Politics Domestic California Arnold - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California:Arnold:
Results 1 - 150 of 228   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

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.
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
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    

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/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] 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/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Election] 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/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] 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
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    
Results 1 - 150 of 228   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Domestic:California:Arnold:
.