Flynt for gov?

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall_flynt

Now that Arnold seems likely to drop out of the California gubernatorial race:

LOS ANGELES - Porn king Larry Flynt wants to rule California.

The Hustler magazine publisher has filed initial paperwork to run in the gubernatorial recall election and says he may spend a large amount of his own money if people take his candidacy seriously.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall_flynt

Now that Arnold seems likely to drop out of the California gubernatorial race:



At first glance it's kind of funny. However, Flynt has been a champion of First Amendment rights for quite some time now (even though it was in his self interest). Heck, if Republicans can argue that a business man like Issa can run a state, then surely a successful business man -- who is also handicapped -- like Flynt can do wonders with the state.

[arcticpenguin]

Or maybe his motive is more complex.

The Dems are worried that there will be low turnout in favor of Davis, while those wishing to replace him would turn out in numbers. Perhaps sufficient numbers of Democrats could be mustered to make sure that Flynt did not win.

Remember how he got involved when the Republicans were impeaching Clinton?

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030802/en_nm/politics_california_bedfellows_dc

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Porn king Larry Flynt says slot machines would resolve California's budget crisis. Porn star Mary Carey says it is smarter to tax breast implants.

Hollywood billboard queen Angelyne has adopted the slogan "Think rational pink," whatever that means.

Dozens of other eclectic, eccentric extras have also taken out nomination papers to run in the October recall election for California governor, adding farce, folly and fantasy to deadly serious political combat
...
"We are becoming a laughing stock. This just exacerbates the impression that we are a bunch of wackos out here," Art Torres, California Democratic party chairman, told Reuters.
...
A Schwarzenegger departure would delight the likes of Georgy Russell, a 26-year-old computer programmer, who is campaigning for a clean energy policy and selling thong underwear on her Web Site; Art Brown who is promoting a short film; and Michael Jackson (news) and Bill Murray (news) who are promoting the fact that they have the names of famous people.
...
ANGELYNE SAYS THINK PINK, PORN STAR SAYS THINK BLONDE

Among the more intriguing serious prospects is a potential face-off between gay, former Republican congressman Michael Huffington, who has filed papers, and his ex-wife, columnist Arianna Huffington, who is being pressed to run.
...
California does not get much more frivolous than Angelyne, a Hollywood icon and wannabe singer, actress, dancer and performer, who has been a household name for 10 years by virtue of plastering her curves on city billboards and once writing a screenplay called "The Bra That Ate L.A."
...
"My slogan is 'think rational pink.' We've had enough gray and brown and we need pink now and that's me.
...
Porn star Mary Carey says something similar, "We've had Brown, we've tried Gray. Now it is time for some blonde."

Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans.

[Pyrrho]

Hey, if Jim Traficant can run for President...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Grammatron


At first glance it's kind of funny. However, Flynt has been a champion of First Amendment rights for quite some time now (even though it was in his self interest). Heck, if Republicans can argue that a business man like Issa can run a state, then surely a successful business man -- who is also handicapped -- like Flynt can do wonders with the state.

Unfortunately, his plan to save the state is to open more casinos. I'm not a fan of that policy.

Of course, I gotta say that no one else has really provided a plan for recovering, either.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
[BRemember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans. [/B]

You're oversimplifying this at least a little.

I think you meant to say that this special election was brought to you by the California Constitution, and over a million registered voters of the State of California, who signed petitions.

Yes, it was funded significantly by a Rebublican (Issa, who I doubt will win), but there's a lot more to it than you say.

I have not spoken to a single person who cannot wait for Governor Clouseau to be gone.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by kerfer

I think you meant to say that this special election was brought to you by the California Constitution, and over a million registered voters of the State of California, who signed petitions.

Yes, it was funded significantly by a Rebublican (Issa, who I doubt will win), but there's a lot more to it than you say.

I have not spoken to a single person who cannot wait for Governor Clouseau to be gone.
If you want to control both sides of the conversation, go into your bathroom and talk to the mirror. Otherwise don't try to put words in my mouth.

Perhaps your coarse manners and why no one will speak to you and you do not hear alternate points of view.

[RC]

Originally posted by kerfer

I have not spoken to a single person who cannot wait for Governor Clouseau to be gone.

You're speaking to one now. I don't like Gray Davis any more than anyone else, but the recall is a joke and a mess.

We had an election less than a year ago. I voted for the Green, but I accept the results. Absolutely nothing has happened between November and now to justify this expensive and ridiculous recall. Davis has done nothing criminal or egregious.

Now we have this ridiculous free-for-all that brings in people like Larry Flynt and Henry Tanenbaum, the gay gardening guy from the local TV station. They aren't remotely qualified for the job and the fact that they can be on the ballot so easily demonstrates the absurdity of the recall law in California.

This recall election has nothing to do with democracy. The percentage of people who signed the petitions isn't remotely high enough to justify it. The voter turnout will be low, and the ballot will be confusing. I still know people who don't realize that they can choose a candidate if they vote NO on the recall.

I will vote NO out of basic principle. My chance to get rid of Davis was through the fair and honest process of a regular election. I lost, and that means I should get him for 4 years unless there are extremely serious reasons to vote him out.

[Troll]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you want to control both sides of the conversation, go into your bathroom and talk to the mirror. Otherwise don't try to put words in my mouth.

Perhaps your coarse manners and why no one will speak to you and you do not hear alternate points of view.

Do you two have some history? Because from what I saw you did say what he said you said, and he did say that this was a result of the california constitution and it allowing for this recall. And there is the fact that they got enough signatures to abide by california's constitution to accomplish this.

[Troll]

Originally posted by RC


You're speaking to one now. I don't like Gray Davis any more than anyone else, but the recall is a joke and a mess.

We had an election less than a year ago. I voted for the Green, but I accept the results. Absolutely nothing has happened between November and now to justify this expensive and ridiculous recall. Davis has done nothing criminal or egregious.

Now we have this ridiculous free-for-all that brings in people like Larry Flynt and Henry Tanenbaum, the gay gardening guy from the local TV station. They aren't remotely qualified for the job and the fact that they can be on the ballot so easily demonstrates the absurdity of the recall law in California.

This recall election has nothing to do with democracy. The percentage of people who signed the petitions isn't remotely high enough to justify it. The voter turnout will be low, and the ballot will be confusing. I still know people who don't realize that they can choose a candidate if they vote NO on the recall.

I will vote NO out of basic principle. My chance to get rid of Davis was through the fair and honest process of a regular election. I lost, and that means I should get him for 4 years unless there are extremely serious reasons to vote him out.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but can you name something Davis did accomplish that is to the benefit of Californians? Perhaps they felt he had enough time to do something and in their eyes hasn't done it yet. And I lived in california from 1983 until 2000

[RC]

Originally posted by Troll


I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but can you name something Davis did accomplish that is to the benefit of Californians? Perhaps they felt he had enough time to do something and in their eyes hasn't done it yet. And I lived in california from 1983 until 2000

Troll, I almost don't even want to answer the question because in a way I find it irrelevant. The time to say "Gray Davis has done nothing for Californians" was November of last year. He won that election. In my opinion, a recall should be in response to something criminal or completely egregious, not "we gave you another 6 months and you failed".

Now, it creeps me out a bit to defend Davis because I really don't like him. I'm a Democrat true and true and I voted against him last year. I would have voted for Riordan if he had made it to the general, but I went with the Green.

I guess your question is what did Davis do to benefit all Californians. Very little is my answer. But he did sign domestic partner legislation and he has provided adequate funding for AIDS programs. Both of these are very important to me.

[RC]

Troll, just to add a little more, people didn't even wait until the end of the budget and legislative season before putting this recall on the ballot. I think the recall rules need to be changed significantly and should at least say that one year has to pass after the general election.

People are bringing up all kinds of crap to justify the recall. They are mad at Davis' proposed budget and things like automobile fees. Well, the responsible way to deal with that is to advocate with your legislators to defeat the proposals you don't like. You don't just sign a recall petition the minute the governor submits a proposal you don't like.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Troll

Do you two have some history? Because from what I saw you did say what he said you said,
Your post makes no sense. By talking about what I "meant" to say, he was clearly trying to put words in my mouth. I said what I said, not what he said I "meant to say".


I think you meant to say

I have no prior history with kerfer, but that doesn't mean I will tolerate his acting like an as_.

[Troll]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Your post makes no sense. By talking about what I "meant" to say, he was clearly trying to put words in my mouth. I said what I said, not what he said I "meant to say".


I have no prior history with kerfer, but that doesn't mean I will tolerate his acting like an as_.

No it does make sense. I asked a question and gave you what is out there as fact.

Are you blaming republicans alone for the recall vote? Maybe that's a more simplified version of what he asked, but when I read what he asked, I did in fact read what you wrote as a reason for him to ask such a question.

So please answer that. Answer my question if not his. Are you saying that it is because of republicans that Davis is up for a recall vote and not because of his own actions or inactions? I'd have never asked thisif you had not said " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans."

I thought it was brought about thanks to the people of California. You're current comments seem to imply that you feel that a democrat that voted for the guy would not be against him now at this time. I'm just asking for some clarification of your remarks

[Troll]

Originally posted by RC
Troll, just to add a little more, people didn't even wait until the end of the budget and legislative season before putting this recall on the ballot. I think the recall rules need to be changed significantly and should at least say that one year has to pass after the general election.

People are bringing up all kinds of crap to justify the recall. They are mad at Davis' proposed budget and things like automobile fees. Well, the responsible way to deal with that is to advocate with your legislators to defeat the proposals you don't like. You don't just sign a recall petition the minute the governor submits a proposal you don't like.

I won't deny that I feel that what you suggested is the higher road to take. But a recall is allowed and apparently enough people thought it a good idea. Do we listen to the people or do we play prop 187 all over again? I was a Californian that went for 187. I was a pissed off Californian when it got overturned

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=511&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_el_gu/davis_recall_flynt

Now that Arnold seems likely to drop out of the California gubernatorial race:


Unfortunately, I think Mr. Flynt will recieve some negative criticism for running for candidacy.

When most people see Flynt, they dont see him as political figure. Why cant people just look past the wheelchair and physical handicap and see him for the person he really is?

"California is the most progressive state in the union," said Flynt, 61. "I don't think anyone here will have a problem with a smut peddler as governor."
Uhhh... on second thought, it might be slightly more beneficial if we all ignore the person Flynt really is.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Troll


No it does make sense. I asked a question and gave you what is out there as fact.

Are you blaming republicans alone for the recall vote? Maybe that's a more simplified version of what he asked, but when I read what he asked, I did in fact read what you wrote as a reason for him to ask such a question.

So please answer that. Answer my question if not his. Are you saying that it is because of republicans that Davis is up for a recall vote and not because of his own actions or inactions? I'd have never asked thisif you had not said " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans."

I thought it was brought about thanks to the people of California. You're current comments seem to imply that you feel that a democrat that voted for the guy would not be against him now at this time. I'm just asking for some clarification of your remarks
And I am asking you and kerfer to restrict yourself to making your own remarks, not trying to put remarks in my mouth. Is that simple enough?

[Troll]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

And I am asking you and kerfer to restrict yourself to making your own remarks, not trying to put remarks in my mouth. Is that simple enough?

Dude, I haven't put any words in your mouth.

You said " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans.""

I asked a question about that comment. I asked if you are saying something with that comment, not accusing you of having done so.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Troll

Dude, I haven't put any words in your mouth.

You said " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans.""

I asked a question about that comment. I asked if you are saying something with that comment, not accusing you of having done so.
kerfer tried to put words in my mouth. You asked me about that, not about the special election issue, in your first post on this thread. That is what irks me; not the political issue, but kerfer's lack of manners in assigning his opinion to me. If you continue to try to confuse the two issues, I will assume your are living up to your user name.

[Troll]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

kerfer tried to put words in my mouth. You asked me about that, not about the special election issue, in your first post on this thread. That is what irks me; not the political issue, but kerfer's lack of manners in assigning his opinion to me. If you continue to try to confuse the two issues, I will assume your are living up to your user name.

Fine.

Now will you answer my question as to what you meant exactly with the " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans." comment so that we can discuss the actual subject?

[RC]

Originally posted by Troll


I won't deny that I feel that what you suggested is the higher road to take. But a recall is allowed and apparently enough people thought it a good idea. Do we listen to the people or do we play prop 187 all over again? I was a Californian that went for 187. I was a pissed off Californian when it got overturned

Troll, I'm not arguing that the recall should be thrown out by the courts. You are correct that it is allowed. I think the rules are f**ed, but I respect that they are the rules. So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

I disagree with you that "enough" people thought it was a good idea. I need to do some research, but I do think the number of people who signed the petition is a pretty small percentage of registered voters. I think we need some reform on the recall rules in CA.

[Troll]

Originally posted by RC


Troll, I'm not arguing that the recall should be thrown out by the courts. You are correct that it is allowed. I think the rules are f**ed, but I respect that they are the rules. So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

I disagree with you that "enough" people thought it was a good idea. I need to do some research, but I do think the number of people who signed the petition is a pretty small percentage of registered voters. I think we need some reform on the recall rules in CA.

Again I will agree with ya. Just like prop 187 being tossed out because of a very small number of people. My point wasn't numbers by way of sheer numbers, but that of enough people as prescribed by law. Perhaps it would be a good start to increase that number to force the issue of recall?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If you want to control both sides of the conversation, go into your bathroom and talk to the mirror. Otherwise don't try to put words in my mouth.

:confused:
Control both sides?

Attempt to put words in your mouth?

I did no such thing in either case.

I was merely pointing out that this recall wasn't some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (tm HRC)", which was my inferrence from what you said, but rather, a grass-roots campaign, following the Constitution of the State of California, to rid the state of an incompetant governor.

Unless you intend to imply that everyone who downloaded a petition off the internet, and had their friends who agreed with it sign it (or sign one that a friend downloaded) is "the Repbulicans", but that's not what I inferred from your comment.


Perhaps your coarse manners and why no one will speak to you and you do not hear alternate points of view.
:big:
I notice that you'd rather fling ad hominems than answer the point.

I also note that several others have asked you to answer to this point, and you have refused.

If you wish to apologize for the name calling you've done in this thread, and attempt to discuss this issue like adults, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. You may have a point that I'm missing. However, if you'd rather just stick to name calling, I have better things to do.
:s2:

[Random]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the Lieutenant Governor take over as governor of California if they vote to recall Davis? I don't know why the ballot is even bringing up the issue of these (200+???) nutballs.

Then again, what do I know? I'm on the other end of the country... :)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Random
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the Lieutenant Governor take over as governor of California if they vote to recall Davis? I don't know why the ballot is even bringing up the issue of these (200+???) nutballs.

Then again, what do I know? I'm on the other end of the country... :)

Here's an article that addresses that question...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92615,00.html
the gist of it is that


According to the state Constitution, once the recall qualifies, the lieutenant governor calls for a replacement election, and "if appropriate," a vote to elect a successor. Some say that gives Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante wiggle room to decide that if Davis is ousted, a replacement vote is not appropriate and he could keep the job for himself.
...
Recall organizers say such a move would be a serious abuse of power, and clearly violates the will of more than 1.6 million Californians who have signed the recall petition (search).
...
Both sides agree it would be a bold move on Bustamante's part. But even if the lieutenant governor doesn't act, other Democrats could still turn the issue into a protracted courtroom battle, arguing that if Davis is recalled, by law, Bustamante should be governor.

Even Democratic analysts call it a risky move.

"Gray Davis' argument against the recall right now is that it's all a Republican plot to take over the state. Well, if the Democratic lieutenant governor announces that he's the successor, if the recall succeeds, then it can't be a Republican plot to take over the state," (political consultant Susan) Estrich said.


I hope this article answers your questions...it seems to me, though, that even though the recall seems to be a done deal, there is still much passing of the football to be attempted by the current governor and his henchmen.

[Random]

So the only reason California is going through this is because Bustamante doesn’t have the guts to say, “If you vote Gray out, I get the job”? What a crock! Are we really expected to believe that this electoral farce is better than a clearly defined order of succession?

I mean come on! The more I learn about the ballot initiative, the less I like it. If forty percent of the voters say that Davis should stay, he is booted from office. If after that, twenty-five percent say Issa should take over, and he has the most votes, Issa takes over even though more people wanted to keep Davis than vote Issa into office. That is to say nothing of the candidacies of multiple Gray Davises, the Terminator, Michael Jackson, Bill Murray, Larry Flynt, two Huffingtons, and a porn star.

Bustamante could have avoided most of this by saying he would take over in the event of a successful recall as soon as Issa started to spend his cash. Issa doesn’t want Davis out, he wants to take over himself, and Davis is in the way. Issa would realize that he was wasting his time, and pack up and go home. If he didn’t, Bustamante would get a promotion.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by kerfer

:confused:
Control both sides?

Attempt to put words in your mouth?

I did no such thing in either case.

I was merely pointing out that this recall wasn't some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (tm HRC)", which was my inferrence from what you said, but rather, a grass-roots campaign, following the Constitution of the State of California, to rid the state of an incompetant governor.

Unless you intend to imply that everyone who downloaded a petition off the internet, and had their friends who agreed with it sign it (or sign one that a friend downloaded) is "the Repbulicans", but that's not what I inferred from your comment.

[B]
:big:
I notice that you'd rather fling ad hominems than answer the point.

I also note that several others have asked you to answer to this point, and you have refused.

If you wish to apologize for the name calling you've done in this thread, and attempt to discuss this issue like adults, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. You may have a point that I'm missing. However, if you'd rather just stick to name calling, I have better things to do.
:s2:
Telling me what I "meant to say" is not putting words in my mouth? Telling me what I "meant to say" is not attempting to control both sides of the conversation? If you have things that you "mean to say", by all means say them, but it is improper and rude for you to claim that I would have or should have said them.

Please point out where I 'flung an ad hominem'. I never used your lack of manners to invalidate your position. Perhaps you do not understand what an ad hominem is.

[Agammamon]

Well, if Italy can survive a porn star in their parliament, I think CA can survive a porn magnate as govenor. And to say that Flynt is unqualified, well he does run a fairly large business which is pretty much all the qualification Davis brought to the table.

[Crossbow]

Larry Flynt running for governor is just a publicity stunt.

Does anyone remember when Howard Stern ran for governor? So what, these guys get to show up at a press conference, act outlandish, and get to see themselves on the news.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Well, if Italy can survive a porn star in their parliament, I think CA can survive a porn magnate as govenor.
Hehehehe.

Not that that's gunna happen. The people of the state of California are smarter ( I hope ) than for him to get about 100 votes, most of which will be protest/novelty votes.


And to say that Flynt is unqualified, well he does run a fairly large business which is pretty much all the qualification Davis brought to the table.

Really? I'm unaware of Davis' life before he became a politician...what kinda business did he run successfully? What do you know about that?

(I'm not sure if your point is in support or opposition to Flynt here... ;) )

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by RC
They aren't remotely qualified for the job...

Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications to be governor of CA or any other state, and why aren't "they" qualified?

[Agammamon]

Actually, I made a mistake. I was thinking of Bloomberg, the rather unpopular mayor of NYC.

Davis has a career in "public service" meaning that basically he's been a politician since he returned to the civilian sector.

While I'm not for or against Flynt, it seems to me that a guy who can build a pretty successful business from nothing is actually more qualified than Davis, who is partly responsible for the mess he inherited as govenor.

Govenor Gray Davis Committe (http://www.gray-davis.com/)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Actually, I made a mistake. I was thinking of Bloomberg, the rather unpopular mayor of NYC.

Davis has a career in "public service" meaning that basically he's been a politician since he returned to the civilian sector.

That's what I thought, and why I asked you for more info.
[B][QUOTE]
While I'm not for or against Flynt, it seems to me that a guy who can build a pretty successful business from nothing is actually more qualified than Davis, who is partly responsible for the mess he inherited as govenor.

Govenor Gray Davis Committe (http://www.gray-davis.com/)

I'm suspecting that there are a lot fo folks more qualified to be guvnah than Doofus. I just hope we end up electing a good one.

I was kinda hoping Riordan was gunn run, but that's probably not likely now that Arnie has announced...we'll hafta see what he has to say...McClintock may be a good choice, too.

I'm terribly surprised that Willie Brown isn't running. Somebody got pix on him, ya spose? ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Just out of curiosity, what are the qualifications to be governor of CA or any other state, and why aren't "they" qualified?

Well???

[crackmonkey]

Penguin - I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote
"Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans".

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Larry Flynt running for governor is just a publicity stunt.

Does anyone remember when Howard Stern ran for governor? So what, these guys get to show up at a press conference, act outlandish, and get to see themselves on the news.

There's a little of that here to be sure, but given recent estimates are that there could be 300 names on the ballot, with no runoff provision, one of the "fringe" candidates has a much larger chance than usual of winning. Flynt's chances against one "normal" candidate would be almost nil. His chances in a chaotic mess with 300 candidates, a short campaign, and most likely no debates may still be in the 100 to 1 range, but that is way, way better than zero.

I think Flynt understands this and is just taking a shot. Plus, unlike Howard Stern, Flynt has in his loony way been involved in politics, like his recent "Bill O'Reilly Prayer Day." (http://www.larryflynt.com/national_prayer_day.html)

If you ignore the fact his buisness is porn and gambling, he's just a successful buisnessman with a liberal bent. I'd suspect he's one of the more qualified people on the ballot when it comes down to the ability to manage a large operation.

[Agammamon]

Arnie is going to cause the Republicans all sorts of headaches if he gets elected.

Even though he's officially a Rep, his (stated at least) positions on the key platform of the Rep party are pretty libertarian or liberal. Quite at odds with the official stance of the Republicans.

[davefoc]

RC said:
So, I will vote NO on the recall out of principle and hope that others do the same.

Actually RC, even though I generally vote Republican, I felt the same way when I first heard about the recall. Recalls are to remove corrupt officials and as far as I could see Davis was an incompetent governor but not a corrupt one.

The more I thought about the situation though, the more I felt that the near complete failure of the Davis administration to successfully run CA was so severe that with or without actual corruption I was ready to vote for the recall.

CA is facing at least a triple threat of serious problems:

1. Massive deficits
2. Worker's comp insurance rates that is devastating business in CA forcing shutdowns, layoffs, movement out of the state and a rise in the black market economy.
3. A power crisis which was driven almost entirely by the incompetent or even possibly corrupt actions of the governor's office.

Even if somehow Davis found the skill and backbone to run the state at this point his, failures have left him so bereft of power that there's nothing he could do about the problems anyway.

Davis engaged in some of the dirtiest political scheming that I have seen to win the governorship the second time.

Perhaps you might consider that when you are making this principled stand to support the guy.

[Troll]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Penguin - I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote
"Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans".

So was I and at least one other. I guess the world may never know

[jj]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Hey, if Jim Traficant can run for President...

Hey! He's innocent. He has to be, right, after all, he says so! Right? REEALLY? :P

I grew up next to Youngstown. I moved out. Need I say more?

[Troll]

All these questions about it and weeks of avoidance.

Dude answer the question. what did you mean by the " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans" comment? It's been weeks now. And hell no I ain't gonna let it slide. Direct question asked by many. Give a freaking direct answer for once

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Troll
All these questions about it and weeks of avoidance.

Dude answer the question. what did you mean by the " Remember, this special election was brought to you by Republicans" comment? It's been weeks now. And hell no I ain't gonna let it slide. Direct question asked by many. Give a freaking direct answer for once
I would like kerfer to admit to the obvious fact that he tried to put words in my mouth, and incorrectly accused me of making ad hominem attacks, and to apologise for both.

So it seems neither one of us is getting what he wants.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I would like kerfer to admit to the obvious fact that he tried to put words in my mouth, and incorrectly accused me of making ad hominem attacks, and to apologise for both.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
ROTFLMAO!

That's funny.

I thought you were supposed to apologize to me for your behavior WRT your unwarranted personal attacks. I offered to let you do that, so that we could discuss things as adults. If you don't want to do that, I can deal with it. Life is too short. I'm over it...perhaps you should figure out how to get over being so offended by something you misunderstood.

I've explained to you at least once that I did not try to put words in your mouth, and therefore, I'm not going to apologize for that which I did not do. That would be nonsense.

Not only will I not apologize for something that I didn't do, I will continue to deny that I did so, and continue to wonder why your panties are so twisted over it.

You are just using this as an excuse not to answer a direct question that you know you can't answer. That's blatantly obvious.

Geez, grow up, and get over it already.


So it seems neither one of us is getting what he wants.

But at least you are looking kinda silly for not answering a direct question posed several times by several people. If you are trying to improve your credibility with this tactic, may I suggest that it's not working?

Maybe just answering the question would be a better idea.