Vote For Governor Now!
 

Let's see how the TFP'ers rate compared to the October 7th Gubernatorial elections in California:

no option to retain gray davis?

I voted buscamente.

Yo Dood. Bustamente is a racist pile of shit.

I think all of them suck....... If forced to pick I'll take the Terminator.

"Peter Ueberroth - Collusion is legal in politics, right?"

Go U!

so is trent lott and half of the republican party.

This is seriously beginning to make me tired. I assume you read the article, sixate, so I hope you noticed that the only evidence of so-called "racism" from MEChA (the Latino organization to which Bustamante belonged in college at Fresno State) is this:

Now, let's compare and contrast that statement with this: I think your opinion re: racism is not only highly subjective, but highly suspect. Furthermore, your claims of racism have been thoroughly and totally debunked by many, many sources. Which makes your reliance upon a conservative website financed by Joseph Mellon Scaife (the charming fellow who once called a female reporter a "communist cunt" when asked about his financial support of conservative causes), a man with a known axe to grind against anyone to the left of Attila the Hun, just that much more disturbing.

If you'd like, I'll happily post pointers to the debunking of your so-called evidence of racism. But your argument is not only specious, it is also tremendously hypocritical. And that, as they say, is that.

I don't(thank god) live in California, but my vote would be no on recall - yes for Bustamante, and let's be real - what either of the two major candidates did in the mid 1970's should really have no bearing on the current election. It seems simple to me that in this time of crisis in California, turning the reins over to someone who has ZERO experience may not be the brightest idea. Arnold may actually be a decent governor, it is just not the time for Califorinia to gamble.

I agree with that.

Post what you like. Just because you want to turn your cheek to some simple facts doesn't mean that I will. And yes, I did read the article. Along with many others. He's a racist piece of shit. You can think that I am because I'd like to see an example made out of the entire Middle East if that's what you're point is. I really don't care. You don't know me or my background to know if I am racist. People who know me would laugh at your ignorance for even thinking something like that.

...I thought about adding Gray Davis to the poll, but being unable to make the poll two parts, made the assumption that part one happened and Davis was recalled.

I dont think this election is about which candidate wins, rather on which party wins.

As a liberal, I would have to support the democratic party, regardless of the candidate.

I really hate when people say that. I hate people who would only vote for one party, and that's exactly why I'll never call myself a Republican. My political views are conservative, but I'll never support every Republican. Most are morons just as most dems are. I don't really like any of the candidates in this. Actually, anyone has to be better than the asshole who's in there now.

this is not a candidate based election; it's purely party based.

I know what you're saying and I don't like it. That would be like me only supporting Republicans. I don't do that.

Raises hand for Arianna and for actually being a Californian who can vote in this election. :p

here's some info on her past:
http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16695

I do have to do some searching, however, because I think Bustamante came from a working past.

so, your option is to not vote at all? or throw away your vote by casting it for one of those candidates without a chance?

Basically, but if you're saying that Arnold doesn't stand a chance you're crazy. For the most part I hate politicians. They all lie and cheat.

and steal

My point, I believe, is that the facts aren't so simple.. You see, most of the anti-semitic and racist rhetoric your article refers to comes from a splinter faction of MEChA, called La Voz de Aztlan. That group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, has a membership of twelve - and Bustamante is not among them. It looks suspiciously to me like you're cherry-picking your facts to support your own preconceived notions. The fact that you elected to provide evidence from a hard-right rag noted for its only nodding acquaintance with the truth and for being funded by an even harder-right zillionaire nutjob is rather telling here.

I assume that you have an alternate interpretation? They're your words. They were offered with ample context attached. Are you telling me here that I've misinterpreted your stance based upon the context in which it was uttered? Hmmm. If that's the case, perhaps you'd be willing to rethink your stance on Bustamante with regard to the context in which it was presented to you.

And you presume to know enough about Cruz Bustamante's background to call him a racist? You're not being very consistent, you know.

I can assure you that the people who know Cruz Bustamante are laughing at you in turn.

Maybe now you see my point. You reacted to my post precisely the way I thought you would, and in so doing exposed the hypocrisy of your stance. I'm still waiting for any real evidence to support your claim that Cruz Bustamante is a racist.

Meanwhile, I'd love to know why you, a drug-free person, choose to support someone who has bragged about using hashish and other drugs.

I'm not saying that Arnold doesnt have a chance.

This election is not candidate centered (Arnold hasnt readily come out and declared his platform).

It's a fight over which party gets to keep the governor's office.

:lol: :lol:
I love how people get all pissed off about what I have to say.

Obviously you haven't read everything about Bustamante. You gave me no evidence that he isn't a part of the group that was in the article I posted. I don't take back what I said about the Middle East. It's not an issue about race. It's about terrorism!!!! So don't even say it's an issue about race. Maybe it is for you, not me.

I don't agree with many things that Arnold or any of the other candidates have done. I get pissed when people bash him when most people have done many of the things he has done. BTW, just because someone does drugs doesn't mean that I can't be friends with them. I have many friends who are lazy ass stupid fucking pothead christians. Do you really think that anyone who grew up in the 60's & 70's didn't fuck like rabbits, smoke weed, and take acid? That includes many current politicians.... and weed smoking Clinton. Plus, he was fucking interns while he was the president, and you probably supported him and still do. Arnold was a fucking young high bodybuilder and to say that someone is the same person they were 26 years ago is completely crazy.

What gave you the idea that I'm pissed?

I would posit that it's impossible to read everything there is to read about Bustamante. Therefore your assertion is valueless, as you likely haven't read everything about him either. I will state here: Cruz Bustamante was a member of MEChA. He was not and is not a member of La Voz de Aztlan, MEChA's racist and anti-semitic splinter group. I have yet to see you post any evidence to state that he is part of La Voz. Nor, I think, will you be able to do so.

Now, as to this supposedly racist group:

You can find out more about El Plan de Aztlan at http://www.angelfire.com/sd/mcdsd/ElPlanDeAztlan.html

A few choice excerpts:

There's lots more, but I think I'll let you read it for yourself. The base fact is that there's no racism there. Pride, yes. Anger, yes. Identity, yes. Why is it that you equate these things with racism?

You can read the constitution of MEChA at http://www.brownmecha.org/doc_mnc.html. I note that it makes no mention of exclusion of membership based upon race. As far as MEChA being some sort of hate group or racist organization, one of the leading authorities on that sort of thing is Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don't list MEChA as a racist or hate-mongering organization. A former member of MEChA said, "There were many Mexican gangs in the area, and MEChA counseled to “Get an education. Stay away from gangs. Stay away from drugs. Don’t drink. Be responsible. Make something of yourself."

Now, as far as La Voz de Aztlan, they certainly are a hate organization. All twelve members or so (according to Southern Poverty Law Center) seem to dislike Jews quite strongly. That group had this to say regarding the election: Wow. You'd think that if Bustamante was part of La Voz, they'd have nicer things to say about him.

Instead, they support the same candidate that you do. Hmmm.

There's a lot more out there, too. Would you like me to keep going?


I get it now! You want to kill everyone in the Middle East because they're all terrorists! I understand what you're saying now, sixate, and I have to say that you are one sick person. Please provide proof that all Middle Easterners are terrorists, and that this somehow provides justification for genocide.

Ooooh, a Clinton crack! Funny, isn't it, that Clinton gets dragged out to explain away the peccadilloes of the politicians you do support? I also note for the record that yours is the first invocation of the Clenis™ in this debate.

Now you're contradicting yourself. EVEN IF everything you said about Bustamante is somehow true - and it isn't - then how does this statement not exonerate him for his college-years involvement with MEChA?

You're still being inconsistent.

I could pull up many more racist things about the group, but it's late and I need to get to bed so I'll keep it simple.

The motto of MEChA:

"Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing)."

Just try and tell me that isn't racist.

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?

I don't think you get it. I don't support any of these assholes. If I had to vote for one it would be Arnold. The reason I would vote for him is because he is a winner. He succeeds at everything he does. I have stated in many treads, this one included, that I trust no politicians, but as you've been doing, you only see what you want.

Bustamante still supports this fucking group. He still is the same fucking racist that he always has been. I'm sure you'll turn your cheek to that also since you have a habit of only seeing what you want. Good night. :)

Y'know, that is racist. Unfortunately, it's also a rather poor translation - more akin to what you'd get out of Babelfish than out of an actual Spanish speaker. I'll present for you here the analysis of David Neiwert:

So now you've got that mistranslated meme coming from a lot of people like Michelle Malkin and Joseph Farah, both conservative pundits, and from sites like Conservative Crust and Capitalist magazine. But you don't have it coming from anyone or any site associated with MEChA. You can look for yourself at http://www.brownmecha.org. It's got tons of documents and links and forums and all sorts of resources. If you find it, tell me, 'kay? If you see anything at all that says that Latinos should be promoted at the expense of others, you just shout it right out.

(Edit: modified to correct my own error.)

You can't possibly expect to prove that. I note, however, that the Middle East is composed predominantly of non-Caucasians. And you advocate killing them all simply because you don't like what you think they might do if they ever had power. Go ahead and tell me that's not racist. Then, once I've stopped laughing, tell me how you have any moral authority whatsoever to make claims of racism against Cruz Bustamante, who, by the way, has NEVER been accused of racism in thirty years of dignified public service in California.

Well, now. Isn't this a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black. Fine, you want to play it that way? I'll rely on and paraphrase the work of Ted Barlow here.

Remember David Duke? He was the KKK guy who ran for President a while back. A guy named Mike Foster paid Duke quite a bit of money for his mailing lists. He didn't report this to election officials and was fined for it, but that's beside the point. Mike Foster was George W. Bush's campaign manager in Louisiana for the 2000 election. George W. Bush has never repudiated his ties to Foster. This is, by the way, just an example. I also haven't seen Arnold repudiate his father's Nazism. I haven't seen George W. Bush repudiate his father's business ties with those same Nazis. Schwarzenegger has not repudiated his drug use of so many years ago, nor his blatant homophobia. George W. Bush kicked off his South Carolina campaign at Bob Jones University, which is famous for its ban of interracial dating (since revoked). He also laid a wreath at the tomb of Jefferson Davis (I assume you know who he was). Do you have any comment on that?

Now, the thing is, Cruz Bustamante is a well-regarded public servant, a moderate Democrat, with 30 years of service under his belt. Not until two weeks ago has anyone ever accused him of being a racist. They are doing so now, now that he has passed Schwarzenegger in the polls. The only thing they have to justify that ludicrous position is his thirty-years-past membership to a group that may or may not have ever espoused the ideal they claim it does. And you yourself said that what happened so long ago is in no way indicative of a man's character now. Did you ever think that this entire episode is nothing more than an attempt to make Bustamante say something negative about an organization that has chapters at 300 colleges and universities around the country, in an attempt to distance him from his base?

So now who's got his head in the sand, sixate? You've quoted one article from a blatantly biased source. You've provided no proof of your ridiculous assertions. You can rail about that all you want, but the base fact is that you've been misled by conservatives with an axe to grind.

Sorry, dude, and I mean that honestly. I'm very sorry to have to disabuse you of your notions like this, but on this issue, you're wrong.

You'll never get sixate to admit he's wrong or change his stance. Arguing with him is a waste of your time.

You know, it's funny that you post that. Are you claiming to be an expert on B's background? So much so that you are qualified to make an assumption about his character?

Ctembreull is right. You're not being consistent. You're shrugging indignance really does nothing more than prove his point - that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I voted for Arnold and I will vote for Arnold in this upcoming election.

The Mecha thing aside, I don't have much faith in Bustamante. He was part of this administration thats been failing the state, perhaps its not his fault to any degree but I certainly don't have any great confidence in his record.

Idealogically I indentify a good deal with Arnold, who remains liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal... Sounds good to me.

What about Gary Coleman?:)

I don't know what Arnold's position is on anything, much less fiscal policy. He hasn't said anything and the only thing we know down here has come from either the media or his spokespeople.

I don't understand why he's running as a man of and for the people but he won't come out and talk to us. Arianna is having a free pizza meet and greet tomorrow night. She is very intelligent and actually did pull herself up by the bootstraps.

Arnold didn't come over here as a poor immigrant as the media seems to imply. He was a sponsored body builder.

Both he and Arianna literally rose to the top on their own merits:

"The details of Arianna's young life are not well-documented, but she was born Arianna Stassinopoulos in Greece on July 15, 1950, the elder of two daughters, lived in Athens, and studied comparative religions at age 16 at Shantiniketan University near Calcutta. Her mother, Elli, served in the Greek resistance against the Nazis. But Elli couldn't stomach the then-insurgent Greek Communists either, impressing on Arianna a lifelong mistrust of totalitarian ideologies and urging her to read Greek mythology. Arianna's father, Constantine, edited a resistance newspaper, Paron, was interned in a Nazi concentration camp, and after the war started a raft of publishing enterprises, none of them overly successful. After separating from him, Elli took Arianna, then 16, and her younger sister, Agapi (author of "Conversations with the Goddesses"), to England.

Entering Cambridge on a scholarship, Arianna basically took the place by storm with her good looks and blazing intellect. She studied Keynesian economics at Girton College and earned a masters degree, and at 21 forced herself to confront her heavily accented English by becoming the first foreign-born woman to be the president of the celebrated debating society, the Cambridge Union. One of her tutors was the Maoist economist Joan Robinson. She is remembered there, according to a recent article in the London Telegraph, as sporting around in an Alfa Romeo and literally romancing conservative ideals, dating a young member of Parliament, John Selwyn Gummer, who later became vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party. She later had dinner with Times of London writer Bernard Levin, one of the most influential columnists of the time, and ended up in an eight-year relationship with him."

I wonder how much ideology they actually share but both of us are only guessing until he tells us. She has been writing political columns for years, books, and even debated in campaigns in lieu of her husband. So I know what her issues and stances are.

I looked at Arnolds web page and there isn't much there: basically a donation link and a news article. He promises more to come.

Arianna's page has issues, positions, and past columns she had penned that have her pov in black and white--no equivocation.

So you think I'm 100% caucasian? You would be 100% wrong. Again it's all about terrorism for me, dude. If they aren't a terrorist then they are potential terrorists. We don't have the time to figure out who isn't. I am racist, toward terrorists.

I see it differently. I've read enough about the dude to know that he's a racist dick, just as most people are. I like how you throw Bush into it. Do you actually think that I like that fucking idiot!? I like what he's doing in the Middle East, but other than that I can't think of a thing that I do like about him. So say all the negative things you want about Bush because I'll agree with you.

I'm not dodging your entire reply. I only have a few minutes before I have to leave for work. I'll pick this up later.

I can't support or validate that. It's an inherently racist statement. You've just said yourself that you're "racist against terrorists"... and that all middle easterners are either terrorists or potential terrorists. This is not only an intellectually flawed position, but a morally dishonest one. In one breath you claim not to be a racist, but then you say in so many words that you are. How, then, does this track with your condemnation of Cruz Bustamante?

That was a calculated response to your invocation of the Clenis™.

Fair enough. I'll be back this evening. In case you lose track, my point here is that you have no moral authority to condemn Cruz Bustamante on grounds of racism, much less any objective evidence or personal knowledge to make that claim. And, further, that even if you did, that your point about 26 years being enough to purge past sins would by default exonerate Bustamante himself.

I dunno dude, I think he's a lost cause. He's not listening to anything you're saying.

Can you honestly tell me you don't like anything? Of course not. We all hate something and racism is basically hatred. I hate terrorist countries. End of story. I don't give a flying shit what color their skin is. How many fucking times do I have to tell you it's all about terrorists/terrorism and countries who hide and give cash to terrorists, not skin color. Maybe you forgot about all the women and children who cheered about 9/11, but I didn't and I won't. Those kids are potential terrorists and the women will potentially raise terrorists. All I know is their way of life needs to go before mine. Their way of living needs to be changed as quickly and as brutally as possible. 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.

I'll give you credit. That makes perfect sense. I'll forget about what Bustamante was into if you don't bring up what Arnold did 26 years ago. That sounds perfectly fair to me. For the record, I don't really care for how either one of them lived their lives 26 years ago.

Can I use something that is only 2 years old?

LINKY



That was just a section of the article. I don't know about you but I've never accidentally said that word. Wouldn't you agree that only racist people who hate blacks say that word? Or maybe it's different where you come from.

Lastly, Arnold is losing almost all support that I once had because he is dodging every issue. He shoulda been more organized than what he is. He's beginning to look just as dumb as everyone else.

I caught part of the debate today, and I have to say Tom McClintock came off as the best choice. Very well spoken, didn't dodge questions and was very clear about what he intended to do if he won.

I honestly can't see how Arnold will win unless McClintock backs out and right now I see McClintock moving in on Arnolds numbers. I'm to the point that I hope Arnold fucks up the one debate he plans on attending and puts his support behind McClintock.

Bustamante was on Fox last week, in an interview with Tony Snow. In it, he was asked if he agreed with the 'supposed' slogan of Mecha. He would not answer the question when asked point blank 3 or 4 times.

Arnold on the other hand has said the 70s were crazy times, and he also says that he lied somewhat in the article in order to hype up body building, as his movie Pumping Iron was coming out soon or something.

Now, I wouldn't hold anything someone did 20 years ago against them - but Bustamante isn't exactly denouncing the slogan in the here and now, in the present. And I can hold that against him.

So is he more or less racist than O'Reilly?

Just curious.

I do believe i saw Cruz Bustamante say on ABC on NATIONAL TELIVISION that "somtimes there is too much democracy"

Thats just crap!

Specifically, it is hatred directed at a certain ethnic group or groups.

So you advocate wiping out the Middle East - those who are terrorists as well as those who are not? That's not hatred directed at terrorists, that's hatred directed at an ethnic group. To say that they're all either terrorists or will be terrorists is the essence of anti-Arab racism. So you can take your evasions, frankly, and shove them.
So disliking America is terrorist behavior? Are you completely fucking insane? You're advocating genocide on the basis of a broad, sweeping generalization with no real foundation in fact.

"If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way-- the extermination of that people whose father is the devil..." -- Julius Streicher

Eerie similarity, huh?

Sure you can. I knew what you were going to post, actually, as soon as you said that. Oh dear, Cruz slipped up and said "nigger." The problem is that he was intending to use the word "negro" in the name of an early 20th-century labor organization. Oops. That's a pretty bad mistake, innit? Yeah, it looked bad at the time, but Cruz did the honorable and forthright thing. He stepped forward and a) apologized, and b) explained what happened. You can read all about that here, at SFGate (link).. I need hardly remind you that the San Francisco Chronicle is by far a more reliable source for news and information than NewsHax. Mother Jones, a site more in line with NewsCrax, has quite a bit about the issue here (link). So, to recap:

Bustamante, who has an excellent record in affirmative action and excellent relations with the African-American community in California, makes a mistake and then spends the next several weeks apologizing for it. And this somehow makes him a racist? If he hadn't apologized - at length and great political expense, I might add - then you might have a point. But he did everything humanly possible to set the issue aright. Far more than you have done, in fact, on the issue of your own racial opinions.

[i](On edit: long, profanity-laden tirade against sixate removed on reassertion of good judgement. Anyone who wants to know what I was going to say (and it *was* quite witty, if highly offensive, can PM me.)

Bustamante a racist. What the hell next?! It's time for you to face facts and admit that you're dead, flat, fucking wrong.

Man, nothing is more fun than watching sixate lose an argument.

Well done, ctembreull! I'm moving on to another thread, nothing more to see here.

:)

ctembreull: gg :)

Ariana would be cool.

I've always liked her articles, and statements
once she got past that idiotic ex-husband of hers.

She's pretty balanced between Dem & GOP, and very libertarian.
More in line with my way of thinking.

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."

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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. :thumbsup: 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.

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

"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 takes a big man to threaten someone over the Internet. :)

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.........

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. :crazy: That's nice, dear. Now prove that every Arab supports terrorist behavior. You said it, now back it up. :hmm: 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. :rolleyes: 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. :cool:

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."

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

lets get the air clean, vote green.

THE TERMINATOR!

A Tie now, getting interesting.

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".

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?"

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.

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!

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.

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

I can't believe the shock being expressed by the GOP members. They continue to imply that this is a partisan issue and that the court is acting out of political motive. I'm not going to argue against that because it's immaterial whether the judge was politically motivated--the voting machines are the same ones that were used in Florida and the basis for the ultimate decision in Bush's favor. The high court has already rules that these machines have to be replaced before the next election but this recall managed to fly in under the wire.

I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule differently without being inconsistent. They would have to rule that the recall has to continue based on the "will of the voters" and the constitutional requirement to have the election within 60 days of certification. How will they square that with their previous ruling that the "will of the voters" is being circumvented by obsolete machines?

The fact that it is a federal court involved in state matter mean anything? THe 9th circuit is the worst court in the country, they are responsible for everything wrong with the American judicial system.

Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
Date: 15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

Your entitled to your own opinions... But the fact of the matter is these judges have set just about every precident in modern law. They are less interested in interpreting the law, rather they would make policy on how they think the laws should be.

It is sweetly ironic that the precedent set by the GOP party 3 years ago in the Florida debacle has impeded their effort at a partisan coup in California.

Federal court for a Federal election.... Federal Court for a state election... oh wait that isn't in their jurisdiction.

I find your perception of our legal structure perplexing.

How do you come to the conclusion that federal appellate and supreme court decisions aren't binding on state affairs?

The Supreme Court stepped in to rule whether the lower, State court's ruling was in accordance with the laws governing the nation, as a whole.

That decision went through the same process this one is going through--case filed with a regional court, appeal filed with the state appellate court, reviewed and decided by state supremt court. Appeal filed with federal appellate court and, ultimately, decided on by the Supreme Court of the land.

The ramifications of that supreme decision declared that the polling devices that were used in Florida had to be replaced by the next election. That recent supreme decision supercedes our early 1900's referendum to hold recall elections within X days from certification of the signatures.

You didn't even answer the underlying question--how do you justify arguing for an election a few months before the scheduled replacement of machines that were already judged by the highest court in our country to undermine voting principles and fairness?

The number of candidates on the ballot exacerbates the dilemma. The fact that our fiscal crisis is causing polling stations in various counties to close should also be a matter of concern to those desiring fair election processes. You should also know that we already had an election scheduled in March.

is too ....is not is too is not is too is not is too isnot istoo isnotistooisnot

Spiraling into oblivion......the way it looks from here is that California is very messed up. Democrats control every statewide office and both houses of the legislature. We California residents have every right to expect our government to run in an efficient and responsible manner. Obviously, running a $24B surplus to an estimated $38B deficit in 5 years, the current regime lacks the qualifications to husband the resources of the state.
Granted, depending on which pundit you ask, there were some unforseeable circumstances which led to our current situation. These shortfalls only amplify the flaws in the current scheme of taxation of the highest income earners and businesses. As their fortunes go so go the fortunes of the state.
I fear, nay, know many businesses and higher income earners are leaving the state. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona are packed with Golden staters fleeing for greener pastures.
Millions of Illegal aliens are straining our resources
Slackers and special interests are sucking us dry....oops slipping into oblivion.....anyway we are following on a trend that cannot continue

Gray has to go

Cruz is frankly the same as gray

Arnold is famous but what does he know about anything?

Ariana is an independent republican democrat with green tendencies...I can't see a cohesive leadership idea thing. (bye the bye ....has she done anything besides marry a rich guy and be on a lot of talk shows? not trying to be mean I just don't know)

Larry Flynt...I could never get that angry
Tom lots of government experience....is that good? I tend to agree with many of his positions but I am not sure he can broker the kind of changes we need in california.

Peter U is out

Camejo....latin for nut burger

In summation the grand conclusion is.......Bend over california...

Arianna has done a lot more than "marry a rich guy and be on a lot of talk shows." Scroll back a page or two and read one of the links I provided concerning her bio.

FYI, the three states you listed are receiving retired people--not businesses. Oregon's economy is worse than ours right now as a result of all those "Golden staters fleeing." Retirees sell their property down here for hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) and buy it up there for tens of thousands of dollars. They drive the reality through the roof and refuse to pay taxes on the services the local community needs. In Oregon, at least, there are no business moving from here to there. I don't know about Vegas or Arizona but I suspect (and have heard) the situation is similar.

i want the write in

Where was the vote for the court of appeals?

You know, I wasn't old enough to know or care what kind of person he was as an actor or as president, but Ronald Reagan got elected regardless of his star status.
Of course, that isn't the perfect argument, I'm just stating some forgotten facts, maybe..

The race is back on...

Where's Mary Carey?

Arnold.
He is too liberal of a conservative for me. But I think this allows him to balance out the conservative wing of the party. Ultimately it could be a good thing.

Sunday, October 5, 2003
Two Days left, Arnold ahead by 10 Votes on the TFP.

*cough cough*

Who is now the governator?

*cough cough*

:lol: :lol: :lol:

By the early look of it. It wasn't even close. It just shows that the public has zero faith in their politicians and maybe the politicians actually need to start doing their jobs before they all lose their jobs to actors!

I am really liking this!!!

TFP'ers got it right!