within the profession and lawyers don't take an adverse
9th Circuit ruling seriously. It just means both sides
make more legal fees for the appeal.
\_ The 9th are all liberal nuts.
\_ That may be, but they're OUR liberal nuts!
\_ suck my liberal nuts
\_ What was Federal statute / Consitutional issue in question?
Crickey Davis is so incompetent he can't even modernize
Californias voting systems nearly three years after
Florida - what a disgrace.
\_ The modernization of voting machines is left up to the individual
counties. It really wasn't Davis' responsibility.
\_ The state was supposed to be ready in March 2004, in time for
the next planned vote. The recall advanced that schedule by six
months. They are understandably behind. The constitutional issue
is "one person, one vote."
\_ One citizen, one vote, thanks. We're not *yet* making it so
all the illegals can easily vote. Yet.
\_ Wow, you've really convinced yourself that immigration
does you serious harm, haven't you? I feel sad for you.
\_ As always, brown people provide a convenient punching
bag, especially during electoral cycles. This is a
fundamental feature of our politics.
\_ 1) I am an immigrant. A *legal* one. 2) Legal
immigration is bad. 3) Illegal immigration is bad.
4) opening your borders so you can get near slave wage
labor is unethical, sickening, and you should go shoot
yourself for thinking it's ok to bring in slaves to do
your dirty work, asshole.
\_ Oh, we're going to get snippy, about are we? Remove also
all those convicted of a felon, officially mentally
incapable, and unregistered voters. Gods, it's folks
that you that make lawyers drool.
\_ Nothing wrong with preventing felons, the mentally
incapable and unregistered voters from voting. |
| 2003/9/14-15 [ERROR, uid:10191, category id '18005#9.31' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10191 Activity:very high |
9/14 http://moveon.org/pac/recall/register Absentee ballot registration for the October special election. There will be far fewer polls open than you're used to, so signing up for a mail-in vote is a Good Thing. Applications must be rec'd by September 30. -- mjm \_ yeah, it's from an unbiased site. \_ Who cares. Everyone with an axe to grind registers absentee voters. That doesn't mean you are obliged to vote for their agenda. -John \_ I registered for my absentee ballot through the Join Ahnuld campaign, even though I'm voting No/Cruz. \_ Go back to jerking off to plumper. \_ you've taken a look at these anti-globalist chicks lately? \_ it's obviously extremely biased, but just for kicks, I'm going to get my No on Davis, Yes on Arnold forms through them. It's funny that they feel the need to say that whichever side gets more people to vote for their side will win. Uhm, duh? Civics? \_ The recall only needs a simple majority. But if the recall goes through, the candidate with highest votes does in fact win. Your point? \_ My point is that they feel the need to explain this very trivial concept as if the reader was a 2nd grader. I made the point clearly enough to the English speakers here. \_ http://moveon.org... hey op, haven't you realized communism is a failure? \_ like say Sweden? \_ FYI, capitalism, aside from the few developed nation, is a failure as well. \_ Could it be that those 'failures' were never capitalist to begin with? I can tell you are just dying to mention China. Well all I can say is good luck to China, I hope they don't end up like the Weimar Republic. \_ Hmmm, so we can compare a few developed nations where, as you say, capitalism wasn't a failure vs. every single attempt at communism on the planet, ever, which were all big fat universal failures. I'll take the thing that works some times over the thing that has *never* *ever* *not* *once* *ever* worked *anywhere* at *any* time. Thanks for putting the final nail in the capitalism vs communism debate. \_ Capitalism goes a long way to crushing the success of any fledging nation, communist, capitalist, adventist, or otherwise. The "few developed nations" point goes deeper than you seem to realize. \_ Oh do tell! Please explain and let us know what your choice is for a non-capitalist fledging nation to grow and become econimcally or otherwise successful today if not capitalism. |
| 2003/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10111 Activity:high |
9/6 87 billion! That's an 87 with 9 zeros after it, folks!
\_ So why are liberals so cost-concious with this item, especiall with
the "if only one child is saved..." crap that goes on all the time?
\_ why are "conservatives" NOT cost conscious with anything Bush
does?
\_ I for one am. I'm in agreement with most of the war stuff
(although if there still are now WMD's found by next year I'm
going to have some serious questions). But I'm against the
ANWR drilling, unless better gas economy controls are also
enacted (as an example). Bush needs to stop growing the
federal budget as well (minus defense as necessary). -emarkp
\_ yep. ANWR would have gone through if republicans had not
been willing to switch sides on this issue. it's not
just an environmental issue. There's about 6 months
worth of oil up there, and the *only* reason
to drill ANWR is as s a giveaway to the
U.S. oil companies. Republicans may not like envrionmental
arguments, but there are some who see that this is just
a special interest giveaway.
\_ It's 6 months of oil if we had *no other sources* of
oil. That's a *huge* amount of oil. The world economy
would rock and tremble if the US stopped buying foreign
oil for 6 months. Half of the middle east dictatorships
would collapse for starters.
\_ This is the first I've heard this clarification (and
google hasn't helped). Can you point to a URL that
says this? -emarkp
\_ That's like a couple years of defecit in this state! ;)
\_ States don't run deficits. They just stop paying people.
\_ At the rate we're going it'd be a single budget soon.
\_ Most of us got into and some graduated from college. We don't
need to you spell out how many zeros are in a number for us.
Would you care to tell us how many zeros have gone into welfare,
social security, and other forms of socialism? Care to tell us
how much the cold war against such things cost?
\_ troll purged. see archives if you care.
\_ The only cold war vs. social security is the one being
fought by the Heritage Foundation. I hope they go bankrupt
trying to turn back the clock.
\_ say what? what are you talking about?
\_ You are so obviously a fat sysadmin.
\_ That's a great line. No sarcasm. -#1 fan
\_ Yeah when you're caught with nothing to say on topic you
should always fall back to personal attack. You'll be the
hero of people like "-#1 fan" above. That's the smart move.
Are you running for governator, too? You're almost as smart
as Huffington.
\_ And you sir, are an ah hominem fat sysadmin.
\_ The only cold war vs. social security is the one being
fought by the Heritage Foundation. I hope they go bankrupt
trying to turn back the clock.
\_ I wonder what he wanted to say on Sunday, more money for
his defense friends. Yeah, who gives a fuck about the
dosmetic issues, as long as he and his friends are racking
in the $$$, and when the next suicide bomber hits the US
before the next election, he is well on his way to another
4 years.
\_ mmm. Frothy bile.
\_ its one of the reasons to read the motd. its always a good
laugh to see someone froth and you _know_ they pounded the
\_ This response makes no sense at all.
\_ obMotd.
hell out of their keyboard while typing that out since he
managed to 'typo' (being generous) two simple words.
\_ that's right. all we should ever think about, ever, are
those domestic issues.
\_ Funny, it used to be what the republicans harped on.
In fact, it was part of Georgie's platform.
\_ Funny, it used to be what the Demo's said also.
Shows your political ignorance if you don't take
into account the '92 election.
\_ Both parties say whatever they think people want to
\_ I got lost. Can you explain that slowly for me?
hear that year to get elected.
\_ This response makes no sense at all.
\_ fuck bush hard
\_ I just did. Or did you mean the president?
\_ yeah, that'll sure change the political landscape. you should
spend a few million of your dotcom dollars on advertising your
message to the people. we're with you, guy!
\_ Just think, 87 billion comes to about $300 for every man,
woman and child in the U.S.
\_ Your sis' bush? That's gotta feel great.
\_ yermom. but it was too easy.
\_ Yup. My mom seduced her brother-in-law when she was in her
teens, and then has been lying that he raped her ever
since. I feel sorry for you.
\_ Sort of fitting:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkennedyJ2.JPG -John
\_ Very fitting. Thank you, John. --erikred
\_ Just think, 87 billion comes to about $300 for every man,
woman and child in the U.S.
\_ If you're going to quote the newspaper, at least provide the
URL instead of pretending you've had some amazing insight.
\_ or $29M for each person that died in the WTC.
\_ That's right, $29M/victim to continue the submission of a
country that had no links to the events of 9/11.
\_ And NO proof whatsoever of any WMDs either (remember
Collin Powell and his ridiculous satellite pictures of
trucks moving in and out of some alledged "chemical
weapons" facility? Where the hell are they now?)
\_ Yeah! See how thye put minorities out with bullshit and
hang them out to dry when we all see the truth later?
\_ Not at all. Going to be 4 more years. I don't care that
CA blindly votes (D) like sheep because CA doesn't matter.
\_ Read it and weep, neocon boy
http://www.pollingreport.com
\_ Yep, now go find any of the polls putting Bush against a
real person instead of some fantasy ideal. 4 more years!
That's why we have to prevent the Bushies from putting more
\_ brilliant! this will change minds everywhere! buy two!
\_ Billions for Halliburton, pay cuts for the troops on the ground.
Bushonomics in action.
\_ liar. no pay cuts.
country that had no links to the events of 9/11.
trucks moving in and out of some alledged "chemical
weapons" facility? Where the hell are they now?)
minorities into high government positions, so they'll stop
abusing them! Hold up all Bushies minority candidates to
protect them!
\_ "And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror,
possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years
defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council."
Notice how Dubya no longer claims WMD will be found ...
\_ All the nuts and fruits are safely tucked away in CA. CA will
blindly vote (D), most of the rest will vote (R) and you'll be
here bitching and moaning about how there must have been a
conspiracy in '04, too, and that '00 was just practice because
everyone _you_ know voted (D).
\_ You're the one bitching and moaning, boy-o.
\_ Read it and weep, neocon boy
http://www.pollingreport.com
\_ http://www.cafeshops.com/no_dubya
\_ Billions for Halliburton, pay cuts for the troops on the ground.
Bushonomics in action. |
| 2003/9/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10105 Activity:insanely high |
9/6 "...that an in-depth state audit showed only 19% of
illegals bother to file taxes, and the best
data on illegal immigrants, from the late 1990s
National Science Foundation study, shows that
each citizen-headed household in California
pays out a net extra $1,178 to shore up 3
million mostly low-income illegal immigrants."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/977367/posts
\_ Do you expect fact to change the opinion of democrats?
\_ when was the last time you changed your mind about something
based on a motd post? and nice english.
\_ a motd post? it's happened. an off site url provided by a
motd poster? much more often. im not either of the above
but if you're going to point out someone's writing flaws you
should first board up your own windows.
\_ just wait until you get your wish, and your grocery bills are several
times what they are today
\_ Funny, that's the same argument people made against the abolition
\- shipping is probably cheeper than you think
it is. look if you are serious about *reducing*
the number of *illegal* immigrants [as opposed
to focusing on abusing them], you clearly need
to crack down on employers. you start *jailing*
employers [for harboring potential terrorists?]
including soccer moms hiring illegal domestic
workers, and then the the numbers will decline.
and while you are at it, go after illegals
from EU countries. --psb
of slavery. And I'm wearing mostly cotton clothing. Nice
argument, slaver.
\_ cotton clothing and food are not the same, food is perishable
so you can't simply move to imports with little effects since
the price of refrigerated shipping is not as negligible as
throwing clothing into a tanker container.
\_ shipping is probably cheeper than you think it is. the std
example of non-tradable item is a "haircut". look if
you are serious about *reducing* the number of *illegal*
immigrants [as opposed to focusing on abusing them], you
clearly need to crack down on employers.you start *jailing*
employers [for harboring potential terrorists?] including
soccer moms hiring illegal domestic workers, and then the
\_ Some of my best friends are black. No, really!
\_ nice retort
the numbers will decline. and while you are at it, go
after illegals from EU countries. --psb
\_ Sounds like a good plan. Why aren't you running for
Governor?
\_ If that were his only platform I'd vote for psb for
Governator. Unfortunately the current batch are all
afraid of "the latino community" voting against them
for any efforts to clean up the illegal mess. Who
said the thing about democracy only works until
the people figure out they can vote themselves
public funds?
\_ The product doesn't matter. The price will go up if we
don't have illegal immigrant labor, yes. But the product
won't go away, and if the employers are deprived of their
cheap labor, they'll have to modernize or increase wages.
You're basically arguing about maintaining a second class
resident who can be exploited for cheap labor with little
chance to rise above that. Talk about your class warfare.
How is this fundamentally different from slavery?
\_ Exactly, they want an underclass to work basically as
slaves to keep things cheap.
\_ And the Dems say they're for the working class...
\_ the labor illegals do can't be modernized. i.e., not
everything can be picked by machines.
\_ tough shit. so people will pay more for non-slave
laber speciality food items. im not shedding any
tears that a few of your favorite and unnecessary
food favorites will go up in price because you won't
have third class slave labor to pick it anymore.
cheap prices is the lamest reason ive ever heard to
ignore our own immigration and labor laws.
\_ And you want to deny them things like driver license so
their condition become even more like slaves?
\_ No you moron. I want to send them back home. If they want
to come here, let them come legally. Crazy idea, rule of
law and all that.
\_ You guys just hate them damn spics. Come on, admit it.
\_ What are you talking about you idiot? Legal
immigration is open to everyone of every nation.
You're the one using the racial slur.
\- immigration policy is not "first in - first out"
the policy very much affects the composition of
who actually gets approved. also there are a lot
of different visas, rather than a single pool.
--psb
\_ Yea, again US should learn from my country Singpaore.
When Singapore started to have some illegal
immigrants, it just says, come forward before such and
such date and we will send you home. Otherwise, if we
find you, we will cane you and then send you home.
Worked like a charm. Solves the problem and allows
the illegal immigrant to get on with life, unlike
wimpy US measures like denying them driving license
which just makes their life miserable while they
would continue to remain in the US. Of course, US
already allowed the problem to fester for too long,
and I suspect the US economy would suffer if all the
illegals all go home all at once. - bglee
\- yeah, the US is just like SIN. really the place
to use caning are certain white collar crimes.--psb
\_ no. destroying the lives and careers of american
workers, families, soon-to-be retirees and others
should be punishable by death. the cane was
appropriate for that idiot child who spray painted
the cars in singapore, not billion dollar crimes. |
| 2003/8/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29491 Activity:nil |
8/27 "Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Sex Secrets of Bodybuilders"
1977 interview: http://csua.org/u/420 |
| 2003/8/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29447 Activity:high |
8/23 Seeing Arnold speak on TV has made me curious: how hard is it for an
enormously wealthy man to get rid of his thick accent? Some accents
can be really cool, but not his - it makes him sound dumb. He's been
living in the country for 20 years, can't he pay a speech coach to
help him get rid of it? It seems that would help him both in his
movies and his campaign.
\_ of course it just depends on the person. Arnold has had speech
coaches in the course of his acting career. The guy just is not
capable of losing his accent. But actually if you look at most
people, unless they had exposure to other languages while young,
they usually retain some accent. Arnie's is just worse.
\_ That accent is worth a hundred million bucks for him. Why would
he want to lose it? I'd talk like that if it was worth $100m to me.
\_ Totally agree.
\_ Someone once told me his speech coaches were there to
*maintain* the accent.
\_ This makes sense to me: Arnold moved to the US at age 23.
People under 25 usually can drop/change accents fairly
easily. I would have expected him to "lose" his accent
by the time he made the first Terminator movie. |
| 2003/8/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29435 Activity:high |
8/22 http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm Forget Arnold's possible tax plans. With a list like this lining up against him how could I possibly vote for him now?? \_ According to the article, Woody Harrelson is diametrically opposed to abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control. Perhaps Woody should stop putting PCP in his bong.... \_ perhaps you should stop taking the New York Post seriously. \_ Damn your cynical, fact-based logic! \_ Aesop's fables is similar \_ Woody is the man! If he can't stop Arnold, no one can! I see the President of the West Wing is on the list, too. Now I *know* I can't vote for Arnold. \_ He lies. Penis not as impressive as implied in Twins... http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/229296c60.gif \_ look it's a PENIS!! lollerskates!!!!1 |
| 2003/8/21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29428 Activity:high |
8/21 Anyone else watch Arnold's press conference? Comedy gold.
\_ BTW, now that Arnold's going into politics, did he say that he won't
be making any more movies? I don't have much confidence on him as
a governor, but I sure love his movies.
\_ What sucks is that True Lies 2 is on the shelf again cuz of
America's newfound sensitivity to terrorism.
\_ Does Arnold promise to show his ass if he's governor, or let state
senators put out burning cigars on his hand?
\_ Anyone else watch Davis's "I have a dream" speech? Comedy gold.
I don't care at all who replaces Davis but he has to be replaced.
The rest of the bums we can get at the next election cycle.
\_ What? He thinks he's MKL Jr? Oh, he has a dream indeed then.
\_ It is hard for me to imagine anyone voluntarily watching
Davis speak. Was it really that enjoyable? -motd liberal |
| 2003/8/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29343 Activity:very high 57%like:29339 |
8/13 Warren Buffett hired as Schwarzenegger's campaign adviser:
http://csua.org/u/3xe (sfgate.com)
\_ Great. He can help invest all of that surplus money CA has.
\_ Buffett is a Democrat. Interesting.
\_ Buffett is an interesting guy. Read about him! -brain
\_ So is Ah-nold's wife. Is the guy really a Republican?
\_ he's not a true Republican.
\_ what makes someone a true republican? an MOTD vote?
at least he is willing to work with ppl based on
who they are not who they vote for.
\_ And we want Warren Buffet running this state? Why?
\_ Not a troll... what issues make Arnold Republican? Might be a troll:
What makes some call Dean a Commie/Socialist (is it a health-care
thing, or the bush-bashing thing) while others say that he is more
\_ Dean's a commie because he raised taxes and guaranteed health care
to every child up to age 18. He's a conservative because his
economic policy is very centrist-- don't borrow from the future,
balance the budget, and so on.
conservative than the other Democrats. --not too political
\_ Dean's a commie because he raised taxes and guaranteed health
care to every child up to age 18. He's a conservative because
his economic policy is very centrist-- don't borrow from the
future, balance the budget, and so on. [formatd]
\_ Who knows? He won't talk about what he stands for until he's
good and ready for it. Suspect pro-business, fewer regulations,
less welfare. The standard centralist Republican line.
\_ He's already on record as pro-welfare.
\_ Being pro-welfare isn't like being pro-life, there are
man different levels of pro-welfare. Not many on pro-life.
\_ Pro-life? What does that even mean? Who is Pro-death?
\_ I'm not taking this troll. try again later.
\_ I don't think he's a true republican
\_ i just found out that arnold supported prop 187. -ntp
\_ uh-huh... so...?
\_ Holy shit! So did a *majority* of voters since it passed!
\_ dude, Pete Wilson is his mentor |
| 2003/8/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29339 Activity:nil 57%like:29343 |
8/13 Warren Buffett hired as Schwarzenegger's campaign adviser:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/13/financial1529EDT0203.DTL
\_ Great. He can help invest all of that surplus money CA has.
\_ Buffett is a Democrat. Interesting.
\_ So is Ah-nold's wife. Is the guy really a Republican?
\_ he's not a true Republican.
\_ Not a troll... what issues make Arnold Republican? Might be a troll:
What makes some call Dean a Commie/Socialist (is it a health-care
thing, or the bush-bashing thing) while others say that he is more
conservative than the other Democrats. --not too political
\_ Dean's a commie because he raised taxes and guaranteed health care
to every child up to age 18. He's a conservative because his
economic policy is very centrist-- don't borrow from the future,
balance the budget, and so on. |
| 2003/8/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29263 Activity:very high |
8/6 Arnold Schwarzenegger's running for governor.
\_ Too bas hes a RINO.
\_ Too bad hes a RINO.
\_ What do you care? You're not voting anyway. If the election
gets even 15% of eligible adults I'll be shocked (because I'm
going to stick a finger in a wall socket to celebrate).
\_ So, what was voter turnout in CA in 2000?
\_ Interesting that you are able to divine the future.
I voted for Simon in 2002 and will vote for
McClintock this fall.
\_ McClintock? You're kidding, right? Why him? At least
the porn queen has nice tits.
\_ If he wins, there must be something about being in Predator (see
also: Jesse Ventura) that gives governor-hopefuls a chance.
\_ Jesse didn't just have a chance. He won and governed better
than certain CA governors we know.
\_ By your logic, all the other actors in the movie, including
Jean Claude van-Damme will run for governor one day. (Van Damme
was the predator for one day but complained about the suit.)
\_ How broken is this logic?
\_ Quite solid. Philosophy 25.
\_ I think he is going to win, though. Then again, for some reason
he reminds me of Ronald Reagon, someone I would much rather
to forget.
\_ If you're going to insult the man at least spell his name right.
How many real reasons can you have to hate someone you know so
little about? I voted for Reag_A_n. Were you even in HS yet?
\_ ...so you're over 40 and you're insulting someones spelling
on the motd. awsome. so this is what we all have to look
forward to. |
| 2003/8/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29222 Activity:kinda low |
8/3 Dems attacking Davis in public. Bye Davis. We'll hardly miss you. http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/recall/story/7141249p-8088520c.html \_ this is pathetic. if the democrats had half a testicle between their entire party, they'd all be calling for davis to step down. i'm not impressed. |
| 2003/7/25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:29135 Activity:high |
7/24 How many of you are going to recall Davis in Oct?
Yes ...
No ....
\_ I think, based on the things out of his control (i.e. dot com
bubble, corrupt power companies), I think he's done a good job.
He's the reason why gas stations can no longer can charge for
air/ water in CA. I hated that!
\_ Uhm, no. He helped create and maintain CA's tax system which
was *heavily* based on money from cap. gains (stock options) and
thus had the entire state deep into the dotcom bubble. He also
did nothing to get us out the power mess and in many ways made
it worse by being spineless and by signing even more bloated
contracts with the same people who fucked us/him the first time
around. At best he's a boob. At worst he should be the first
against the wall when the revolution comes. How can you live in
CA and somehow believe this vapid career politician is somehow
merely a victim of circumstance? Do you say the same thing about
Bush and the federal economy? Oh poor George inherited this mess
from Clinton and it's all someone else's fault! No. If GWB gets
crushed in '04 it'll be because of the economy and rightly so,
the same as Davis today. There's always another politician.
This one had more than enough chances and did nothing each time.
\_ There was not much whoever inherited the White House could
have done. The late 90's were nothing more than a speculative
bubble. Greenspan injected 5 trillion into the economy
over the period.
\_ Davis attacked Riordan in order to face Simon. Davis concealed
the magnitude of the deficit. Davis and his pals increased
state spending without adequate preparation for a tech bubble
burst. The first reason is enough for me to vote to eject Davis.
-Democrat in L.A.
\_ Ahhhhhhhrrnoold!
\_ I'm totally voting for Arney if he runs. Too bad he can't
follow in Reagan's footsteps and become President after but
we can always just ignore the Constitution since it's a living
document.
\_Demolition MAN!
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510039949,00.html
\_ If he wins, that means no more new blockbuster action
flicks from him!!
\_ Yeah, but then you can have quotes like "Your tax
proposals will be Terminated!" and "I'll be back ...
if you elect me for a 2nd term!"
\_ If he runs, he needs a speech therapist like he had on the set
of True Lies. You can barely understand him in all his other
movies.
\_ so is his speech impediment due to learning disabilities
or just that that Scandinavians speak like that?
\_ He is from fucking AUSTRIA! OSTERREICH! GET IT,
you fool!?
\_ I think he modeled himself after Hans and Franz on SNL,
but he has much bigger muscles.
\_ If the Republicans were dumb enough to not realize that Davis
campaigning against Riordan should have made them more likely
to vote for him, there is no help for them. Davis has the
right to campaign for whomever he chooses, just like any
other American. I agree with you on the rest of your points
though. |
| 2003/5/14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:28428 Activity:nil |
5/13 Rumour has it that the next Terminator movie, named "Terminator 4:
You can't beat the machines", is on the drawing board. |
| 2003/4/6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:28005 Activity:moderate |
4/5 RIAA says MTU student owes them $97.8e12:
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman5_20030405.htm
\_ Actually, it's $97.8e9 Boy, you freepers sure are good at math.
\_ Its not http://freerepublic.com, its Detroit Free Press. So I
guess that makes you the idiot, eh?
\_ Freepers are also good at calling people names!
\_ And the left is good at killing 50+ million people
in the 20th century.
\_ these responses may mark an all-time low.
\_ Actually, some estimates for the 20th
century RIAA/MPAA death toll
range up to 200 million.
\_ Republicans slaughtered 9 million in 1964 alone.
\_ All during the civil rights movement where they tried
to keep minorities down, right? |
| 2003/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:27623 Activity:insanely high |
3/7 "Man Arrested for 'Peace' T-Shirt" -- an URBAN LEGEND!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859373/posts
\_ things like the use of the "[sic]" not as a correction of usage
but as an insult is why rational people will never take
but as an insult are why rational people will never take
http://freerepublic.com seriously
\_ In case you haven't noticed all the articles there
are links from sundry mainstream news media. The only
thing user contributed content is the comments. For
example this article was from the Wall Street Journal.
So in your view, the WSJ and NYT have no credibility?
\_ but the poster added [sic] after the line where the
WSJ called the men gentlemen. That makes the poster
look like an idiot.
\_ What I commented on, the "[sic]," was not in the
deposition, it was added by the user who submitted
the story. Why are you trying to change the subject?
\_ Ok, I was mistaken and lazy and this is from the
WSJ. But it's just these types of sometimes subtle,
usually not, pieces that end up being submitted to
http://freerepublic.com and being further disseminated.
Pieces that come to people's attention by this route
are highly suspect, at least to me, be they from the
WSJ or NYT.
\_ what's a libaral publication at par with the credibility of
http://freerepublic.com? Salon? I guess what I'm asking is: how far
to the left to you have to go to acheive a similar amount of
(un)credibility? ... just trying to get a better gauge of
accepted politcal beliefs. - running for office (j/k)
\_ Salon is hardly the liberal counterpart of freerepublic.
The counterpart would have to be of the weekly world news
ilk.
\_ Salon is dead / dying.
\_ despite the persistent and gleeful schadenfreude
from freepers, Salon will probably survive the
latest round of doom predictions.
\_ http://indymedia.org
\_ ding. We have a winner.
\_ http://nytimes.com
\_ funny how the nytimes is loved and scorned in equal
meassure by both the right and the left
\_ http://cpusa.org
\_ So who was that I saw on O'Reilly?
\_ Did you even bother to read the article?
\_ Yes, but I was hoping that someone wouldn't be that much
of a bald liar. Also, it was more fun to answer the
question than respond to the article. |
| 2003/1/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:27011 Activity:high 61%like:27009 |
01/06 Important legal ruling for all you males:
http://csua.org/u/779 -from http://sfgate.com -urld
Um, just give me a few more minutes to finish up...
\_ What about when she says: "Don't...Stop...Don't...Stop..."?
\_"the high court's majority did not indicate how much time a man has
to withdraw once a woman says stop."
\_ there should be a yellow-light first. Then you're allowed in
the intersection. When it's yellow, you have a chance to
speed up. Once it turns red, you get a ticket.
\_ Brings new meaning to the term "California Stop".
\_ And this is relevant to most sodans how? You have to talk to girls
before you get to this point.
\_ c'mon, most of us here are around 30 now. we've talked to girls,
it's just not that interesting.
\_ perhaps you've been talking to the wrong girls. |
| 2002/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:26399 Activity:nil |
11/3 A few good reasons for SFers to vote yes on prop N:
http://csua.org/u/4c6 --from http://sfgate.com -urld |
| 2002/8/19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:25600 Activity:moderate |
8/18 Can someone reposted the database equivalent of http://routergod.com? I remember it being some weird news site. \_ i love http://routergod.com. --rg #1 fan \_ <DEAD>databasegod.com<DEAD> |
| 2002/8/1 [Computer/SW/Database, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:25468 Activity:kinda low |
7/31 What's the DB equivalent of http://routergod.com? \_ http://www.rotten.com \_ uhhh...right. what exactly does DB stand for? |
| 2002/5/6 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:24729 Activity:very high |
5/6 Why is http://cnn.com a bad provider of news? What are some good online news providers? \_ How about bbc.uk? \_ try NPR or DW (http://dw-world.de/english \_ The which is utterly broken... \_ NPR? HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAAAA! Do they serve news with their agenda? \_ And who do you suggest? NewRepublic? \_ CNN is shallow and trite. \_ Actually, the overseas versions of CNN are much better. Get a satellite feed. \_ /etc/motd.public \_ Only read the http://washingtontimes.com and http://freerepublic.com. Then you will be free of the contamination of liberal thought. |
| 2002/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:24534 Activity:high |
4/22 Gas explosion on Milvia this morning. Check the news. There's choppers
hovering. I count three from my office.
\_ Hardly the first time there was a gas explosion in Berkeley. Are
they news-whore copters or police copters? News-whore copters
aren't interesting but the police might be.
\_ I'm a couple of miles away but I'm guessing the former.
\_ That's no moon.
\_ This isn't a cave!
\_ URL: http://www.sfgate.com/news/baycitynews |
| 2002/2/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:23859 Activity:very high |
2/13 Who will win best actor?
\_ russell
\_ p. nunez.
\_ if only! I'm weary of this hollywood navel-gazing. -PeterM
\_ They need something to keep them busy.
\_ don't be so crabby PeterM. You sound like such a crotchety
old man.
\_ then perhaps you should stop.
\_ does it matter? oscars are nothing more than self-pats-on-the
back and do not reflect anything but the liberal masses of the
academy
\_ Are we that peeved that Arnie never won an Oscar?
\_ You and Rush Limbaugh are soooo cool.
\_ Hey Genius, you trying to say Hollywood is anything but 99.9%
liberal? You're on the same planet with the rest of us,
right? The one where Hollywood is Left and proud of it?
\_ Yes, I am saying that. How many former Hollywood
movie stars turned Republican politicians? I can
think of four without even trying hard, starting
with the Right's Darling Boy, Reagan. Turn off that
Limbaugh and read something a bit more balanced, like
maybe the Wall Street Journal.
\_ WSJ balanced? Propagandist of the capitalist world? HA!
\_ No, it's more than that. It's an indicator of which actresses
/ actors have been sleeping around with the judges the most.
\_ what a radical opinion...wow, you must be intelligent.
\_ Stating the obvious doesn't make the poster stupid.
\_ yeah those damn liberals gave a bunch of oscars to that
damn communist propaganda "schindler's list"
\_ WTF are you smoking? What does SL have to do with
*anything*? You're aware the Nazi's were... oh ya know
what? Just nevermind. Go find a history book. Sheesh. |
| 2001/12/27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:23379 Activity:nil |
12/26 The truth about KAL 007, soviet abduction, and CIA/KGB coverup,
brought to you by Jesse Helms and http://freerepublic.com
http://freerepublic.com/focus/fr/597265/posts |
| 2001/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:22088 Activity:nil |
8/12 Look, if you want to troll, you'll have to find a source less
obvious than http://freerepublic.com. |
| 2001/5/24 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:21340 Activity:nil |
5/23 A well-reasoned argument about why socialist economists are silly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394ac341016e.htm
\_ a well-reasoned argument from http://freerepublic.com? not bloody likely
\_ Changing what someone else wrote and then responding to it is
not impressive. --Galen (!top)
\_ He didn't change anything. -- top
\_ Yes he did. (I changed it back.) --Galen
\_ this is the liberal mentality, suppress free speech
and replace with what you believe is right. fucken commie bitch
\_ Wow you must be a fast reader.
\_ So without reading the article you entirely dismiss everything it
might say because of where it was posted? Okey dokey! |
| 2001/5/7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:21189 Activity:very high |
5/6 According to http://www.pge.com we're in a stage 1 power emergency. I didn't see anywhere that said if we're doing rolling blackouts today or not and which areas. Anyone got a URL? My power blipped out twice just now and it'd be nice to know. \_ rolling blackouts don't hit until stage 3. -tom \_ Rolling blackouts don't hit until you get a liberal fool in office. \_ the mad anonymous Republican troll strikes again! \_ Ok, now we're in stage 2. Anyone got a URL? \_ Check http://www.sfgate.com They usually have pretty good coverage on power blackouts. Second half of block 14 is next. \_ News releases from the CA ISO: http://www.caiso.com/newsroom/pw2000.html -- yuen \_ Turn off your monitors and lights when you leave your offices / labs / classrooms. Screensavers only save the screen, not electricity! \_ Actually, screens haven't needed saving for years now. We're far removed from the days of image burn-ins. \_ If you'd like to know, get on the email notification list. Sorry, cant remember if it's on http://pge.com or http://sfgate.com |
| 2001/4/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:20895 Activity:high |
4/7 arnold scwarzenneger as CA gov?
\_ wow teh Terminator is the gov. (R ticket)
\_ Youu vill vote for mee! - Aunald
\_ Can't be worse than the ditzbomb we have now. I'd vote for an
assassin robot from the future sent back in time to destroy all
mankind before I'd vote for Governor Ditzbomb.
\_ If only we had a name by which to identify the mad
fear of confiscation, then concentration camps. FREEDOM!!! will come
anti-Dem motd-bomber....
\_ kewl, now i dig up the guns i have been hiding for
fear of confiscation, then concentration camps.
FREEDOM!!! will come |
| 2000/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:19774 Activity:high |
11/14 For those of you who still think that Gore is getting more
votes becaused he earned them:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000596
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000613
\_ i dont' agree with the Wall Street Journal's numbers
in that article
\_ Ok, great. Make up your own. What numbers would you
prefer? Make some up and post a URL. Sheesh. Let's
not let little things like "facts" get in the way of
the truth.
\_ I'm glad to see you've learnt something.
The one thing that Bill taught me was to
never let facts and the truth stand in my
way. - Al Gore
PS. After inventing the Internet, I became
an 3113T H@X0R and I'm posting this from my
R00T SH311 D00DZ! A1 G0R3 0WNZ U!
\_ Hmmm, Wall Street Journal. No bias there. The first article is
purely subjective stating, to a first order approximation,
"recounts are bad, mm'kay." The second article features fast
and loose journalism "Statisticians tell me that is highly
unlikely". Who are these vaunted statisticians? Are they
College Professors? Are they bored students taking stat 2? Are
they even real? Who can say. Go sourcing. Why should anyone
trust the statisticians a writer for the Journal pulled out of his
ass? Why will they have anything but the bias needed for Fund's
angle? |
| 2000/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:17169 Activity:moderate 100%like:17216 |
1/5 http://www.sjmercury.com/premium/front/docs/bestbuy05.htm has anyone tried this? \_ Does it strike anyone as odd that MS doesn't mind giving away $400 to Slashdot-reading linux yokels? Or are they buying your credit card & social security number? -paranoid \_ The application I got from Office Depot after reading this has printed on the reverse: "I agree to repay MSN the full Reimbursement Amount if my MSN Internet Access membership is terminated or cancelled before the end of the period associated with my purchase credit." This came in a packet that had "MSN Internet Rebate P.C. Oregon and California" stamped on the front. I might still try it, though. What do I have to lose, and I was going to buy that particular item anyhow. --dim \_ What if membership is terminated by MS, either intentionally or by mistake? Do you still have to pay the Reimbursement Amount? (Don't laugh. I started a cell phone service with GTE Wireless via Future Communications. One day my service was terminated by GTE by mistake, and Future Comm. charged me $300 penalty because the agreement doesn't specify the reason of termination.) \_ And check this out ("provided that if you are a resident of California or Oregon you will not be required to repay the credit amount"): http://www.bestbuy.com/weeklyad/fineprint/index.asp --dim |
| 1999/12/31-2000/1/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:17132 Activity:low |
12/30 http://www.sjmercury.com/premium/svlife/docs/016199.htm : credit card surcharges are against the law as stated on the motd a few days ago. In California, anyway. \- if a merchant offers a "cash discount" or has a credit card minimum parchase, you can in theory call VISA and report them. again, in theory, VISA is supposed to threaten the vendor with revokation if they get enough complaints. i assume MC is the same way. there is an interesting case on this. VISA v. NABANCO. I dont have the cite handy. --psb |
| 1999/3/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:15602 Activity:moderate |
3/16 What's the best gum in (or around) Berkeley? I'm not the Gold's Gym
\_ Bazooka
type, either. (I actually like to get on stairmaster as a regular
part of my workout). Recommendations?
\_ RSF
\_ Evans Hall
\_ What does "the Gold's Gym type" mean? Thx.
\_ Arnold Schwarzenneggar.
\_ That's Schwarzenegger, but good try! -ax
\_ Cory Hall. |
| 1999/3/13 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:15588 Activity:nil |
3/11 http://www.drudgereport.com/matt1.htm \_ Bye bye Clinton marriage. Not even Hillary can stand the lies anymore. |
| 1999/1/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Industry/Startup] UID:15234 Activity:nil |
1/13 Company to offer free long-distance phone calls:
http://www.hotcoco.com/eveningstories/rob18910.htm |
| 11/23 |