Shagg

Ariana wants to fuck with prop 13 and raise property taxes for businesses. That is reason enough not to vote for her. Prop 13 needs to be left alone. If anything, property taxes should be halved for first time home buyers. Her plan though is to increase property taxes for businesses who have been in place over a long period of time. Can you say "lets give companies another reason to move out of California."

JBX

Cruz Bustamante ahead, hmm, interesting. Was hoping for Votes = Views for accuracy. I'll take what I can get. 35 Days to Go.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

smooth

Corporations bought themselves the right to be considered individuals under prop 13. Obviously, that wasn't what we had in mind when we were concerned about people losing their homes over high taxes. Corporations aren't held liable as persons when they do something wrong so why do people support them having the benefits of persons?

But here's a thought: thousands of businesses come here for the climate--not the low taxes. The ones running for the lowest taxes actually relocate their shit offshore. However, places like Qwest (which doesn't even do business in Southern California) have their HQs ten blocks from the beach. Guess what: I pay a huge premium to live here and so do you. If I didn't love it so much I would move--I don't live here for the low rent and anyone who has lived here will never say different. If you want low rent you move to Oregon. I willingly moved back to my homestate despite the fact that I would have to pay three times the rent. Of course, when I buy a house, I'll likely do it up north--for now I'm living my heart out in a mediteranean climate with some of the best bikinis and women in the states.

If the businesses want to skip town because they don't want to pay their fair share of taxes then fuck em. I guarantee that corporations will still come here and will still pay "higher" taxes because people do it all the fucking time--because we love it here.

If you don't like it you can pack up and move to France, or maybe Texas, I hear the repubs are fucking shit up over there quite nicely .
And while you're lathering up your saddle I'll be waxing my board.

edit: I was just ribbing you about moving out--kind of a spoof on what usually comes from the other side when an opposing opinion is stated.

But for clarification: I'm not necessarily voting for Arianna but you need to read up on her policy statement. You are misinterpreting her plan. It isn't aimed at businesses that have been here a long time. New businesses are acquring property through mergers and odd sleight of hand and managing to protect their new property from being reassessed at current market value. Businesses that have been here for long periods of time aren't subject to reassessment, AFAIK.

MSD

I feel that, while I have no real right to be telling people on the other coast what to do, I should throw in some facts on Huffington.

She is running in an election to replace someone who is being replaced mainly due to budget issues. She owns a $7M house, yet last year paid less than $800 of federal income tax.

I wouldn't want her trying to get my state out of a budget crisis.

I also think that we should put Davis' head on a ple with the Enron executives who helped to create an fictional energy crisis last year in order to divert more state money into their pockets by exporting energy to Nevada and buying it back from Enron subsidiaries and affiliates at much higher than the allowed price for in-state purchases.

Nizzle

Why not, sounds like she's good with numbers.

__________________
Nizzle

smooth

Of course, that might qualify her as the perfect person to run the state .

Seriously, though, while I was following her line of reasoning that what she did was perfectly acceptable under the tax code (being that writers' incomes are cyclical--I'll hold off on final judgement until next year when she files taxes on this year's income which, by her accounts, has been profitable) I have run that argument by a few people who I knew to be non-supportive of her platform. At least one person stated that, while 'legal', he could do the same thing. That is, he (my prof) could write off his losses to avoid paying taxes but that certainly wasn't 'right', in his opinion.

I agree with that sentiment. I respect Bustamante's world view. By all accounts he worked as a migrant worker (pciking cotton and peaches) and his family (brothers and sisters) worked hard over the summer to kick off his political background (they worked to help pay for his living expenses while he worked under a mentor program for a politician). IIRC, he just received his bachelors. While I may not agree with all his policies or all of his actions I do believe he is the closest candidate that shares my world view.

No matter what the experiences of the other candidates none of them can ever really look at life with the same lense that working class people have--despite what they say or even how hard they may actually try.

sixate

By the correct definition. I'm no racist. I have never said kill every Arab individual on the planet now have I? I said that I think we need to blow up the entire Middle East, and I think we both know that more than just Arabs live there.

Again, I have never stated that I wanted the death of an entire ethnic group. It's not my problem that I speak a language that you don't understand.

Disliking America is not terrorist behavior, but supporting terrorist behavior is! Many people in these countries support it, many do not. We don't have time to figure who is who and I don't care if innocent people are killed. Again, where the fuck did I ever say anything about genocide?! Maybe you're the one who's completely fucking insane because now you are putting words in my mouth.

If you want to think so, but I don't.

So you have no problem with someone slipping up and saying nigger. Good for you. That's something to be proud of. NOT! That is hardly a word that should even cross someones mind when their "intent" was to say negro... Especially when they are in front of a bunch of black people. Of course he's gonna do his best to try to cover that up. That's what politicians do. Again, if you want to think I'm a racist then you're entitled to that bullshit opinion just as I'm entitled to my opinion that Bustamante is a racist.

See, this is the kind of shit that kills me. Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean that I have to get completely ignorant. I don't even need to go that route because I'm not like that. I would love to know what you had to say and you can PM me the part that you took out just so I could laugh cause dudes like you wouldn't talk so fucking big if you were sitting in front of me.

Well, since I agreed to not say shit about his past all I'll say is because of things that I've read from his past I believe that he's racist, and whether you like it or not I'm entitled to my opinion and nobody has to like or agree with it.

westothemax

I don't understand the appeal for this guy.
Is it just because he's a really famous actor?

Kadath

"Aw, now see, that wasn't a nice thing to say, that wasn't designed to make me feel good. That's a kind of not-too-subtle intimidation and I get filled with anxiety when you talk like that." -- Dr. Oatman.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Nizzle

It takes a big man to threaten someone over the Internet.

__________________
Nizzle

sixate

See, now you misunderstood. I didn't threaten anyone. I just pointed out a fact. Plus he's the one who had to edit something out so you tell me who said something worse. Obviously not me.

I'm still waiting for that PM so I can laugh my ass off.........

ctembreull

Sure. Would you like some statistical breakdowns on the ratios of Arabs to Jews? Your sidestepping aside, you have advocated a clearly racist position, namely the depopulation of a certain region upon the basis of an unprovable assertion linked to race. Look at it this way: Your statement is by far more demonstrably racist than anything Cruz Bustamante has ever said, done, or probably even thought. Frankly, I don't care if you don't like it, sixate, because from what I see reading you, you're not one to admit a truth that clashes with your inch-wide worldview, even if it's sitting right in front of your nose. I'll wager that I'm conversant with quite a few more languages than you. But that's another issue, innit? Fact is, that your "language" is apparently spoken only in another dimension of reality inhabited only by you. That's nice, dear. Now prove that every Arab supports terrorist behavior. You said it, now back it up. Ah, you can't prove it. Even better, you've admitted that you are willing to commit genocide in order to eliminate a political stance that you disapprove of, regardless of how many innocents get swept up in your great pogrom. It's another word for what you're advocating. Sorry if you don't like it, but it certainly shouldn't pose a problem for someone who thinks it's okay to kill a billion or so people just to get at a few terrorists, now, should it? I don't understand why you're so squeamish here. Your position is ethically comparable to Streicher's (and his compatriots'). But you deny the similarity and quibble over what words we should use to describe your efforts in the direction of global population reduction. Why so touchy over words? You've already proposed cleansing the Middle East, why should you care how it's described back to you? Speaking of remote emplacement of polysyllabic language constructs... You know, if Bustamante had actually said it and then refused to apologize for it, along the lines of Trent Lott last year, or you just a month or so ago, then I might even agree with you. But the fact is that he spent several weeks moving around the state apologizing personally to everyone who expressed offense. He responded as someone who was ashamed of himself for making the mistake he did. If he hadn't done all that, then I might concede your point. But he did. And you know what? Once he'd done that, pretty much everyone involved or within earshot (short of maybe Fox News, whose objectivity is highly suspect) forgave him, accepted that he is not a racist, and moved on. In fact, he won reelection to the Lieutenant Governorship last year with what was estimated as an overwhelming majority of the black vote. So maybe instead of listening to me, you should pay attention to California voters. We don't forget slights. But they - we - forgave Bustamante. What does this tell you? Ooooh, look, physical intimidation! Yes, in fact, yes I would talk precisely the same way if I were standing in front of you. The base fact is that I really didn't wanna check the thread later on and see that a mod had had at my post with the snippers. But to believe that I wouldn't think what I think or say what I say if I were standing in front of you is just about the height of arrogance. Seriously, get over yourself. Sure. You want to hold an opinion that runs counter to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, you just go ahead and do that. Just don't expect me to stand back here and let you get away with stating that opinion as a fact: Have a nice day.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

This, coupled with your strange obsession with NewsMax, indicates to me that you're not necessarily conversant with the word "fact" as it is expressed in the vernacular.

In other words, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

sixate

I'm gonna keep this simple. You can put any word you like to think that I've said in my mouth. I don't give a shit. I haven't accused you of saying something that you didn't say. That's about all you're doing with me. Then you chose to not read something that I did say. You make zero sense. I'll give an exaple.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I said,"Disliking America is not terrorist behavior, but supporting terrorist behavior is!"


You said, "That's nice, dear. Now prove that every Arab supports terrorist behavior. You said it, now back it up."
--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have to back up shit. You just need to open your eyes and read what I fucking said. I said,"Disliking America is not terrorist behavior, but supporting terrorist behavior is! Many people in these countries support it, many do not.

Now fucking read the bold part this time and tell me where I said that every Arab supports terrorism...... You can't. So drop your lame bid to call me a racist.

Just because you don't like some of the sources I get news from doesn't mean that the shit isn't true.

I know what I stand for and I'm proud of that, and I don't care if you like it or not cause I'm sure that these feelings are mutual and we can both agree on that, right?

I'm still waiting for that PM....

I'll continue this pissing match if you'd like to.....

ctembreull

You're dodging, spinning, and backpedaling for all you're worth. Don't think I'm not noticing, either. In point of fact, what you said was: Just for accuracy, mind you. You stated quite clearly that the Middle East is composed entirely of either terrorists or potential terrorists, and that the only way to eliminate terrorists is to depopulate the Middle East, to scourge it clean. I contend that this is a racist position, and I challenge you again to prove that everyone in the Middle East supports terrorist behavior. You said it, now back it up. Actually, what you're posting is shit, thoroughly discredited, debunked, and shown up as nothing more than a partisan smear. Yes, it's shit, sixate. If you knew that, then why did you post it? More particularly, why did you post it in an attempt to validate your narrow-minded opinions, which you were attempting to pass as facts? Reread my post very carefully. Incidentally, I would prefer to wait until I'm standing in front of you. You'll find me ready, willing, and more than equal to the task, sir.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

debaser

I hate to but in on this dick waving contest, but that is not what he said at all.

With "Those kids are potential terrorists and the women will potentially raise terrorists.", he is quite obviously refering to "...all the women and children who cheered about 9/11...".

Also "The entire Middle East is fucked up and if innocent people have to die to change the way things are done over there then I'm all for it because in the long run it'll be worth it." is very specific in noting that not all people are terrorists, since it assumes innocents.

His view is genocidal, not racist.

I despise sophistry.

__________________

ctembreull

debaser: You're entitled to your interpretation, of course. I would encourage you, however, to reread the course of the "debate", as well as the other thread (from which some source material was referenced) - it was entitled "Bush should know better than this." My contention is that by singling out the Middle East, he's gone from genocide to racism. HTH.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

debaser

But what race? There are miriad races in the "Middle East". Which one does he specifically hate?

__________________

ctembreull

Myriad? I think not. I would contend that he's singling out the dominant - or "most populous", if you prefer - race of the Middle East - that being Arabs.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

debaser

Well, we are both using the wrong terminology. The predominant "race" in the ME is caucasian, and judging by his photo, so is sixate. I very much doubt he wants to kill all caucasians. Therefore, since you bring up arabs, we are talking about ethnic groups. And since we are talking about ethnic groups, you should know that Arabs are no more populous than Turks or Persians, and only slightly moreso than Kurds. Lets not forget the Jews while we are at it.

__________________

Mojo_PeiPei

Why not just target Islam as a whole??? It is not a peaceful religon, It's followers are not peaceful, and they are a thorn in the side of western civilization.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

ctembreull

Now who's being a sophist? While you're technically accurate, you're trying to shield the facts of sixate's bigotry - racism, in the vernacular - with misleading and dilutive argumentation.

I didn't make the world. I just live in it. Where I come from, sixate's attitude is called racism. I don't detect in your posts any argument with that conclusion - only with the wording.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

Probably for the same reason we don't target Christianity as a whole. We just got finished with that thread, Mojo. Go ahead and bump it if you want, but that's not a question that belongs here. That's asinine, arrogant, and just plain wrong. Your theologic bigotry is already well-documented, and is really disturbing in its persistence. Would you like me to judge Christianity by the actions of those who bomb abortion clinics? Trust me, Mojo - you'll lose this argument. Best not to start it at all. If for some bizarre reason you *do* decide to get into this fight here and now, you can start by proving that all followers of Islam are not peaceful. For a counterpoint, you should try to prove that all followers of Christianity are. If you can't do that, then I recommend that you just stuff it.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

debaser

You throw the word bigot about with reckless abandon, don't you?

I think sixates idea is one of the stupidest I have heard in a long time, but his anger flows from a frustration with dealing with the region, not a hatred of all the people there.

All I asked is that you be accurate, but you use words improperly, pad your statements with "I would contend", and "My contention is". My reasoning was perfectly sound, my statements were not fallacious, and you could find no answer to my question. If I am mistaken then please answer it, which ethnic group does he hate?

As for your well deserved trouncing of Mojo_PeiPeis post:

Islam has a major problem, it is being hijacked by extremist who are commiting violent acts on an increasingly frequent basis. That is not to say that every Muslim is an extremeist, far from it, but moderate Islam has either been unable or unwilling to deal with this problem to date. I challenge you to show me another religion in the world where young men are so eager to die for any cause (the roaming Mujahedin), or where God is invoked more regularly to justify killing.

What has been the predominant religion in every area we have deployed troops to for the past 10 years?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Islam is becoming a thorn in the side for the western world, just as it is fair to say the the west is a thorn in the side of Islam (and has been since the crusades).

It's just not PC.

__________________

sixate

I see that, and I actually respect the fact that you stand up for what you believe in, just as myself.

The pathetic thing here is you can't drop it. My opinions burn you up soooo bad that you always call me out about shit like this. It's fucking pathetic! Actually, I'm proud that my opinions burn you up so bad that you can't leave this alone. This is getting old and boring. Coninue if you like.... I hope whinning about me makes you feel better.... Maybe you need to get over yourself.

I've never asked anyone to agree with my opinions or like them. I just state them.

I'm done.

smooth

debaser, I'm curious as to your defintion of 'genocide.' My peers have always used it as an act of ethnic or racial killing. That is, genocide, as I understand it, is the act of killing a particular group of people based on racist beliefs.

Whatever else sixate might be, we ought to conclude that he is not Caucasion, despite the avatar, based on his statement that ctembreull's assumption that he was "100% caucasion" was "100% wrong."

edit: I'm would also like to point out that your categorization of Middle Easterners as Caucasions doesn't hold traction in either academia (where we argue that race is socially constructed and has no biological foundation) or our culture (where we just recently argued over the merits of 'racial' profiling in regards to paying particular attention to Arabs boarding planes and such--the nation wasn't in a debate ove whether Whites should be scrutinized more closely). The bottom line is that, while you might argue and believe that there are three main 'races' in society, and you might even produce a book or two to support such an assertion, that doesn't change the social reality that our citizens do not believe or conceive of themselves as the same 'race' as Arab peoples.

I didn't want to take this thread this far of course but we could discuss racial categories in philosophy, I suppose. We might wonder what prompted you to include sixate (even assuming his avatar is representative of his skin color) in the same racial category as a person of Arabian descent.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

debaser

Usually based on national, or racial lines, but I could find no better word to describe the eradication of all people in a particular area. If you find one, let me know and I'll change it.
Well, we seem to be spliting hairs here. He is quite obviously not negroid or mogoloid, so I lumped him, arbitrarily (see below), into the catagory of caucasiod (caucasian).
I agree that racial deliniations are irrelevant, however for the purposes of this argument, and with the language being put forth, I found it rather amusing that sixate was accused of wanting to destroy himself. "Racial" profiling, as I noted before, is a misnomer. We ethnicly profile in this country.
I give a tinkers cuss about race, and about the way people falsely think about it. However, if one were to break Homo Sapiens Sapiens into distinct races, the classic three is just as defensible a set as any other, there being identifiable features that clearly deliniate individuals placed in one group from those in another. As much as Americans may hate it, the fact is that a majority of Americans have much more in common, ethnically and racially (and by this I mean expressed traits), with people in the Middle East than they do with people in sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia/Polynesia.
I would love to discuss it, start a thread. See above for the quick answer to your question.

PS - I saw elsewhere (the bald thread perhaps?) that the avatar is an actual picture of the person in question.

__________________

sixate

For the record. I never said I was of Arab descent. I can see why a few of you would think that after I reread what I said.... He thought I was 100% white and I'm not. It may not look it, but I do have a lot of Puerto Rican in me. If you'd like to know what percentage I am I'll tell you, but I don't see how that makes a damn bit of difference. I'd post pictures of some people in my family, but I'm sure they don't want their pictures all over the place. I'm sure you can understand that.

smooth

Then he would of only been like 70-90% wrong =) , not 100%!

just jibing you. here's the thread I started in philosophy:
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=25969

sixate

Actually, more like 65% wrong if I include the Native American in me.

debaser

Just to clarify, sixate, I called you caucasian, not arab. Arabs are an ethnic group who happen to also be caucasians.

If you were a "racist", which I do not believe you to be, I find it odd that you would hate your own race.

And, hey, how about that gubernatorial race in Cali?

__________________

Kabsnow

lets get the air clean, vote green.

Nimbletoe

THE TERMINATOR!

JBX

A Tie now, getting interesting.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Mojo_PeiPei

Doesn't Bustamante running stand to completly fuck over Davis? You'd think it would confuse voters, do they vote for Davis and risk Ahhnold winning? I think there would be a big split of votes that could really boost Arnold's chances....

Alright my words may have been harsh, and overly general. But when you look at the Muslim world, more importantly the Arab world, all you have are problems whether its Terrorism, war, or human right's violations. Islam has failed to learn from Christianity's big mistake on mixing politics and religion, but at the same time they will never learn its been at the foundation of the Religion since it started. Look at places like Sudan where Muslims take Christians as slaves. Places like Afganistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan are the only places that still stone people. Look at Indonesia and all the problems radical Islam is starting over there. If it weren't for western influence and western need for oil ALL muslim countries would be stuck in the 12th century. Perhaps the Muslims can get something good going, but first they need to get past their masculine "Allah ah-akbar Jihad kill the infidel warlord's are cool mindset".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Shauk

I do want many/all Middle Easterners dead!! I could give a shit less if all of them die. I'll tell you why. If they/any Middle Eastern country had the military power of America they would have blown us to bits a long long time ago. An example needs to be made to change the way things are done. I know my way of dealing with it is extreme, but I don't run things so what I say doesn't really matter now does it?

this statement is sick.

what kind of person would want to wipe out, KILL an entire country of people because he doesnt know how to let them live?


By your logic we should kill all the americans because we have people like timothy mcveigh or whatnot or the unabomber just running around.
By your logic, every american is now a potential terrorist, every mother is now potentially raising a terrorist.

People tend to look the other way when the government is saying "THE MIDDLE EASTERNS ARE EVIL!" but american terrorists exist right within every race. making this a heritage/race/descent issue doesnt fly.

you think if a group of maybe 10 americans went to china as part of an underground organization, not related to the US government in any way, decided to blow up a few embassies via suicide bombing that it would be FAIR to you or to me that WE will be the ones who suffer the effects of it from china retaliating? The effects of china holding the US Responsible for actions of rogue citizens?

hell no.

It seems to me the only way people will ever be happy is if thier amount of innocent people who die equal 3 times that of the number of americas innocent people to die.

the thing is, fighting over territory, land, countries, nationalities, its all so retarded. people are gonna die in 70-90 years after they come to life as it is. not like all that land will matter to them then.

bummer.


It really bothers me to see that someone can put another human's life into a light of being trivial. Regardless of race or gender or sexuality or where that person is from, they are still a HUMAN. I wonder when the world will wake up and realize there are only 2 things that require classification.

Planet Earth, and Humans.

when people introduce the concept of countries and nationalities, it starts introducing the concept of "teams" and when you divide people up like that, they take on a sense of pride in whatever team they are put on. pride seems to give way to people making themselves out to be better than people not of the same "variable" (country, race, gender etc..)


if people just realized we are all just sharing the same piece of dirt in space, im sure my 70-90 years of life wont be spent asking everyone "Why has the world gone absolutley mad?"

sixate

I love how my opinion is soooo fucked up and wrong to others, which I understand why you would think that, but nobody ever gives a solution to the problem..........

BTW, there is a difference between the crazy assholes that run around America and kill Americans....... Terrorists are from many countries, not America, and are funded by Middle Eastern countries. The crazy loonie assholes in America are not a part of the problem we are speaking about. I am all for killing the crazy assholes that kill innocent people in our country also.

Your tree hugging theories are great theories that don't work in the real (fucked up) world. I wish it was that easy, but it's not! Never has been and never will.

Hard8s

Getting back to the recall......
Just what did Gray Davis do that was soo oo bad as to need to be recalled anyway?

Was it his response to buy electricity for the state to keep rolling blackouts from occurring? Because this is the only real reason I see. It is because of this that the state is in Fiscal problems. But....If he didn't do this there would have been people asking for his head too because they didn't have electricity. However I believe it would have been better if he didn't go ahead and buy the electricity because this would have brought the Enron thing to a head that much faster.

As for Arnold he still has no platform and refuses to go to any debate where he has to think (the only debate he is going to has the questions already given to him).

Ms. Huffington is living on tax loopholes, but I do like her idea about prop.13 and basing property taxes on the value of the property and the amount you make.

Bustamante, wants to put casino's everywhere. I didn't mind the casino thing when I thought they were going to be on existing tribal lands, but now the tribes are buying property and claiming it as tribal land and building casino's. Busatmante supports this and them, in fact his brother is a manager of a casino. Also his support for illegal aliens getting drivers liscences rubs me the wrong way. If they are illegal they should not get ANY services from us. If they want to drive, get medical, dental, and education rights then go the correct way and become a citizen. Next thing we know illegals will be able to vote.

I'd rather keep someone I know in office, who has not really done anything wrong, than put someone who we know very little about in office. Besides did we not have an election just less than a year ago. Leave him in office and start campaign now for the next election!

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, then wipe this smile off my face!

Shauk

you think killing people based on where they live is the *right* answer?

I didn't propose a solution because there isn't one. Oil and water don't mix, you dont even have a reason to try. you just keep the crap in its own containers.

the civilized world has no place for violence. but for some reason it repeatedly rears its head. I'm all for the violent people getting thier share as long as its with other violent people.. at least they weed eachother out so the gene pool cleans itself up a little.

but I dont think violence will ever evolve its way out of the human behavioral pattern.

greed and pride will always lead to violence I suppose.

I'm going to bed, because I realize that my opinion, while making me feel fine for stating it, has no impact on the future of humanity.

BonesCPA

We might have to wait a little longer for an answer....

Fox News Site says....


Appeals Court Postpones Oct. 7 Recall Vote

Monday , September 15, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaving room for the nation's highest court to reverse its decision, a federal appeals court in California blocked the state's gubernatorial recall election scheduled for Oct. 7 and then put an immediate stay on its decision.

Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the vote can't proceed as scheduled - because some of the votes would be cast using outdated punch-card ballot machines. Monday's decision reversed a lower court's earlier decision not to postpone the recall.

"In sum, in assessing the public interest, the balance falls heavily in favor of postponing the election for a few months," the court said.

The decision doesn't mean, however, that the recall can't go forward, but it may not happen on Oct. 7, as originally planned. It's possible that the nation's largest and most liberal federal appeals court might move the election to the next regularly scheduled primary on March 2.

The court stayed implementing its decision for a week to allow time for appeals to the Supreme Court on the recall, California's first voter-driven election to unseat Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

State officials, who conceded in court documents that the punch-card voting mechanisms are "more prone to voter error than are newer voting systems," were likely to appeal the case.

Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate, one of the groups that put the recall on the ballot, said an appeal is certain.

"Give us 24 hours. We'll get something off to the Supreme Court," he said.

"We have already filed the papers, and we're asking for a hearing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court," state GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim said.

Asked what the chances are that the Supreme Court will take the case, election law expert Ken Gross told Fox News: "That's going to be a tough call … they take a very low percentage of cases but then again, many didn't think the Supreme Court would take the Florida case."

"I've got to believe that if this decision stands, the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene for the people of California," added GOP strategist Dan Schnur.

The Candidates Respond

Several candidates have been vying for Davis' seat, including Republican Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, independent political commentator Arianna Huffington, Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock. More than 130 candidates had qualified for the ballot.

Davis, who was spending his second day in a row campaigning with former President Bill Clinton, issued a response almost immediately.

"The governor has always valued the importance of voter rights and will continue to campaign vigorously," read a statement released by the Davis camp.

McClintock said in a statement that Monday's ruling is "simply a distraction and will have no bearing on this election."

"I have every confidence that in a short time the U.S. Supreme Court will allow this election to go forward," McClintock said, noting that the 9th Circuit is the same court that banned the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"[The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] has become a national laughing stock. This election is called for by the Constitution and demand by the people of California."

Schwarzenegger called on the secretary of state to immediately appeal this decision.

"Historically, the courts have upheld the rights of voters, and I expect that the court will do so again in this case," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "I will continue to vigorously campaign for governor. The people have spoken, and their word should - and will - prevail."

Schwarzenegger was already in flight when news of the decision broke. He and his wife, television journalist and Kennedy clan member Maria Shriver, had been in Chicago to appear on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

Another Case of Florida 2000?

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the second highly partisan political issue they have considered. Democrats say the case echoes the 2000 election in which the high court declared Republican George W. Bush the winner.

The San Francisco-based appeals panel overturned an Aug. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Los Angeles, who wouldn't delay the recall because he said it would be against the will of voters. The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In July, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said more than 900,000 signatures of registered voters were certified to force a recall, and by law, he had up to 80 days to schedule the special election.

Shelley, who learned of the court's decision in a news conference scheduled to address other matters, expressed surprise at the ruling.

"You're kidding," he said. Shelley and his team immediately began reviewing the ruling, and he will meet with state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to decide what action, if any, the state will take.

State law also required Shelley to move from the March ballot to the recall ballot the only two voter initiatives that qualified. Voting on those measures also was delayed.

In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges to the attempt to unseat Davis, the judges said Monday it's unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

"This is not merely about a recall election," Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said when the group filed the suit. "Right now, the integrity of our state’s democracy is riding on the performance of these outdated, obsolete, and decertified voting machines - the same voting machines at the center of the 2000 Florida election debacle."

The appellate panel agreed with the ACLU that the voting machines were prone to error and that Davis' fate could be decided later. By that time, the counties have promised to replace their punch-card machines under a court order in separate litigation.

The counties include the state's most populous region, Los Angeles, in addition to Mendocino, Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Clara and Solano. They represented 44 percent of the state's registered voters during the 2000 election.

The original case is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley.

Fox News' William LaJeunesse and The Associated Press contributed to this report

__________________
Back into hibernation.