Topic awaiting preservation: Schwarzenegger Announces Calif. Gov. Bid (Page 2 of 3)

Demolition Man rings a bell somewhere.

Damn you Taco Bell.

__________________________________


Alevice's Media Library

Shame, shame, shame... Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water... ...and what about his fathers affilliation with the Nazi party..? guess maybe these things obviously don't matter out 'there'...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050671604.html



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 08-31-2003).]

For some reason that site linked to shuts IE down everytime I visit so (at least until it gets archived) here is the link to the actual article:

[WARNING: Sexual explicit talk ahead:]

www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Pfft. So, the guy smoked some weed and banged a few people?

that's a bad thing?

Exactly...after all...JFK did exactly those kinds of things...so did clint0n for that matter...and both of them made president.

quote:

---

...and what about his fathers affilliation with the Nazi party..? guess maybe these things obviously don't matter out 'there'...

---

So, how many generations have to pass in Arnold's family before one of them can run for public office? Should Arnold be punished because his father was a Nazi? I'd like to see the rationale for that one...

So what? So what?... it's just indicative of the decline of moral and ethical standards thats all. 'A people gets the leader it deserves' someone said somewhere.

quote:

---

How did a nation which founded itself upon high principles of rectitude and virtuousness come to such a pass that the President of the United States could engage in sexual perversity in the Oval Office and then perjure himself regarding it? How could the nation reach such a point that many citizens would not only tolerate such behavior, but defend it?

---

...the reactions above say so much about you...

http://www.bigeye.com/jjwint01.htm

http://www.academia.org/store/sex_politics_morality.html


[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 09-02-2003).]

quote:

---

it's just indicative of the decline of moral and ethical standards thats all

---

And tell me xpi, when was this imaginary time in which society had high moral and ethical standards?

I'm always stunned by this seemingly common perception that life prior to this time was somehow more meaningful, more moral, more free, a modern camelot.
You need some serious history lessons I'd say.


What leaders have there been - of *any* nation - who have been truly moral and ethical?

What leaders have *not* had - in their past or present - some events which would be frowned upon?

And again - what the hell difference does it make if a might-be-governer smoked a little weed and slept around?

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 09-02-2003).]

Yeh, your absolutely right DL-44, thinking about it there never was a time... but people used to pretend there was at least or feel shame about certain things or attempt to hide such things.. or at least strive for something... now they don't even seem to care... But there is a definate change you have to admit.

Yes, there used to be a lot more people who would vehmently condemn in public the actions they participated in privately, and persecute other people for their own sins.

That's what you'd rather have?

I would prefer to have a leader that was virtuous AND implemented good public policy.

If I can't have that, then I will place the priority on good public policy over personal virtue. What the leader does in his private life is his/her business but their job number one is about putting in good public policy.

In this case, we are talking about actions done many years ago. Who doesn't have things in their past that they're ashamed of now? These are humans we're electing, not saints.

I was not one of the people who wanted to crucify C*****n for his past sins OR for his private escapades in the White House, just in case anyone is thinking of accusing me of that. I know many of my fellow Republicans were and I disagreed with them at the time as well as now.

. . : slicePuzzle

Call me an idealist or a romantic but I believe in virtue and goodness too... and believe it or not I do know some extremely virtous people...but by their very nature they do not seek postions of power. What did Aldous Huxley say?: 'Power corrupts.. and absolute power corrupts absolutely'



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 09-02-2003).]

So then, doesn't your statement there pretty much preclude the possibility of "virtuous" people running for public office? And contradict your objection?

And again, I have to ask, what is wrong with what was posted in that article?

He smoked some weed.....had some sex.....

Many of our current leaders do far worse things by the policy they make and support every day.

Call me a realist then because I believe part of true virtue is not allowing idealism to obstruct the helping of others. In this case, Arnold is the *only* real chance we have of improving our condition here in California (the other PRC). He is not a pure conservative, he's not without blemish, but he will be in a position to at least turn this state in the right direction. How far can he actually get when opposed by the legislature remains to be seen but I would like him to have the chance.

It's really quite simple at this point. There are only 3 real choices. Davis, Bustamante, or Schwarzenegger. The first two are identical except Cruz is not as corrupt. So we really come down to 2 choices, Davis/Bustamante or Schwarzenegger. Bustamante has already published his plan and it is exactly what Davis proposes... huge tax increases and virtually no spending cuts... in other words keep doing what we've been doing.

Arnold, on the other hand, is viewing tax increases as the last resort and is looking to do some serious cuts in our spending. That is the only way out of this mess and if the people of this state don't want it, then we deserve our continued downfall.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-02-2003).]

Actually I have to disagree decreased spending at this point by the governement would be bad for an already depressed economy.

While on the surface it make sense anyone who's studied and believes in Keynesian economic theory (I do) will tell you that less governement spending is bad for the economy.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 09-03-2003).]

I didn't think states could get away with that kind of thing though. The federal government can do that because it can always just forgive its own debt or print more money but do states have that ability? I'm not totally sure how that works actually.

I used to be a big believer in Keynesian economics, bit. I'm afraid I've gone over to the dark side since then though

So how do you plan to vote, bit? We've got just over a month to decide. At this point I'm totally supporting Arnold... unless some totally disastrous revelation comes to light and in politics you never can tell.

. . : slicePuzzle

Honestly as far left as I lean, there's a lot about Arnold that I can get behind. On most social issues he's pretty liberal, to the point where sometimes I wonder why he even declares himself republican in the first place.

That being said, while even though he's got Warren Buffet (who I admire greatly) I can't really get behind his economic plan which is still the basic republican "less taxes, less services". Considering his views on a lot of the social issues this comes as hollow to me because it almost seems Arnold is republican for financial reasons only, not to mention he has virtually no political experience and this whole campaign smacks of his own ego.

Now between Davis and Cruz, that's a tough call, really I've been against the whole recall since the start (It's just made any difficulties worse) and though I would like to just vote no to the recall as a whole I'm thinking it might be safer to toss my vote to Bustamante who only needs a plurality of the "Yes" to the recall votes.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Please tell me if you think our massive deficit is a problem at all. I used to believe that major debt was a *good* thing, in a Keynesian sense. If you think it's not a problem at all, then I can completely understand why you're ok with Davis. But if you think it is a problem, how can more spending help?

[edit] I better rephrase that... I guess you would say more spending with stimulate the economy. But would you support massive tax increases to the tune of $8 billion as Bustamante proposes?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-03-2003).]

Facing political resistance, Estrada withdraws as judicial nominee

This is an example of the kind of nonsense that is propelling efforts like the Recall. For two years, this nomination has waited to be voted upon. Why has it been two years? Because the Democrats didn't want to vote on it. They didn't want to vote 'yes' because Estrada was a Republican. They didn't want to vote 'no' because they didn't want to alienate Latino voters. So they left it where it was. They were afraid that Estrada couldn't possibly be objective as a judge and that Latino voters were too thin-skinned and would feel slighted if a Latino nominee was voted down. They and their Republican counterparts really do think we're all idiots that have to be led about by the hand.

If it ever was, politics is no longer a meeting of the minds to determine what is best for the nation. It has fallen into doing everything you can to trip up the 'other side', even at the expense of the nation. The United States has been one Federal judge short for two years because of these kinds of games. This is why people say nothing ever gets done, and why voter apathy is at an all-time high. It's the same thing with the Texas State Senate. The Democrats ran away in order to prevent the Republicans from redistricting them out of existence. The Republicans want them to come back and take it like Texans. It's all a game to these people, who still insist on acting like they know better than we do how to run things.

I think a lot of these people are very nervous about the Recall. If it succeeds, any one of them could be next...

That's enough of that rant for now.

Well said, Wangenstein. I think the politicians should be nervous. It is about time they start being held accountable for the jobs they do (or don't do for that matter). If this recall election in California sets a precedent, then so be it: maybe it will get people to think twice about making promises they don't intend to keep or keep them from making ones it is impossible for them to keep. With regards to the Estrada incident: this is classic politics in D.C. and it simply has to stop.

<enter idealist> Personally, I think the party system should be abolished. I feel that party politics are one of the biggest hurdles to getting anything accomplished in the US government. How can anything be sensibly accomplished when a bill sits on the table for months (or years) because one party simply doesn't want the other to win? The bill can't pass on its own merits. The backscratchers have their day and the fence-sitter's play their game - time passes and nothing gets done. I think it is absolutely inexcuseable that these people can get away with such childish behavior - and it absolutely amazes me that they somehow managed to get voted into office again.<exit idealist>

I understand that party guidelines and stances can help voters in their decisions. I've known people who have only voted for one party in all the elections they've ever voted in simply because they knew what the party stood for and assumed the same of the candidate. If there is one of those people out there, you can be assured there are plenty more. That's what the parties count on. Who wants voters to actually think about the choice of candidate? If candidates were forced to stand on their own merits, and truly say what they stood for, I think we would also have much more intelligent voters. People would have to listen and learn and research instead of counting on a general "close enough" guideline. <I thought I told that idealist to shoo>

At any rate, I wish Arnold the best. If I were Californian, I'd vote for him.

New Poll: Yes On Recall, Yes On Arnold
Of course, polling data always has to be taken with a grain of salt but I like these numbers This is such a lightning campaign. I mean, the election is next Tuesday already.

. . : slicePuzzle

I can't wait! I, for one, am going to vote the hell out of Davis!

who's arnold schwartzernagger? crazy germans. i'm going back to sleep.

Eh... with one week left in the race, Arnold is actually leading in the polls, and by a 15% margin

I can't vote, but this is entertaining nonetheless.

Polls can be very unreliable at times. But even the polls that are left leaning are showing Arnold in the lead. That is a very good sign... *if* you want him elected that is I can't wait to see him terminate the *tripling* of our car tax.

. . : slicePuzzle

I'm very pessimistic when it comes to people who actually want to be politicians. If you're waiting for him to abolish the previously noted tax...I think tha'ts exactly what you'll be doing...waiting, and waiting, and waiting....

If he wins, we will know very soon. One thing is clear Davis/Bustamante have both pledged to *raise* taxes. I would rather go with the guy who hasn't taken that pledge because at least there is the possibility he'll stick to it. If I thought he could really win, I would prefer McC*****ck be elected because I agree far more with him than Arnold on most issues.

. . : slicePuzzle

The problem with McC*****ck (besides the issues on which we differ) is that, as a far right-winger (compared to the state in general), he has almost no chance of getting elected to a statewide office in California. The Republican Party, however, insists on sending very conservative Republican candidates to the slaughter. (Remember Bill Simon? Richard Riordan could have won the whole election, and then we wouldn't be in this mess, interesting though it is...)

ow: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16902

Jason

JKMabry: Damn I was just going to post that - thats harsh (and lurid) criticism - how much of it is true though?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Interesting how all this is popping up, just a few days before the election...

This is politics folks, aint it cool? ~puke~

Arnold treats women poorly and was in bed with Enron folks.

Bustamante refuses to denounce a racist slogan of an organization he supports and uses illegal monies for his TV ads.

Davis is a class one crook and a hypocrite to boot for not coming clean with the allegations of being extremely abusive to women on his staff.

The LA Times runs the allegations against Arnold but refused to do the same when Davis was running, but then that's what we expect from the Times.

So everyone is less than what any of us would want for our elected officials and it all comes back to what policies each one supports and how that squares with those of us who will be voting on Tuesday.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: Well I'm sure a lot of them are as bad as each other but this most recent revelation would mean that Arnie isn't your best choice if you want any kind of resolution to your energy crisis.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Our energy crisis is fundamentally rooted in NIMBY (not in my backyard). We have energy consumption needs and we don't have enough power plants to handle it. We need to build more but no one wants them anywhere near where they live.

Besides, the problem we are facing now is a fiscal problem. Our energy crisis has somewhat subsided for now. Arnold will do much better with the economy than Davis/Bustamante will. That is why he has my vote because he will look to limit spending and stimulate economic growth. I believe that is what will get us out of this problem and Davis/Bustamante have both stated what they would do to fix things and it is completely the opposite of what I believe we need right now.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

This is politics folks, aint it cool? ~puke~

---

In the face of that kind of reality you seem to remain an eternal optimist, I admire that.

In the end I normally vote for the lesser of the 2 evils myelf and try to be optimistic. Glad I don't live in California and have to choose the lesser of 135 evils =\

Jason

Bugs:

quote:

---

We have energy consumption needs and we don't have enough power plants to handle it. We need to build more but no one wants them anywhere near where they live.

---

Does energy efficiency not enter the debate?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Yes, of course it does! But that requires *new* and more efficient plants to be built. Governor Davis has restarted plants that had been shut down because of their gross polluting in an effort to keep up with our growing needs. Believe me, simply being more energy efficient is not enough to meet the demands of the future. The bottom line is that we need *new* plants and no one wants one anywhere near their house. That must change and we need a governor with enough forsight to build for our future.

Unfortunately, that man is Tom McC*****ck but we've been over that point before I can only hope that Arnold brings Tom into his inner circle so he can help out.

I should point out that there are those in this area who have installed alternate energy sources in their homes. If you drive down any middle class neighborhood, you'll notice solar panels here and there and water heating pads on the roofs. But my understanding is that these are very expensive and what's more relevant, they are very ineffective. The alternate energy sources for the home are just not cost effective enough to make a dent.

But here is some good news, we do have several places where we can build new hydroelectric plants. Tom McC*****ck has a plan to rebuild California's infrastructure over the next several years and hydro-electric as well as wind generated power is on the list. Here again however there are problems and this time it comes from the very people who usually like alternate energy. The environmental groups generally oppose hydro-electric because it causes habitat alterations for our little creature friends. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't on some of this... sigh

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs:

quote:

---

Yes, of course it does! But that requires *new* and more efficient plants to be built.

---

LOL - I meant at the users end

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I think the commercial that states, "When all the laughs are over...California will have to live with the outcome." is a good point, there shouldn't be a recall but Gray Davis has screwed us royally. Triple DMV Frees? Wtf, I'm not paying $1500 to register my vehicle. (2004 Toyota Tacoma)

Through Davis' mistakes we, the Californians, are paying the price. I really don't think anyone that doesn't live in California and is going through this has much room to say whether or not they think So and So would be good govenor or whether there should be a recall at all. The point is, Davis screwed up and we're paying the price.

Personally, if I was able to vote, I would vote Yes on the Recall, and most likely for Arnold, not because of his Hollywood Status, but because I feel he knows what he is getting into and that he will be able to handle the job and if, in the end, he turns out to be no better, or worse than Gray Davis, then that is what we'll have to live with.

Yep, I voted!

I'm really surprised that Arnold didn't offer McC*****ck a place in his inner circle earlier on. This way, he could make a smooth transition from competition to cooperation, and Arnold's victory would never have been in question.