The Ahnold does it!!! Woo Woo!

[Supercharts]

Schwarzenegger Announces Gubernatorial Bid
5 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Arnold Schwarzenegger ended the suspense Wednesday and said he would run in California's recall election, awarding Republicans his marquee value in their campaign to oust Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites). Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) ruled out a run, labeling the election "more and more like a carnival every day."

Yeaaaah!!! The Ahnold has tossed his hat into the ring!!!
Oh Happy Happy Day!


A pundant once said if the USA could be turned on it's side and shaken everything loose would end up in California.
This is just so wonderful!

Hey, Californians - whatdaya think!!!???!!!

[NoZed Avenger]

In a move to balance the Karma of upcoming elections, however, Jerry Springer has now removed his hat from the ring.

On balance, we're a little less weird than Arnold out and Springer in. We need a small addition toi make the trade fair -- say Carrot Top runs for State Assemblyman somewhere?

[DavidJames]

I'm amazed but really not surprised. The same feeling I'll have when he becomes gov. in a few months.

Just another example of liberal Hollywood trying to corrupt our society. ;)

[Marco]

I think we should start placing bets now on when he becomes President.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm amazed but really not surprised. The same feeling I'll have when he becomes gov. in a few months.

Just another example of liberal Hollywood trying to corrupt our society. ;)

Are you sure of that. From Time



The current recall process is particularly ridiculous. The ballot will have two questions. The first will be yea or nay on Gray Davis; the second will be a list of candidates—not including Davis—to replace him. Davis might lose the governorship with 49% of the vote and be replaced by Candidate X with 10%. There will be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of candidates. All it takes is $3,000 and 150 signatures to get on the ballot. Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine has declared. Both millionaire Michael Huffington and his egregious ex-wife Arianna may run. Darrell Issa is running; William Simon seems to be. There may be one or two well-known moderates amid the flotsam—perhaps the aforementioned Riordan, for whom victory would be vengeance most sweet. But any victory is likely to be tarnished. "This could hurt Republicans nationally," says Schrag. "It could remind voters of the election of 2000."



The election process will simply have a list of as many candidates as want to run. You could win with 10% of the vote. Any one for Governor Flynt?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Marco
I think we should start placing bets now on when he becomes President.

I'll take 'Never'.

He can't be President.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Hey, Californians - whatdaya think!!!???!!!

I think Arnold has a very good political track record and I would vote for him provided there is no better candidate.

[BTox]

If he makes it to the statehouse, that'll be two actors from the movie "Predator" to become governor. Look for Carl Weathers or Bill Duke to run next!

[Luke T.]

I'm glad the Terminator is running. I watched his press conference live. He said the way to save California from its financial troubles is to get businesses to come back to the state. He said businesses are leaving the state every day.

He's right. And there is only one way to get business to come back to California.

Lower taxes.

[Jude]

I hope Arnold wins just so I can hear him say "I'll be back" once his term is completed. Hey, it's not like things could get any worse (I hope).

[WildCat]

The Kennedy/Shriver clan must be going nuts at the thought of Maria's husband possibly winning the governor's office on the other side.

[Reager]

Originally posted by kerfer


I'll take 'Never'.

He can't be President.


Heh, haven't you seen Demolition Man?

Mike

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm glad the Terminator is running. I watched his press conference live. He said the way to save California from its financial troubles is to get businesses to come back to the state. He said businesses are leaving the state every day.

He's right. And there is only one way to get business to come back to California.

Lower taxes.

Businesses are leaving because of the high cost, full stop. Taxes are only a charge on top of the price business is already charging. After the extremes of the dotbomb boom, business would want to be somewhere that people can afford to live without having to pay a fortune in wages.

[Clancie]

All it takes is $3,000 and 150 signatures to get on the ballot.
"Governor Clancie"

Kind of has a nice ring to it. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Businesses are leaving because of the high cost, full stop. Taxes are only a charge on top of the price business is already charging. After the extremes of the dotbomb boom, business would want to be somewhere that people can afford to live without having to pay a fortune in wages.

I don't have the statistic (I hope someone else here does, RandFan maybe?) for how much California business pay. But I know it's a ridicules sum of money compared to other states, mostly because of Davis.

[American]

It would be cool to have a reason why California doesn't deserve to fall into the ocean (... besides the saving graces of Michael Savage).

I'd vote for Last Action Hero. <-- way better than "Terminator".

[Tricky]

I can see the headlines now:
Admitted drug user and well known adulterer is elected Governer of California

Of course, in California, that sort of stuff is pretty much expected...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I don't have the statistic (I hope someone else here does, RandFan maybe?) for how much California business pay. But I know it's a ridicules sum of money compared to other states, mostly because of Davis. To be sure there are many, many advantages to having a business in Southern California. I worked for a company that spent a sizeable amount of money investigating the possibility of relocating. In the end they decided to stay. There is however a limit and when the cost of doing business is too high then businesses are going to leave.

I would say that taxes are significant but not the priority. The number one problem is workers compensation. It is rising at an unbelievable rate. Other states have grappled with this problem and many, Arizona being the best example, have mostly solved it. Davis had an opportunity to do something about it but chose not to. Not surprising since allot of his money comes from trial lawyers and workers comp is an unprecedented cash cow.

(I can prove the above. The following is opinion including some exaggeration. I perhaps can come up with articles.)

Furthermore the state government is VERY unfriendly to business. The legislature only passes laws that are seen as socially progressive but are for businesses regressive. There is no sense of compromise or fairness. Big business is the enemy and the governor only signs legislation with that in mind. Forgotten is the fact that it is business that employees people in the first place. Sure you can pass laws where everyone gets a 6 month paid vacation and everyone can sue for workers compensation because you get headaches from working. And everyone can make 100,000 a year mandated by law but no one is going to have a job because no business is going to stick around.

Heeeeeloooooooooo......

Is this thing on? California Democrats....are you GETTING THIS?

Look, you want a the legislature run by democrats? Fine, I can live with that but please, PLEASE, keep a Republican Governor. Someone who cares about business and fiscal responsibility.

[Grammatron]

Thanks RandFan. I completely forgat about workers comp and how bad it got.

[Troll]

Several reasons to vote Arnold. Some are sarcastic.

1. He can't thoroughly piss off the liberals because he has to go home to one everynight.

2. He's also a business man and quite succesful at it. He makes a lot of money and appreciates it's value.

3. In a country where presidents have been ragged on for eating jelly beans, hating broccoli, eating fast food and choking on pretzles, wouldn't it be nice to see a politician that is concerned about health and physical fitness?

4.Has documented proof of his past drug use for all to see, if you can sit through Pumping Iron.

5. Predessors have claimed to be men of action. Arnold is a known action star.

6. He can't run for president so he's not gonna have much to go on by way of "political gain"

7. He already admitted that one big issue is the pandering to special interest groups. So that sorta puts him in the forefront. They say the first step is admitting the problem.

8. Businesses leaving has already been mentioned.

9. One day we can look forward to an action/political thriller staring Arnold, Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood and Jesse Ventura and none of the cast will need to study for the role.

10. It will give Californians the chance to say what the Minnesotans were able to say. "My governor can kick your governor's ass"

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The election process will simply have a list of as many candidates as want to run. You could win with 10% of the vote....
That is not democracy. No way, no way.

And you're talking about 10% of far fewer people that voted in the real election.

[subgenius]

"He's also a business man...."

:rolleyes:

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
"He's also a business man...."

:rolleyes:

Mock all you want. Running a state and balancing a budget is not too unlike running any other business. The goal is profit, not debt. The goal is more business, not less. You want people staying, not leaving.

[Zep]

Originally posted by subgenius That is not democracy. No way, no way.

And you're talking about 10% of far fewer people that voted in the real election. And yet less than 50% of the whole USA turned out to vote for/against Dubya... And Ronnie (hair-dye and my wife's starsigns) Reagan, for that matter...

Here's an idea: Why not make voting (oh no!) compulsory!

Then at least the "winner' can say s/he was REALLY voted in by a majority of the populace and not just the ballot-box riggers, and yah boo sucks to the others.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

That is not democracy. No way, no way.

And you're talking about 10% of far fewer people that voted in the real election.

If 101 people run and the vote is split almost evenly, the guy with 10% is the victor. If the people that do vote, vote legally then it is democracy. 10% in the case I mentioned would be the majority and the other 100 suffer a 9.09% of the vote.10% trumps 9.09% and works in the fashion that this particular democracy is set up for.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


Mock all you want. Running a state and balancing a budget is not too unlike running any other business. The goal is profit, not debt. The goal is more business, not less. You want people staying, not leaving.
What business did he run?

[subgenius]

"this particular democracy "

in some people's view.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Zep

Here's an idea: Why not make voting (oh no!) compulsory!


Guess which party doesn't want that, or to make voting any easier. The same party that benefits the fewer votes are cast.

[Marco]

Now he really is the Running Man.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

That is not democracy. No way, no way.

Yeah it is. It's that constitutionally-limited, representative kind...

California's constitution and its body of law specifically calls for this when the elected governor is recalled using the guidelines dictated by said law.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't figure into it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zep
Here's an idea: Why not make voting (oh no!) compulsory!

Then at least the "winner' can say s/he was REALLY voted in by a majority of the populace and not just the ballot-box riggers, and yah boo sucks to the others.

"Compulsory voting"?? :rolleyes: Lets not and say we did instead...

The constitution does not call for manditory voting. Good luck amending it.

And for what seems like the millionth time...The winner isn't determined by a majority of the popular vote, but by winning the necessary number of electoral votes.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
"this particular democracy "

in some people's view.


Just everyone who matters! :cool:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Guess which party doesn't want that, or to make voting any easier. The same party that benefits the fewer votes are cast.

The same party that does not buy votes by redistributing wealth from the earners to the idle, or by creating government programs that take care of people instead of inabling people to take care of themselves?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Marco
I think we should start placing bets now on when he becomes President.

I vote never because he wasn't born an American citizen on American soil.

[Diamond]

How does a muscle bound "actor" as governor clear the California debt mountain? I assume in America there is no discrimination on the grounds of ability....

[Chad Noles]

Gary Coleman is gonna kick his a$$."What you talkin bout Willis?"
Headlines :Arnold terminates Arnold!:p

[Tmy]

Hmmm........ sort of ironic that the Cali Republicans will be backing an immigrant for the Gov seat.

Wasnt Arnolds dad a nazi?

[zakur]

Originally posted by Denise
I vote never because he wasn't born an American citizen on American soil. Unless, of course, the Constitution is amended to allow a naturalized citizen to be president.

[Denise]

Originally posted by zakur
Unless, of course, the Constitution is amended to allow a naturalized citizen to be president.

Which would take years and years and would be unlikely to happen in this case.

[Larspeart]

"Compulsory voting"???

Um, doesn't that sort of go against the whole 'freedom' thing? Wouldn't MAKING someone vote violate their right to choose to vote?

idiot.

It is the dumb people who don't vote, and frankly, I am glad they don't. If all the stupid non-voters actualyl bothered to go and vote, we might start to see politicians get even WORSE! :eek:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
That is not democracy. No way, no way.

And you're talking about 10% of far fewer people that voted in the real election. Hi sub,

Could you explain why it is not democracy?

[Supercharts]

I think she should run.
She's already slept many times in the White House. The Dems like her fundraising efforts. She has the political juice to call in a lot of favors.
She could easily get John Kerry [Sen. PROM] to back her and give full support. She could threaten to cut off all of the California fund raising events if he doesn't. Bill Clinton [XPOTUS] would support her in an instant! Hillary would campaign for her. She could promise Gephardt the Actor's Union support. Bob Hope is dead so she won't be made fun of too badly by the others.
DiFi won't run. There needs to be another Jewish white woman to take on Ahnold. Barbara fits the bill.
She has instant access to Leno, Entertainment Tonight etc. Every drag queen in San Francisco can campaign for her as a double. That means at least 30,000 ‘additional’ Barbara’s available to campaign – she’d be everywhere. And these drag queens have much better figures!
Things not in her favor: Her butt is bigger than Hillary's. She doesn’t look good in pants suits. She’d always have to be interviewed sitting down on a really thick sofa or she would sink down and disappear. Barbara Walters could only interview her – anyone else would destroy her credibility.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
And yet less than 50% of the whole USA turned out to vote for/against Dubya... And Ronnie (hair-dye and my wife's starsigns) Reagan, for that matter... Yet Dubya got more votes than Clinton. And the same # showed up to vote for/against Gore and Dukakis. Why mention Dubya and Regean.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It looks like Arnold vs "Arnold" (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/candidate.coleman/index.html)

[bonster]

Originally posted by Troll


If 101 people run and the vote is split almost evenly, the guy with 10% is the victor. If the people that do vote, vote legally then it is democracy. 10% in the case I mentioned would be the majority and the other 100 suffer a 9.09% of the vote.10% trumps 9.09% and works in the fashion that this particular democracy is set up for.

I understand the point you are making here, but I can't let the math slip by without comment.

If 11, not 101, people run and one gets 10%, and the vote is split evenly amonng the other 10 people, so that each gets 9%, then the candidate with 10% wins.

Using your numbers, the total of all the votes adds up to 919%!

Edited to add: The winner would still not have a majority, but a plurality. 10% can be enough to win, but it will never be a majority.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Tricky
I can see the headlines now:
Admitted drug user and well known adulterer is elected Governer of California

Of course, in California, that sort of stuff is pretty much expected...

As some here I believe know I am a retired Bodybuilder and ex national champion. I have met Arnold several times been at a party with him. I know the person who first helped him when he first got here, the second person also and his first business partner who still owns properties with him.

I know many things about him that are well know in the bodybuilding circles and I assume from what I have been told it is only a small percentage.


Talking to the people who know him VERY well and are close to him they all call him friend but all, to the person also say he is viscous, mean, ruthless and not to be trusted.

Anyone who stands in Arnold’s way he seeks to destroy and will do anything to do it.

Rent if you will Pumping Iron, I have several friends who were in the movie. You will see many things, you will see just how he is in base, you will see him smoke pot ( he sued the maker of the film a few years to get that and other things taken out, he lost).

He is well known for his sexual escapades, I was at the Arnold Classic a HUGE pro show where he spoke for a great deal of time about “hummers” both the auto and the other.

I have been told by people close to him everything he does is calculated even his marriage I will also tell you 20 years ago or so we all as Body builders knew because he said it many times he would first me Gov of Cal then the first non resident to be pres.

This guy, and I mean him nor anyone any disrespect, is not a nice guy.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Denise
I vote never because he wasn't born an American citizen on American soil. Although you don't need to be born on American soil to be a natural-born citizen (not that Arnold is a natural-born citizen anyway).

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


As some here I believe know I am a retired Bodybuilder and ex national champion. I have met Arnold several times been at a party with him. I know the person who first helped him when he first got here, the second person also and his first business partner who still owns properties with him.

I know many things about him that are well know in the bodybuilding circles and I assume from what I have been told it is only a small percentage.


Talking to the people who know him VERY well and are close to him they all call him friend but all, to the person also say he is viscous, mean, ruthless and not to be trusted.

Anyone who stands in Arnold’s way he seeks to destroy and will do anything to do it.

Rent if you will Pumping Iron, I have several friends who were in the movie. You will see many things, you will see just how he is in base, you will see him smoke pot ( he sued the maker of the film a few years to get that and other things taken out, he lost).

He is well known for his sexual escapades, I was at the Arnold Classic a HUGE pro show where he spoke for a great deal of time about “hummers” both the auto and the other.

I have been told by people close to him everything he does is calculated even his marriage I will also tell you 20 years ago or so we all as Body builders knew because he said it many times he would first me Gov of Cal then the first non resident to be pres.

This guy, and I mean him nor anyone any disrespect, is not a nice guy.

Translation?

He panders to no one nor no special interest group. Sounds more and more like the perfect candidate. and for subgenius, like a perfect business man. See the goal, focus on the goal, let no one prevent the goal.

[Pahansiri]

Sen. Orrin Hatch is already along with others seeking to do this.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenParticipation/ConstitutionNewswire/2457.shtml

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


Translation?

He panders to no one nor no special interest group. Sounds more and more like the perfect candidate. and for subgenius, like a perfect business man. See the goal, focus on the goal, let no one prevent the goal.


Not at all and ery much the opposite he will pander to large Corporations and special interest.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Larspeart
"Compulsory voting"???

Um, doesn't that sort of go against the whole 'freedom' thing? Wouldn't MAKING someone vote violate their right to choose to vote?

idiot.

It is the dumb people who don't vote, and frankly, I am glad they don't. If all the stupid non-voters actualyl bothered to go and vote, we might start to see politicians get even WORSE! :eek:

I agree.

It's bad enough that Jerry Springer votes. Imagine if all of his viewers and guests did the same!! :eek:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri



Not at all and ery much the opposite he will pander to large Corporations and special interest.

well, you're the "insider", so which ones? examples?

[Visloch]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi sub,

Could you explain why it is not democracy?


It's not a democracy when the person getting the most votes doesn't win.

I don't understand why some people, mostly Republicans, don't understand that simple principle.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
This guy, and I mean him nor anyone any disrespect, is not a nice guy.

Not a requirement needed to hold public office.

[Troll]

Originally posted by bonster


I understand the point you are making here, but I can't let the math slip by without comment.

If 11, not 101, people run and one gets 10%, and the vote is split evenly amonng the other 10 people, so that each gets 9%, then the candidate with 10% wins.

Using your numbers, the total of all the votes adds up to 919%!

Edited to add: The winner would still not have a majority, but a plurality. 10% can be enough to win, but it will never be a majority.

No. You take 101 and figure in 100% of such. Give all a fair share except for the minority win of 10% and that does in fact equate to 9.09% for the remaining candidates. even if a small number votes, I'm talking percentage of votes and how percentages can be broken down. So 101 candidates, each getting a fair or very much close to fair share of the votes means that 10% wins the majority, no matter how you people that feel it's the majority that matters feel.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Visloch



It's not a democracy when the person getting the most votes doesn't win.

I don't understand why some people, mostly Republicans, don't understand that simple principle.

the concept of popular vote over electoral is not a democratic concept. Dole was working on this very thing a long time ago. we are not a democracy in it's truist form. Never have been. The US is a democratic republic.

what's so hard about understanding this?

Most of the voters in California voted in favor of Prop 187. Yet it was overturned by a very few ( a minority if you will). Sucks, but it's how our laws are set up in your so called "democracy"

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Sen. Orrin Hatch is already along with others seeking to do this.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenParticipation/ConstitutionNewswire/2457.shtml

Well good for Hatch for wanting to allow "citizens" regardless of how they became such, to want to seek responsibility for running the country.

Shall I refer you to the illegal immigrant doing good thread? I'm dying for your opinion on that matter

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Visloch



It's not a democracy when the person getting the most votes doesn't win.

I don't understand why some people, mostly Republicans, don't understand that simple principle.

:mad:

See? That is why I avoid using the term "democracy" when describing the United States system of government!

The U.S. is a constitutionally-limited representative republic.

That constitution specifically explains how electors are used to elect the president in Article II, Section 1.

Article II, Section 1:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."


To coin your phrase: "I don't understand why some people don't understand that simple principle."

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


well, you're the "insider", so which ones? examples?

A list, well I guess time will tell.

May I ask? As to let us say Gore or Clinton what were your feelings or past statements about their pot use ?

Or Clinton past sexual escapades?

Or if say Arnold was a very liberal democrat and you knew of his many, many affairs, drug use both pot and roids etc.?

Would your statements or out look be the same as it is for Arnold?

It may very well be as I can not know your thoughts etc.


Be well:p

[Tmy]

Why is it that people bitch n moan about low voter turnout on one hand , then rely so heavily on public opinion polls that are based on the attitudes of a fraction of the population.

Isnt Arnold the empitomy of California? Immigrant, pot smoker, womenizing, rich, famous, superficial, loudmouth.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


Well good for Hatch for wanting to allow "citizens" regardless of how they became such, to want to seek responsibility for running the country.

Shall I refer you to the illegal immigrant doing good thread? I'm dying for your opinion on that matter

My friend why the anger over the thoughts or beliefs of another?

My friend you assume a great deal.

I made no statement or took no position as to the subject of anyone running for Pres, I believe anyone who lives here as a citizen should have such a right.


I believe all beings are "citizens" of earth and do not look at boarders and at a “us and them” as many know here, that is my opinion on that matter.

I believe the “us and them mentality is very harmful

Be well my friend.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Zep

Then at least the "winner' can say s/he was REALLY voted in by a majority of the populace and not just the ballot-box riggers, and yah boo sucks to the others.

Unless of course there were more than 2 candidates and no politician got a clear majority.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not a requirement needed to hold public office.

Yes I know, sadly that is true, not that it need be made a "requirement".

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Visloch

It's not a democracy when the person getting the most votes doesn't win.


You do realize that if you take that position literally, there are almost no democracies in the world.

For example, any government built on the British system (The prime minister or leader usually being the head of the party that has the most seats in the House of Commons) can get into power with less than 50% of the vote. In fact, in the last Federal election, our Prime Minister got about 40% of the vote. And in a recent British Columbia election, the party that gained power actually had a smaller percentage of the popular vote (but more seats) than the rival party.

Yet nobody is saying that such countries are not "democracies". (Well, technically they aren't direct democracies, but constitutional monarchies).

Even in the US, thanks to the electoral vote system, it is possible for someone to be elected president even without having more votes than his rival.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


A list, well I guess time will tell.

May I ask? As to let us say Gore or Clinton what were your feelings or past statements about their pot use ?

Or Clinton past sexual escapades?

Or if say Arnold was a very liberal democrat and you knew of his many, many affairs, drug use both pot and roids etc.?

Would your statements or out look be the same as it is for Arnold?

It may very well be as I can not know your thoughts etc.


Be well:p

well even though you failed miserably at answering my questions, I'll still answer yours.

I don't give a rats ass what someone once did. If they admit it, it'e even more of a plus on hteir behalf..

I once masturbated to porn with a transexual. I don't seek a sex change, I still seek out and love women.

So which of the above would influence your vote towards me as a candidate and why?

[Visloch]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."


To coin your phrase: "I don't understand why some people don't understand that simple principle." [/B]

I'm not disputing the electoral college system.

The issue is not just that more people voted for Gore nationally, the issue is that more people voted for Gore in Florida.

I really don't want to rehash 2000 over again, I am just trying to point out that a recall system where the winner could have only a fraction of the support that the person being recalled has is neither democratic or representive of the people's wishes in California.

If this is allowed to occur in this manner, it will make a mockery of the election process and only further disenfranchise the voters.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


My friend why the anger over the thoughts or beliefs of another?

My friend you assume a great deal.

I made no statement or took no position as to the subject of anyone running for Pres, I believe anyone who lives here as a citizen should have such a right.


I believe all beings are "citizens" of earth and do not look at boarders and at a “us and them” as many know here, that is my opinion on that matter.

I believe the “us and them mentality is very harmful

Be well my friend.

no anger. I never used "moron" or "idiot" in speaking with you directly or in reference to anything you have posted.

"My friend?" Are you really? Loan me $320 until Next tuesday. I'd do it for a friend.;)

And you did say :

"Talking to the people who know him VERY well and are close to him they all call him friend but all, to the person also say he is viscous, mean, ruthless and not to be trusted.

Anyone who stands in Arnold’s way he seeks to destroy and will do anything to do it.

Rent if you will Pumping Iron, I have several friends who were in the movie. You will see many things, you will see just how he is in base, you will see him smoke pot ( he sued the maker of the film a few years to get that and other things taken out, he lost).

He is well known for his sexual escapades, I was at the Arnold Classic a HUGE pro show where he spoke for a great deal of time about “hummers” both the auto and the other.

I have been told by people close to him everything he does is calculated even his marriage I will also tell you 20 years ago or so we all as Body builders knew because he said it many times he would first me Gov of Cal then the first non resident to be pres.

This guy, and I mean him nor anyone any disrespect, is not a nice guy."

Doesn't sound like an endorsement of the guy

*edited for grammer issues., some of which I probaly still have missed*

[Visloch]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You do realize that if you take that position literally, there are almost no democracies in the world.

For example, any government built on the British system (The prime minister or leader usually being the head of the party that has the most seats in the House of Commons) can get into power with less than 50% of the vote. In fact, in the last Federal election, our Prime Minister got about 40% of the vote. And in a recent British Columbia election, the party that gained power actually had a smaller percentage of the popular vote (but more seats) than the rival party.

Yet nobody is saying that such countries are not "democracies". (Well, technically they aren't direct democracies, but constitutional monarchies).

Even in the US, thanks to the electoral vote system, it is possible for someone to be elected president even without having more votes than his rival.

Maybe instead of saying votes, I should have specified electoral votes. I don't have an issue with the British system or the Electoral system.

That is not the same issue here. If the presidential candidate with fewer electoral votes or the party with less seats gained power, would you still call it a democracy?

Simply put, the California recall system is fundamentally flawed. As I have said elsewhere. Either Gov. Davis should be included on the list or a majority instead of a plurality should be required to win.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


well even though you failed miserably at answering my questions, I'll still answer yours.

I don't give a rats ass what someone once did. If they admit it, it'e even more of a plus on hteir behalf..

I once masturbated to porn with a transexual. I don't seek a sex change, I still seek out and love women.

So which of the above would influence your vote towards me as a candidate and why?

My friend how did I not answer your question? I can not give you a list of who he will pander to as to special interest, I can assume from talking to his business partners and closer friends that he has very strong ties to the “top 1%” but I can not know his thoughts.

You really did not answer my questions as to if it were Clinton or a Liberal.?

As to admitting it, Arnold does not admit his sexual exploits and I do not believe he will on the campaign trail. As to the pot it is on film he has no choice as to the roids he did not admit it for a long time but again had little choice.

I also do not really care as to mistakes one makes I do find it ironic that many very staunch conservatives that seem to back Arnold are the same who attacked say Clinton for the same things.

I am not sure if you were on the bash Clinton for his dumb mistakes, I do not know you.

You say So which of the above would influence your vote towards me as a candidate and why?

I would not for the things you listed, I do believe many conservatives would with guns blazing, I have made too many mistakes to judge anyone as to that.

Again read my post, hypocrisy is what I speak or and how one looks at other people and treats them. I have a client that was married to Dice Clays sister and was at a party with Arnold and a picture was taken my client put his arm around Arnold for the pic and Arnold took his arm off saying “don’t ever touch me or speak to me”.

But what I posted other then fact is just my opinion I hope you do not let that bother you as yours does not bother me, that is the greatness of freedom.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


no anger. I never used "moron" or "idiot" in speaking with you directly or in reference to anything you have posted.

"My friend?" Are you really? Loan me $320 until Next tuesday. I'd do it for a friend.;)

And you did say :

"Talking to the people who know him VERY well and are close to him they all call him friend but all, to the person also say he is viscous, mean, ruthless and not to be trusted.

Anyone who stands in Arnold’s way he seeks to destroy and will do anything to do it.

Rent if you will Pumping Iron, I have several friends who were in the movie. You will see many things, you will see just how he is in base, you will see him smoke pot ( he sued the maker of the film a few years to get that and other things taken out, he lost).

He is well known for his sexual escapades, I was at the Arnold Classic a HUGE pro show where he spoke for a great deal of time about “hummers” both the auto and the other.

I have been told by people close to him everything he does is calculated even his marriage I will also tell you 20 years ago or so we all as Body builders knew because he said it many times he would first me Gov of Cal then the first non resident to be pres.

This guy, and I mean him nor anyone any disrespect, is not a nice guy."

Doesn't sound like an endorsement of the guy

*edited for grammer issues., some of which I probaly still have missed*





no anger. I never used "moron" or "idiot" in speaking with you directly or in reference to anything you have posted.

Just my observation, I may be wrong it is the tone that “I” feel I am seeing, one does not have to name call to be angry.


"My friend?" Are you really? Loan me $320 until Next tuesday. I'd do it for a friend.

I usually seek to help anyone who needs me. We are having a new house built so I don’t have $320 to throw around to everyone but if you needed me to help you do something and I could, I would be happy to.



Doesn't sound like an endorsement of the guy

No it is not, personally I would not vote for him I also do not live in Ca so it is mute, I also gave my opinion along with facts I knew.

I ask no one to believe as I do and only state my opinion, that is what is done at these sites is it not?? LOL


be well..OK I will not say my friend..:rub:

[Troll]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


My friend how did I not answer your question? I can not give you a list of who he will pander to as to special interest, I can assume from talking to his business partners and closer friends that he has very strong ties to the “top 1%” but I can not know his thoughts.

You really did not answer my questions as to if it were Clinton or a Liberal.?

As to admitting it, Arnold does not admit his sexual exploits and I do not believe he will on the campaign trail. As to the pot it is on film he has no choice as to the roids he did not admit it for a long time but again had little choice.

I also do not really care as to mistakes one makes I do find it ironic that many very staunch conservatives that seem to back Arnold are the same who attacked say Clinton for the same things.

I am not sure if you were on the bash Clinton for his dumb mistakes, I do not know you.

You say

I would not for the things you listed, I do believe many conservatives would with guns blazing, I have made too many mistakes to judge anyone as to that.

Again read my post, hypocrisy is what I speak or and how one looks at other people and treats them. I have a client that was married to Dice Clays sister and was at a party with Arnold and a picture was taken my client put his arm around Arnold for the pic and Arnold took his arm off saying “don’t ever touch me or speak to me”.

But what I posted other then fact is just my opinion I hope you do not let that bother you as yours does not bother me, that is the greatness of freedom.

I did answer. I said " well even though you failed miserably at answering my questions, I'll still answer yours.

I don't give a rats ass what someone once did. If they admit it, it'e even more of a plus on their behalf."

yeah not an exact quote as I fixed one typo I caught in spelling alone.

Sorry for the honesty

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Visloch
I'm not disputing the electoral college system.

Good.

Originally posted by Visloch
The issue is not just that more people voted for Gore nationally, the issue is that more people voted for Gore in Florida.

I really don't want to rehash 2000 over again...

I really don't want to either, but it has been widely published and reported that Bush would've won all the recounts Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were advocating.

Originally posted by Visloch
...I am just trying to point out that a recall system where the winner could have only a fraction of the support that the person being recalled has is neither democratic or representive of the people's wishes in California.

Sorry again, but it is both democratic and representative as that law (allowing for a gubernatorial recall) was passed under the strictures of the California State Constitution as ratified by the citizens of California.

Originally posted by Visloch
If this is allowed to occur in this manner, it will make a mockery of the election process and only further disenfranchise the voters.

Bu!!$h!+, as I've already demonstrated.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Troll


I did answer. I said " well even though you failed miserably at answering my questions, I'll still answer yours.

I don't give a rats ass what someone once did. If they admit it, it'e even more of a plus on their behalf."

yeah not an exact quote as I fixed one typo I caught in spelling alone.

Sorry for the honesty

Oh I am sorry

:confused:

I did not see where you said if you said things about Clinton or Gore or other liberals about such mistakes.

Sorry for the honesty:rub:

Be well

[peptoabysmal]

I'm going to vote for Arnold. I don't think anyone else could pull the state together right now, there are so many divided factions. Arnold's celebrity status and influence thereof will allow him to pull the state legislature together as more of a team and less of a bi-partisan squabble.

[Visloch]

Originally posted by Kodiak



I really don't want to either, but it has been widely published and reported that Bush would've won all the recounts Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were advocating.


Sorry again, but it is both democratic and representative as that law (allowing for a gubernatorial recall) was passed under the strictures of the California State Constitution as ratified by the citizens of California.



Bu!!$h!+, as I've already demonstrated.




Widely published and misreported.

http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-recount.html

from the AP (11/11/01): "A full, statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's 537-vote victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes, depending on how valid votes are defined."


Just because a law is passed does make it fair, democratic or constitutional.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Visloch
Just because a law is passed does make it fair, democratic or constitutional.

"Fair"? :rolleyes: :v:


"Democratic"? I've already corrected you on this one...


"Constitutional"? This at least has some merit. Grey Davis currently has several constitutional challenges (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenParticipation/ConstitutionNewswire/2567.shtml) pending on this issue. Constitutional experts, as reported by TV, radio, and print media, agree that his arguments skate on very thin ice and that his chances are slim to none.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The same party that does not buy votes by redistributing wealth from the earners to the idle, or by creating government programs that take care of people instead of inabling people to take care of themselves?
You made my day. Especially the part about taking care of people.
And "enabling" people to take care of themselves.
Always good to be reminded how differently we all view the world.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not a requirement needed to hold public office.
Not a requirement, but maybe a desirable characteristic. Lots of things that aren't requirements are nonetheless desirable.
But don't really want to defbate the "nice guy" thing I accept the fact that we differ.

[subgenius]

Wasn't he in a porno flick?
(I know its not a requirement that you not be in one)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Wasn't he in a porno flick?
(I know its not a requirement that you not be in one)


:dl:


BTW, I originally posted that proviso in response to the tone of Pahansiri's post, where I inferred that he thought being a nice guy was a requirement.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Jude
I hope Arnold wins just so I can hear him say "I'll be back" once his term is completed. Hey, it's not like things could get any worse (I hope).

"I'll be back" was the last thing he said at his press conference yesterday. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by WildCat
The Kennedy/Shriver clan must be going nuts at the thought of Maria's husband possibly winning the governor's office on the other side.

On the Tonight Show, where he announced his candidacy, Arnold told Leno this will be the first time his wife votes for a Republican. :D

[Luke T.]

Arnold is the epitome of, and is literally, the self-made man. He has drive. He works hard. And he is beholden to no one. Like he said last night, no one can buy him because he already has lots of money.

Like it or not, businesses are the lifeblood of the economy. You do things to run them out of town, and not only is less revenue coming in, but you have an unemployed labor force to take care of.

Call it pandering to businesses, or whatever other left-wing slander you want to put on it, but that is exactly what California needs right now.

As for Arnold's drug use and sexual escapades, well I guess the Left has taken the wind out of that sail.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Kodiak



:dl:


BTW, I originally posted that proviso in response to the tone of Pahansiri's post, where I inferred that he thought being a nice guy was a requirement.

I agree, and trust me I know many of the Arnold stories. My point is the same ones who attacked Clinton like crazy for his “moves” will dismiss Arnold simply because he is in their party.

Much like when Newt went on the monster attack only to find out he was doing the same thing.

My main point is hypocrisy, I am more liberal then conservative on many things but not fully and blindly on any “side”.

When one leans too far to the right or too far to the left they always become unbalanced.

The truth is that if any democrat had the things that will come out about he would be roasted by the right as I am sure the left will also have a field day with Arnold from what I observe I just find the right as to the conservative right much more hateful.


Just what I believe.

[subgenius]

Luke T.: "As for Arnold's drug use and sexual escapades, well I guess the Left has taken the wind out of that sail."

So you're saying that (for whatever reason) its not an issue? Or is it?
Just because Billy did it doesn't make it right, right?

[RandFan]

I'm going to Sacramento and I'm going to clean house --The Terminator.

[subgenius]

What a buffoon.
He's not even a good actor. So getting rich because you're popular is a qualification?
Britney Spears for President.

[subgenius]

"Among those caught off-guard by the announcement was his close friend and another potential candidate, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. One of Riordan's closest advisers said the mayor thought he had an understanding that Schwarzenegger would withdraw from the race, easing Riordan's way in.

"So this is what it feels like to be mugged," the adviser said.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7252165p-8178840c.html

[subgenius]

Oh yes, he's a business man.
I just remembered Planet Hollywood and all his creditors who got stiffed when it declared bankruptcy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
What a buffoon.
He's not even a good actor. So getting rich because you're popular is a qualification?
Britney Spears for President. When he came to America he had no money. He wanted to be an actor he was told he COULDN'T make it. His name was too difficult to pronounce, his accent was too thick, etc., etc. He believed he could do it. He worked very hard and didn't quit just because people told him over and over that he would never be successful as an actor. You respond by calling him a buffoon????? Maybe he isn't a great actor but he isn't a buffoon. A number of Kennedy's have professed their admiration about his commitment to children's issues and that he is honest and sincere in charities.

It must be good to be you sitting in your ivory tower casting aspersions on those you dislike.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Oh yes, he's a business man.
I just remembered Planet Hollywood and all his creditors who got stiffed when it declared bankruptcy. Hey, I'll bet a steak dinner that he will do one hell of a lot better job than that real buffoon Davis has done.

I have experience you can't buy --Gray Davis.

Well the experience that Californians have had since grey-out has been governor had has caused us 38 Billion dollars of debt. That is spelled with a "B".

Quite frankly I think we deserve a refund. His head bowed in shame come November will suffice though.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
When he came to America he had no money. He wanted to be an actor he was told he COULDN'T make it. His name was too difficult to pronounce, his accent was too thick, etc., etc. He believed he could do it. He worked very hard and didn't quit just because people told him over and over that he would never be successful as an actor. You respond by calling him a buffoon????? Maybe he isn't a great actor but he isn't a buffoon. A number of Kennedy's have professed their admiration about his commitment to children's issues and that he is honest and sincere in charities.

It must be good to be you sitting in your ivory tower casting aspersions on those you dislike.
I don't dislike the man and he's good to children.
Just being skeptical about his actual qualifications to be governor, rather than his Q rating.
Lots of poor folk have come to this great country and struck it rich. That's not enough qualifications for me, but hey its your state.
Sitting here in my hell hole trying to envision it an ivory tower.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey, I'll bet a steak dinner that he will do one hell of a lot better job than that real buffoon Davis has done.

I have experience you can't buy --Gray Davis.

Well the experience that Californians have had since grey-out has been governor had has caused us 38 Billion dollars of debt. That is spelled with a "B".

Quite frankly I think we deserve a refund. His head bowed in shame come November will suffice though.
Well, what about his business acumen?

Well, I guess the people will get the government they deserve, just as they did the last time. This time it will be picked by far fewer people and that should be of some (however small) concern to all, even those who support this recall.

[subgenius]

“WHEN I first got to know him, his politics were to the right of Genghis Khan,” said Butler, whose 1977 documentary “Pumping Iron” launched Arnold Schwarzenegger’s long, lucrative celebrity career.
....
Even some of the film star’s friends say they are not sure where he stands on the kind of divisive political issues that regularly rock California — not just taxes and spending, but school vouchers and gay marriage, smog and sprawl, drug laws and water rights.
...
Many California voters, fed up with the crises that have swamped the state in the past few years, may not care.
....
He is a Republican who loathed the GOP’s campaign to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, telling George magazine in 1999 that he would “never forgive” his party for that. “We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure,” he told the magazine. “I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.”
...
Danny Fernandez, who founded the Los Angeles chapter, said that Schwarzenegger’s work for the group has in some ways changed his views on the poor.
“When Arnold first got involved, it was mostly just about him writing checks or stopping by for a few handshakes,” Fernandez said. “It took him a while to understand that people also need hope, not just money, that when TV cameras leave with him, the kids go back to misery, and that he had to get more into the action. It’s helped that he has a strong Democratic wife pushing him in that direction.”
Schwarzenegger also has been a major financial contributor to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a prominent Jewish institution in Los Angeles. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, which promotes human rights, said that his relationship with the film star began with an unusual phone call more than a decade ago.
“It came from out of the blue,” Hier said. “He wanted to know if we could research his father’s background. We did, and we showed him that his father had been a member of the Nazi party. Since then, Arnold has taken great interest in what we do. And it has definitely had an impact on him.”
http://www.msnbc.com/news/949832.asp?0cv=CA00

Would rather vote on specifics than vague generalities. What I've read, I've liked, but still think there's something to be said for qualifications.

[subgenius]

"He’s a lot smarter than Ronald Reagan...."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/949832.asp?0cv=CA00

That's scary in at least two ways.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Just being skeptical about his actual qualifications to be governor, rather than his Q rating.
Lots of poor folk have come to this great country and struck it rich. That's not enough qualifications for me, but hey its your state.

These are the only relevent qualifications:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 2. The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election. The Governor may not hold other public office. No Governor may serve more than 2 terms.

[Troll]

Originally posted by bonster


I understand the point you are making here, but I can't let the math slip by without comment.

If 11, not 101, people run and one gets 10%, and the vote is split evenly amonng the other 10 people, so that each gets 9%, then the candidate with 10% wins.

Using your numbers, the total of all the votes adds up to 919%!

Edited to add: The winner would still not have a majority, but a plurality. 10% can be enough to win, but it will never be a majority.

You are right about my numbers. I was re-doing the math in my head while grocery shopping. Using my nimbers it would have been .909% for the remaining. I should never do math unless completely sober. I probably shouldn't argue or defend my math unless I am sober as well.:D

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

Well, what about his business acumen?

Well, I guess the people will get the government they deserve, just as they did the last time. This time it will be picked by far fewer people and that should be of some (however small) concern to all, even those who support this recall.

How will it be picked by far fewer people? Are predicting an increase in voter apathy. Are you refering to the number of candidates that the voters will divide on?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well, I guess the people will get the government they deserve, just as they did the last time. What did we do to deserve Davis? If more people had showed up to the polls how would that have changed anything?

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

I don't dislike the man and he's good to children.
Just being skeptical about his actual qualifications to be governor, rather than his Q rating.
Lots of poor folk have come to this great country and struck it rich. That's not enough qualifications for me, but hey its your state.
Sitting here in my hell hole trying to envision it an ivory tower.

I am curious, what are the qualifications that you think are necessary to be Governor? Being a citizen is not enough?

[Valley_girl]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I'm going to vote for Arnold. I don't think anyone else could pull the state together right now, there are so many divided factions. Arnold's celebrity status and influence thereof will allow him to pull the state legislature together as more of a team and less of a bi-partisan squabble.

What, pray tell, makes him qualified to "pull the state together"? California is in serious economic trouble, they need serious, experienced leadership. I have nothing against Arnold, per se, but that is something he does not have. At least not on the political stage. Marrying someone from a political family does not equal political experience. Honestly, the extent of celebrity worship in this country has gotten way out of hand.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Valley_girl


What, pray tell, makes him qualified to "pull the state together"? California is in serious economic trouble, they need serious, experienced leadership. I have nothing against Arnold, per se, but that is something he does not have. At least not on the political stage. Marrying someone from a political family does not equal political experience. Honestly, the extent of celebrity worship in this country has gotten way out of hand.

Arnold has been involved in politics for some time now and no one doubts his ability to remedy the problem at hand. Also, I don't see how dismissing him simply because he is a celebrity makes your position any better than someone who would vote for him simply because he is a celebrity.

P.S. At the very least he certainly can't do any worse than Davis...I doubt anyone can.

[Valley_girl]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Arnold has been involved in politics for some time now and no one doubts his ability to remedy the problem at hand. Also, I don't see how dismissing him simply because he is a celebrity makes your position any better than someone who would vote for him simply because he is a celebrity.

P.S. At the very least he certainly can't do any worse than Davis...I doubt anyone can.

I respectfully disagree with your statement "no one doubts his ability to remedy the problem at hand". I do. I doubt it. Me. :D

I am open-minded about it, though. If he will stop using catch-phrases from his movies to answer legitimate questions and actually start laying out his game plan, I would be a lot more likely to think he is capable of the job. Going to be an interesting couple of months...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


These are the only relevent qualifications:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 2. The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election. The Governor may not hold other public office. No Governor may serve more than 2 terms.
Oh come on, I'm talking about the qualifications that would make you vote for someone, not the "minimum daily requirements."
I know you don't vote for someone just because they met the threshhold.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ed


I am curious, what are the qualifications that you think are necessary to be Governor? Being a citizen is not enough?
You are kidding, right?
No, being a citizen is not enough to vote for someone.
You don't vote for someone just because they're a citizen do you?
See above.
In addition to being legally "qualified" for the office, I like intelligence, honesty, experience, wisdom, independence, leadership, courage, statesmanship, you know, the usual stuff.

[Clancie]

Posted by subgenius

What a buffoon.
Agree, 100%. Yes, he's done amazingly well turning body building into international stardom and becoming a wealthy businessman in the process.

But as a politician, he's a buffoon. I was embarrassed for him on Leno's show, quoting all those movie lines to support his candidacy. If he wants people to take him seriously, he certainly didn't give any reason to do so. He showed no grasp of California's problems whatsoever

And, OT, but Anne Coulter on Larry King Live last night was another embarrassment. Attributing all California's economic problems to the state pension plans under Davis!!!! Not a peep about the Bush/Cheney energy company cronies who continually gouged California on electricity costs during the so-called "shortage"!

Anne Coulter....How dishonest!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
What did we do to deserve Davis? If more people had showed up to the polls how would that have changed anything?
My statement is an old saying.
If the people don't get the government they deserve when its elected by a majority (and I know it wasn't a majority of all the potential voters), how's it gonna be better when its a mere plurality of far fewer people?

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

You are kidding, right?
No, being a citizen is not enough to vote for someone.
You don't vote for someone just because they're a citizen do you?
See above.
In addition to being legally "qualified" for the office, I like intelligence, honesty, experience, wisdom, independence, leadership, courage, statesmanship, you know, the usual stuff.

OK, I buy leadership, courage, snd so on but tell me about experience.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Oh come on, I'm talking about the qualifications that would make you vote for someone, not the "minimum daily requirements."
I know you don't vote for someone just because they met the threshhold.

Just trying to be clear...

I was addressing the legitimacy of his entering the race.

You are of course correct when you say that many other criteria must and should be consulted when choosing a candidate.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ed


OK, I buy leadership, courage, snd so on but tell me about experience.
Been around the block. The block on which you'll be playing.
I'm sure you have your own definition. Use that.

[subgenius]

"At the very least he certainly can't do any worse than Davis...."
A sad day when this is a reason to vote for someone.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
"At the very least he certainly can't do any worse than Davis...."
A sad day when this is a reason to vote for someone.

Maybe if it's a sole reason, but I specificly said "at the very least."

[subgenius]

"a"

[subgenius]

"I'm a usurper, not a decider."

Actor offers no specifics
on plans to improve ailing California economy
.....
offered no specifics on his plan to “overhaul the economic engine” and stumbled when asked about one of the hottest topics among California business leaders — the state’s paid-family-leave law.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?vts=080820031205

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
"I'm a usurper, not a decider."

Actor offers no specifics
on plans to improve ailing California economy
.....
offered no specifics on his plan to “overhaul the economic engine” and stumbled when asked about one of the hottest topics among California business leaders — the state’s paid-family-leave law.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?vts=080820031205

I would have to hear an interview with him to decide what he offers and what he does not. That link provides virtually no information about the interview unless it was 30 seconds long.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Kodiak
And for what seems like the millionth time...The winner isn't determined by a majority of the popular vote, but by winning the necessary number of electoral votes.

Am I right in recalling that a state run by the brother of a presidential candidate was crucial in determing the number of electoral votes for that presidential candidate in a bizarre counting process officiated over by a major player in the presidential candidate's election team and that some potentially crucial votes were not counted on the decision of judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father?

I wonder what citizens of the USA would call that if it happened in a third world country somewhere in the Middle East with lots of oil?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I would have to hear an interview with him to decide what he offers and what he does not.
Good.
An interview and maybe even an independent review of his life.
But there won't be time for that will there?
For him, or the other 300 candidates.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

Good.
An interview and maybe even an independent review of his life.
But there won't be time for that will there?
For him, or the other 300 candidates.


There's plenty of time between now and the election for him and others to explain how they will fix the budget and why they deserve my vote.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius

My statement is an old saying.
If the people don't get the government they deserve when its elected by a majority (and I know it wasn't a majority of all the potential voters), how's it gonna be better when its a mere plurality of far fewer people? It doesn't answer my question.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
It doesn't answer my question.
Its an old saying that I don't necessarily agree with.
But if you didn't like the results of a full election, how many people aren't gonna like a person who gets only the most votes out of 200?
See the point?

[subgenius]

File this under "Watch what you ask for, you might get it."

Potential for Arnold to cause a big split (maybe that's a good thing) in the R party.

Rush certainly doesn't like him:

"He has told the press he is 'very liberal' about social programs, supports abortion and homosexual adoption, and advocates 'sensible gun controls.' His entree into politics last year was a proposition Democrats endorsed because it raised state spending for what amounted to state babysitting - before-school and after-school programs that cost the state up to $455 million a year. He has complained openly about the party's conservatism.... Talk magazine described him as 'impatient' with the religious right....
[H]e expressed disgust with the Republicans who impeached Clinton. 'That was another thing I will never forgive the Republican Party for,' he said. 'We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure. I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.'"

Does this sound like "the Next Reagan," as some people are calling Arnold? Hardly. This guy may be the next actor elected governor of California, but that's where the similarity between him and Ronaldus Magnus end.
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080703/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius

Its an old saying that I don't necessarily agree with.
But if you didn't like the results of a full election, how many people aren't gonna like a person who gets only the most votes out of 200?
See the point? No, not at all.

We are not mad that not enough people voted. I don't know where you are getting that idea.

We are pissed that the only choice we had was pathetic weasely Democrat and an idiot Republican.

The fact is we didn't have a choice. Davis spent 11 million during the primaries to defet Richard Rirdon. A Republican. Why do you suppose Davis a Democrat would do that? To take away our choice.

Now we have a choice. Why would anyone be upset with that? We can at least say, "hey we had a real choice."

You still did not answer my question. How does the number of people affect my satisfaction with the performance of an elected leader?

We had a full election and we got bubkis. In fact we got worse than bubkis because the Governor had the power to lie to us by playing games with the budget. Now we know the truth. Now we can vote based on the truth.

If people don't vote that is there problem. Could you please explain how if more people had voted things would have been different?

[subgenius]

"Could you please explain how if more people had voted things would have been different?"

I didn't say that, and I fear I'm at a loss as to how to make my point any better.

[subgenius]

"California Democratic Party Spokesman Bob Mulholland this weekend warned Arnold Schwarzenegger that "real bullets" will be coming his way during his campaign to be governor!

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS."
http://drudgereport.com/as1.htm

The choice of words is unfortunate and wrong and will come back to haunt him/them. He needs to profusely apologize if not resign.
He may have blunted any effect of any negative information that may come out about Mr. S.
The choice of words, let me repeat, was totally unacceptable.
(edited to correct an unforgivable grammatical error)

[subgenius]

But on an unrelated topic (slight hijack, maybe a seperate thread topic) I have been concerned for a while about Maria Shriver's health....she looks positively anorexic.....I sincerely hope she's not suffering from a serious illness.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
"California Democratic Party Spokesman Bob Mulholland this weekend warned Arnold Schwarzenegger that "real bullets" will be coming his way during his campaign to be governor!

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS."
http://drudgereport.com/as1.htm

The choice of words is unfortunate and wrong and will come back to haunt him/them. He needs to profusely apologize if not resign.
He may have blunted any effect of any negative information that may come out about Mr. S.
The choice of words, let me repeat, were totally unacceptable. I agree sub,

Mulholland is known for this tripe. I doubt very much that he has a conscience so I doubt he will be apologizing soon.

He is not the first and won't be the last. Sadly there are both Democrats and Republicans that think it is justifiable to act in such a way.

BTW, if Arnold truly sexually harasses women as a mater of course then I would not vote for him. Adultery would not change my opinion but harassment would.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I agree sub,

Mulholland is known for this tripe. I doubt very much that he has a conscience so I doubt he will be apologizing soon.

He is not the first and won't be the last. Sadly there are both Democrats and Republicans that think it is justifiable to act in such a way.

BTW, if Arnold truly sexually harasses women as a mater of course then I would not vote for him. Adultery would not change my opinion but harassment would.
Believe me (now and think about it later) I love it when we all find what we agree on, rather than supposed disagreements.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Am I right in recalling that a state run by the brother of a presidential candidate was crucial in determing the number of electoral votes for that presidential candidate in a bizarre counting process officiated over by a major player in the presidential candidate's election team and that some potentially crucial votes were not counted on the decision of judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father?

I wonder what citizens of the USA would call that if it happened in a third world country somewhere in the Middle East with lots of oil?

"...a bizarre counting process.." You mean the one used by more than a dozen other states?

"...some potentially crucial votes were not counted..." You mean like the hundreds of overseas military absentee votes that were invalidated because of a postal service screw-up which incorrectly post-marked the ballots as being one day late?


Hmmm...

[Larspeart]

Here is a question to all of our Europeans out there on the issue of 'popular vote' as it pertains to a democracy, since some of the people here have a hard time with some one with less then 50% winning an election.

Now, while us Yanks 'techincally' have a multi-party system, in reality, we still (unfortunately) only have 2. Most other countries have several, from 6 to sky's the limit, right?

So, bearing the multiple parties you guys have, and not counting 'alliances', when was the last time you got any TRUE majorities, and are you THAT confuses as to the mechanics when someone with 41% wins?

Essentially, I am (grudgingly) asking our European posters here to help me explain BASIC political science to my fellow (and some are frighteningly dimwitted) american mates.

:(

[subgenius]

According to available voting records, Schwarzenegger voted in only six of the last 13 state-wide elections, missing controversial ballot initiatives on the minimum-wage increase in 1996 and bilingual education in 1998. During the 1996, 1998 and 2000 primary and general elections, he apparently voted only once (in the 1998 general). So there is no record available of his voting in the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Arnold’s team produced evidence that he was issued an absentee ballot that year, but it is unclear whether he cast it.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/950553.asp

I know. "So what, blah, blah, blah."

[Zep]

Originally posted by Larspeart
"Compulsory voting"???

Um, doesn't that sort of go against the whole 'freedom' thing? Wouldn't MAKING someone vote violate their right to choose to vote?

Not where I come from. It's considered a "civic responsibility" of adulthood in this country, so we take this sort of thing seriously instead.

Idiot.

Sorry, wrong. My IQ is 132.

It is the dumb people who don't vote, and frankly, I am glad they don't. If all the stupid non-voters actually bothered to go and vote, we might start to see politicians get even WORSE! :eek:

Given your definition of "idiot" above, I would wonder how many people would be left who would be eligible to cast a vote at all. And it also seems that you would be in favour of making this distinction of voting eligibility based on an arbitrary intelligence quota a formal process, on the basis that the less intelligent make "stupid" voting decisions. Care to comment?


Oh, and sorry, but I had to correct your punctuation, spelling and grammar. 3/10 - see the headmaster after class.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yet Dubya got more votes than Clinton. And the same # showed up to vote for/against Gore and Dukakis. Why mention Dubya and Regean. The "winner" is not the issue here. The fact that only about 25% of the US population actually voted for the winner is the issue - I fail to see how it can be called a "popular" vote. The reality is that 75% of the US population either voted against the winner or just didn't care. So how is the winner "popular"?

I did ask on another thread, BTW, how low a turnout is required before such an election is considered pointless and unsustainable. For example, taken to an extreme, what if just three people in the whole USA voted and a winner was declared by 2 votes to 1. Would the remaining 249,999,997 people accept this as a reasonable election? If not, what IS the "cutoff point"?

My argument is that you should try to achieve a "popular" vote for national positions (at least) by polling the ENTIRE population, as much as reasonably possible. This IS done in other countries, Australia being just one example, by means of compulsory voting for adults.

[a_unique_person]

According to this article, Arnold wasn't even supposed to announce he was running, he was supposed to be announcing he wouldn't be running. Looks like his minders didn't keep him close enough on the leash. I would guess the republicans who were meant to run won't be very happy with him.



The Time-CNN poll indicated that voters were ready, by a 54 to 35 per cent margin, to dump Gray Davis, the state's Democratic Governor, for the Terminator star. Schwarzenegger polled 25 per cent, 10 per cent ahead of his nearest rival. But there was anxiety at news, bound to be leapt on by the no-holds-barred Mr Davis, that Schwarzenegger had not told his top political adviser, George Gorton, he would run before he announced his candidature on television's Tonight Show.

It seems to have been a quixotic decision because Mr Gorton was standing in the wings on the set holding an official statement that began: "I am not running for governor."

According to Time, when Mr Gorton offered a word of regret over the campaign that was not to be, the former Mr Universe threw a muscular arm around his shoulder and said: "Let's go do it."

It took until after the commercial break for the campaign manager, a veteran Republican operator in Los Angeles, to establish that the actor was not joking.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588319645.html

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by Zep
The "winner" is not the issue here. The fact that only about 25% of the US population actually voted for the winner is the issue - I fail to see how it can be called a "popular" vote. Looking back at the posts I can't see how the "winner" is an issue for either of us. ??? I'm confused. I was wondering why you picked Bush and Reagan to point out that they got less than 50% of the vote. Why not Bush and Clinton?

The reality is that 75% of the US population either voted against the winner or just didn't care. So how is the winner "popular"? I think sub's point comes into play here. We get what we deserve?

We are the worlds singular economic and political superpower. We have had no coups and a very stable dollar and political system. This is not to say that things are perfect but things are working.

I'm not sure what compulsary voting would truly accomplish.

I did ask on another thread, BTW, how low a turnout is required before such an election is considered pointless and unsustainable. "A government of the people, by the people and for the people." If the people don't care enough to vote then they get what they deserve. Again, sub is right, at least to a degree.

For example, taken to an extreme, what if just three people in the whole USA voted and a winner was declared by 2 votes to 1. Would the remaining 249,999,997 people accept this as a reasonable election? If not, what IS the "cutoff point"? I think power and influence being what it is that such a scenario is all but impossible.

As to the "cutoff point"? There are scientific levels of statistical probability and we exceed it during every election. This isn't to say that had everyone voted that the results would have been the same but it is to say that had registered voters participated in greater numbers they results would have likely been the same.

My argument is that you should try to achieve a "popular" vote for national positions (at least) by polling the ENTIRE population, as much as reasonably possible. I used to be fanatically in support of everyone voting.

Could you explain why it is so important to you?

This IS done in other countries, Australia being just one example, by means of compulsory voting for adults. I would be opposed to compulsory voting for the United States. I can't think of any rational to suppose that compulsory voting would improve society.

Decisions should be made by those who care not those who are forced. IMO.

Ooops. This post brought to you by RandFan

[subgenius]

"This is not to say that things are perfect but things are working."

Entropy: things fall apart.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Looking back at the posts I can't see how the "winner" is an issue for either of us. ??? I'm confused. I was wondering why you picked Bush and Reagan to point out that they got less than 50% of the vote. Why not Bush and Clinton?

Because I paid attention when Reagan and Bush Jnr were elected, but not at other times. I was interested because their domestic and foreign election policies affected my country profoundly.

I think sub's point comes into play here. We get what we deserve?

No, you are getting what you are not bothered about, which I don't think is the true situation.

We are the worlds singular economic and political superpower. We have had no coups and a very stable dollar and political system. This is not to say that things are perfect but things are working.

When the elephant dances, the ants have to move quickly or be crushed. I'm one of the ants!

I'm not sure what compulsary voting would truly accomplish.

A more genuine reflection of the people's will, perhaps? There just seems to be so much discussion and dissent about US presidents and politicians AFTER they are elected by people who didn't turn out to vote.

"A government of the people, by the people and for the people." If the people don't care enough to vote then they get what they deserve. Again, sub is right, at least to a degree.

The sentiment is outstanding, but the execution doesn't seem to match it, especially the "BY the people" bit in this case.

I think power and influence being what it is that such a scenario is all but impossible.

Sadly, I have to agree.

As to the "cutoff point"? There are scientific levels of statistical probability and we exceed it during every election. This isn't to say that had everyone voted that the results would have been the same but it is to say that had registered voters participated in greater numbers they results would have likely been the same.

It would be interesting to see what the popularity polls would have been within 3 months of an election, extrapolated for a full turn-out.

I used to be fanatically in support of everyone voting.

Could you explain why it is so important to you?

As I said above, US politics has a profound global effect, and some of what comes out of the mouths of some US politicians I find inane and despicable because it affects my country and me negatively.

I would be opposed to compulsory voting for the United States. I can't think of any rational to suppose that compulsory voting would improve society.

...BY THE PEOPLE... Not just "by a few party hacks and some others who had nothing better to do on the day and could be bothered voting..."

Decisions should be made by those who care not those who are forced. IMO.

As I originally posed: What if no-one cared? Dammit, *I* care! Why can't I vote too?! ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

I know. "So what, blah, blah, blah."

Well, at least you realized it this time without us having to tell you.

You're showing much improvement. :clap:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zep
My argument is that you should try to achieve a "popular" vote for national positions (at least) by polling the ENTIRE population, as much as reasonably possible. This IS done in other countries, Australia being just one example, by means of compulsory voting for adults.

Well, since you live in Australia, you should be very happy.

BY the way, Americans don't do things just because they are done in other countries. We consider compulsory voting an unacceptable infringement on our freedom.

Those who want to vote, can. 'Nuff said?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Other candidates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3144333.stm)
:D

what a carnival

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


We consider compulsory voting an unacceptable infringement on our freedom.



What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?
"We" consider the lack of it, and other restrictions on the free exercise of the right to vote, evidence of contempt for democracy by those who benefit from the lack of participation by the people.

[Zep]

Originally posted by subgenius
What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?
"We" consider the lack of it, and other restrictions on the free exercise of the right to vote, evidence of contempt for democracy by those who benefit from the lack of participation by the people. Succinctly but pungently put!

[CWL]

Originally posted by Zep
Succinctly but pungently put!

Now, there's something I would just love to hear Arnold pronounce.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Kodiak
You mean the one used by more than a dozen other states?

I mean the one where Governer Jeb Bush (a Presidential candidates brother and governor of the state of Florida) vetoed money for voter education, where '... African-American and Haitian-American voters in Florida were confronted with a multitude of non-uniform election practices that impeded their exercise of the franchise or disenfranchised them.' from http://www.aclufl.org/body_overview1-01.html, where the chairwoman of the US Commission of Civil Rights said '"I thought Katherine Harris' role was laughable," Berry said. "I thought it was laughable, laughable. Ha ha ha." ' from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/12/politics/main263685.shtml. Where the person in charge of the deeply flawed electoral process, apart from being the Secretary of State for Florida at the time of the election was also co-chair of the state campaign for the election of the governor of the state's brother.

That was the election where the Bush campaign paid for a number of people who rioted to stop a vote recount in Miami (the Brook Brothers Riot). See http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html THe site also points out a link between Enron and the Bush campaign
when it stated
'The documents show that the Bush organization put on the payroll about 250 staffers, spent about $1.2 million to fly operatives to Florida and elsewhere, and paid for hotel bills adding up to about $1 million. To add flexibility to the travel arrangements, a fleet of corporate jets was assembled, including planes owned by Enron Corp., then run by Bush backer Kenneth Lay, and Halliburton Co., where Dick Cheney had served as chairman and chief executive officer.

Only a handful of the Brooks Brothers rioters were publicly identified, some through photographs published in the Washington Post. Jake Tapper’s book on the recount battle, Down and Dirty, provides a list of 12 Republican operatives who took part in the Miami riot. Half of those individuals received payments from the Bush recount committee, according to the IRS records.'

You mean like the hundreds of overseas military absentee votes that were invalidated because of a postal service screw-up which incorrectly post-marked the ballots as being one day late?
THat's the dodgy election I mean. The one where, according to CNN http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/fla.civilrights.vote/ 'The commission says the officials were "grossly derelict" in conducting the election.' This was the US Commission on Civil Rights. The above site also points out that the Commission considered that '...African-American voters were 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected.' and that ' African-Americans were more likely to have been erroneously removed from voter registration rolls than Hispanic or white voters...'

The whole world can recognise dodgy election practices and conflicts of interest, whether they are in third world countries or Florida.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius


What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?
"We" consider the lack of it, and other restrictions on the free exercise of the right to vote, evidence of contempt for democracy by those who benefit from the lack of participation by the people.

"We" as in America as reflected by our Congressmen, our Constitution, and our body of laws.

If "we", as a country felt otherwise, a law or amendment would have been written or ratified.

Go ahead, sungenius. Run it up the mast and see if anyone salutes it.


Secondly, how can the lack of compulsory voting be considered a restriction of a right??? :confused:

Sorry, subgenius, but it isn't a "freedom" if its forced or coerced...

[subgenius]

Delete "and other."

Disagree with your "would have".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Disagree with your "would have".

That's why I told you to try running it up the mast...

Again, how can the lack of compulsory voting be considered a restriction of a right??? :confused:

Sorry, subgenius, but it isn't a "freedom" if its forced or coerced...

[subgenius]

Should have said to delete "other."
We have a difference of opinion.
Do you think increasing voter turnout is a good thing otherwise?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Do you think increasing voter turnout is a good thing otherwise?

I am all for increased voter turnout if those voting are knowledgable about our system of government and the candidates that are running.

I'm not for ignorant or apathetic voters, or using municipal vehicles to pick up homeless people like Coleman Young did in Detroit one year in a mayoral race.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I am all for increased voter turnout if those voting are knowledgable about our system of government and the candidates that are running.

I'm not for ignorant or apathetic voters, or using municipal vehicles to pick up homeless people like Coleman Young did in Detroit one year in a mayoral race.
I knew we agreed about some things.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan Jnr
We have had no coups and a very stable dollar and political system.

The asassination of Kennedy?
The Wall Street Crash? The site http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm concludes that 'To reverse the trade deficit, it will be necessary for the dollar to decline substantially against other major currencies.'

THe sub-third world elections where a presidential candidate's brother was governor of a crucial state where many people were disenfranchised at the expense of another presidential candidate, where the official responsible for the election process was Co-Chair of the presidential candidate's state election capaign, where the brother of the presidential candidate vetoed a voter education programme, where Supreme Court judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father stymied the counting of votes and where some of the 'Brooks Brothers' rioters who stopped the vote counting in Miami were paid for by the Presidential candidate's election team which was mobilised on jets from Enron (a major disgraced company) and Halliburton (at one time headed by the vice-presidential candidate), which was then 'awarded' contracts in a dodgy process after a war was started in Iraq by the then elected self-same Presidential candidate to the benefit of some of the corporate funders of the Republican Party?

You just cannot make this stuff up.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You just cannot make this stuff up. True, which is why I would take strong issue with your insinuation that President Kennedy was assassinated as part of a coup.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The asassination of Kennedy?
The Wall Street Crash? The site http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm concludes that 'To reverse the trade deficit, it will be necessary for the dollar to decline substantially against other major currencies.' Oh come on E.J., as serious as the wall street crash was it was relatively short lived and unemployment never rose as high as many nations unemployment rates and these nations have experienced these rates for decades.

I never said that we didn't have ups and downs I said we were a stable nation without any coups. The assasination of Kennedy? You think that is a coup? Did the military take over after his assasination? Did the government change?

Again, come on, such examples only prove that our system of government and economics and security are not perfect. No one has argued otherwise.

What is truly amazing is that the transition of government worked precisely as our founding fathers invisioned. Johnson was sworn in the day Kennedy was assasinated. The framers did not have the naivete to suppose that assasinations were imposible so the put in place a plan to deal with such posibilites. Kennedy's deat was tragic but the fact the government continued without interuption testifies to the strenght of our political system. Markets didn't crash, there was no capital flight, people were not sudenly worried that they would be rounded up and killed.

No E.J. the Kennedy assasintion works against you and demonstrated quite well the stability of our governemtn.

THe sub-third world elections where a presidential candidate's brother was governor of a crucial state where many people were disenfranchised at the expense of another presidential candidate, where the official responsible for the election process was Co-Chair of the presidential candidate's state election capaign, where the brother of the presidential candidate vetoed a voter education programme, where Supreme Court judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father stymied the counting of votes and where some of the 'Brooks Brothers' rioters who stopped the vote counting in Miami were paid for by the Presidential candidate's election team which was mobilised on jets from Enron (a major disgraced company) and Halliburton (at one time headed by the vice-presidential candidate), which was then 'awarded' contracts in a dodgy process after a war was started in Iraq by the then elected self-same Presidential candidate to the benefit of some of the corporate funders of the Republican Party? Of course you leave out the fact that the people in charge of the disctricts so disinfranchised were Democrats. There is a lot more but this is such an old worn out subject. It speaks volumes to your feelings but nothing to the stability of our government. It's arguable that Gore won the election. Then again it is equaly or more arguable that Bush won. We have done this to death. If you want to rehash it one more time I supose we can. If this is your intention let me know and I will go back and find all of the relevant threads so that we can have a foundation to work from.

Fact: The Florida election was a scientific statistical tie. There really was NO winner.

Fact: The election caused very little disruption in markets or government.

The system worked. Not the way you wanted it to work but it worked. So, go on, drone on and on with your anecdotes and igonre the facts that our nation IS a government of the people by the people and for the people. We have our share of problems but it really works rather well.

You just cannot make this stuff up. But you can spin it by leaving out important information, and in a way that is like making it up. The most convincing propoganda is not "made up". It combines facts with innuendo, rumor and speculation to distort. Your missive is a good example.

Thanks,

RandFan.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Regnad Kcin
True, which is why I would take strong issue with your insinuation that President Kennedy was assassinated as part of a coup.

If it was not a coup then the question becomes what was it?

Does anyone still believe in the Warren Commission report anymore and the magic bullet theory? I understand that the magic bullet theory had been comprehensively demolished and if it has then there was more than one person involved in the assassination - as much independent evidence suggests. The question then becomes who benefited from the plot, who paid for the plot, why was a mafia aparachik involved and why would he want to assassinate the killer of a man he had no reason to like, how did he in turn develop fast acting cancer plus many other pertinent questions.

The Zabruder film can be interpreted a number of ways and I am not convinced that a bullet came from the front right side of the President. However there are many other lines of evidence suggesting a plot a a high level involving many people which raise many questions such as who the clean tramps were, why the car took that route at that speed, why was there smoke at the grassy knoll where people had been warned off by officials, who was in charge at the autopsy, what happened to crucial medical evidence such as the president's brain tissue, why was investigation of another bullet in the President's body stymied etc.

Glad to have an up to date view from a citizen about what happened and why it happened.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan or RandFan Jr - who knows
Oh come on E.J., as serious as the wall street crash was it was relatively short lived and unemployment never rose as high as many nations unemployment rates and these nations have experienced these rates for decades.

I wondered which fish would rise to that particular bait. Oh come on RandFan or oh come on RandFan Jr. I think you should make up your mind who you are otherwise some might get the idea they are dealing with a split personality.

Well at least we agree that the American economy nosedived for a while. The antics of Enron and Worldcom show that you cannot put all your trust in such enterprises. Perhaps the people who lost all their life savings in those disasters are the ones to ask if the economy is stable.
The assasination of Kennedy? You think that is a coup? Did the military take over after his assasination? Did the government change? Come on then RandFAn or Randafn Jr whoever you really are tell me what you think happened and if you agree with the magic bullet theory. If the magic bullet was not in fact magic (a preoccupation of a certain James Randi I believe) then there was more than one assassin. If there was more than one assassin who were they. Who funded them etc? Did the government change? Yes the government did change from the policies being followed by Kennedy. LBJ reversed several policies within 4 days of the assassination. He also escalated the Vietnam Conflict. Again, come on, such examples only prove that our system of government and economics and security are not perfect. No one has argued otherwise No they are not perfect RandFan or RandFan Jr whoever you are. What is truly amazing is that the transition of government worked precisely as our founding fathers invisioned. Johnson was sworn in the day Kennedy was assasinated. The framers did not have the naivete to suppose that assasinations were imposible so the put in place a plan to deal with such posibilites. Kennedy's deat was tragic but the fact the government continued without interuption testifies to the strenght of our political system. Markets didn't crash, there was no capital flight, people were not sudenly worried that they would be rounded up and killed.

No E.J. the Kennedy assasintion works against you and demonstrated quite well the stability of our governemtn. I'm afraid that the two of you are going to have to work a bit harder than that to substantiate your point. What happened to Kennedy? Was it a single man who fired faster than human nature allows who killed him or more than one man? Was there a magic bullet that did more than any other bullet in the history of the known universe while being left in a pristine condition apart perhaps from something Arnie used before he arrived on a previous earth in Terminator I, 2, Gazillion. Perhaps that small time crook Jack Ruby really was engulfed with anger at the murder of a man he had no reason to like and maybe that is why he developed such a virulent cancer from being consumed by his hatred? It always surprises me how complacent many in the US apparently are over what hapened to Kennedy. What exactly do you believe happened than and why did it happen?Of course you leave out the fact that the people in charge of the disctricts so disinfranchised were Democrats. Are you claiming that the Democrats disenfranchised themselves? That is a really novel excuse even for you two or is it you three - who knows these days? Can I just ask you why they disenfranchised themselves? Did they not want Gore to win?There is a lot more but this is such an old worn out subject. Is it so hard to debate the truth?It speaks volumes to your feelings but nothing to the stability of our government. It's arguable that Gore won the election. Then again it is equaly or more arguable that Bush won. We have done this to death. Er it's not actually my feelings just the facts of the matter as a response to your claim or was it someone else's claim that you had a very stable ....political system. If what happened in Florida is a stable sytem please preserve the UK from stability. We can do without the equivalent of thousands of African Americans being labelled felons and denied a vote or our highest court being partly appointed by one of the candidate's father and voting agains counting votes. It was an epic farce of truly fourth or fifth world proportions.Fact: The Florida election was a scientific statistical tie. There really was NO winner. Fact. Thousands of African Americans were denied a vote. That might just have had a bearing on the result. After all you can only know the result if all the votes are properly made. Otherwise the result is unknown.Fact: The election caused very little disruption in markets or government. And what does this establish? That you don't have farces in your political system?The system worked. Wrong. The system was found to have failed in many aspects in Florida. The system returned a result but was the result correct? If you don't count all the votes properly you don't know and you didn't count all the votes properly.Not the way you wanted it to work but it worked. How do you know how I wanted it to work? All I actually want is for all the votes to be counted in any so-called democracy such as Zimbabwe or Iraq or Florida. Isn't that the way democratic electoral systems are supposed to work? Apparently that is no longer necessary in states run by a presidential candidate's brother where the election machinery is in the hands of the Co-Chair of the presidential candidate's state election campaign and when judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father rule out counting all the votes. So, go on, drone on and on with your anecdotes and igonre the facts that our nation IS a government of the people by the people and for the people. I am afraid that unless all the votes of the people ae counted then by definition it cannot be a goverment of the people, for the people by the people. I think that is surely clear to you by now whoever you are.

It is instead a government of the peple Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris did not disenfranchise and more particularly for the people that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris did not disenfranchise. Jeb Bush even had the cheek to veto a voter education programme. Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds of democracy.We have our share of problems but it really works rather well. It depends what you mean by rather and from where you are viewing the stuation. Exporting WOMD to murderous dictators in the full knowledge that they are murderous dictators who are terrorising their own people and who might use the WOMD on their innocent people doesn't immediately impact on your standard of living in the homeland. It does tend to affect innocent peple elsewhere and your 'rather well' might just be their daily terror.But you can spin it by leaving out important information, and in a way that is like making it up. The most convincing propoganda is not "made up". It combines facts with innuendo, rumor and speculation to distort. Your missive is a good example. Straight from the military manual. It appears that it is not possible to tell the truth about the USA even using the words of the US Commission on Civil Rights (who must also therefore be propagandists) without being branded a propagandist. When you can't face the truth the professional ostriches resort to calling it propaganda in the hope that the truth will somehow go away and die.

I am afraid that every society makes mistakes but unless it is possible to honestly discuss them then you are hiding your head in the sand and from here all I can see is two bums in the air.

[Larspeart]

Just to put in 2 cents on an earlier coment about Maria Shriver. . .

She has ALWAYS looked anorexic. That girl needs a hamburger, fast, but honestly, has never been a women of plump (or even average) build.

in other words, her size (or lack thereof) is not a recent development.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Just to put in 2 cents on an earlier coment about Maria Shriver. . .

She has ALWAYS looked anorexic. That girl needs a hamburger, fast, but honestly, has never been a women of plump (or even average) build.

in other words, her size (or lack thereof) is not a recent development.
Not recent, but I have noticed a marked difference in the last 2 years.
Hey at least we're somewhere near the thread topic.;)

Hint, hint.

[subgenius]

Compare this taken 10-01 with anything recent:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


I wondered which fish would rise to that particular bait. Oh come on RandFan or oh come on RandFan Jr. I think you should make up your mind who you are otherwise some might get the idea they are dealing with a split personality.


He's not crazy. He's just too lazy to dump the cookies from his son's session. :D

[Regnad Kcin]

E.J.Armstrong:

Re: the Kennedy assassination, your questions and assertions have been debated numerous times (even here on this forum, though a search doesn't give me the link). Indeed, much has been written in the four decades(!) since the event occurred, so much so that any attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff is a daunting prospect. In any event, I'll recommend Case Closed, by Gerald Posner. (Seek out the 2nd edition, in which the author briefly responds to the furor the original caused upon its release.)

While I applaud your skepticism, best to become a bit more familiar with a topic before raising it.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Re: the Kennedy assassination, your questions and assertions have been debated numerous times (even here on this forum, though a search doesn't give me the link). Indeed, much has been written in the four decades(!) since the event occurred, so much so that any attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff is a daunting prospect. In any event, I'll recommend Case Closed, by Gerald Posner. (Seek out the 2nd edition, in which the author briefly responds to the furor the original caused upon its release.)
As indicated in my post I am familiar with the literature and arguments relating to the Kennedy assassination. That is why I asked for your own opinion. I was interested in seeing how as an independent citizen outside of the published authors viewed the assassination. If you feel that Gerald Posner represents your view and you don't have an independent view that's fine by me. Can I just point out what this site http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/wrone/Review_of_Case_Closed.html from the University iof Wisconsin had to say about the matter of the book you quoted At the same time his book is so theory driven, so rife with speculation, and so frequently unable to conform his text with the factual content in his sources that it stands as one of the stellar instances of irresponsible publishing on the subject. It seems that his factual veracity is deeply in doubt and he invents a second magic bullet. Not a promising start.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Sundog
He's not crazy. He's just too lazy to dump the cookies from his son's session.
Thats a weight off my mind.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I wondered which fish would rise to that particular bait. Oh come on RandFan or oh come on RandFan Jr. I think you should make up your mind who you are otherwise some might get the idea they are dealing with a split personality. I don't have a password. I had my account disabled for awhile because I was spending too much time here. My son logged in and I could only respond under his nic.

My appologies.

Well at least we agree that the American economy nosedived for a while. The antics of Enron and Worldcom show that you cannot put all your trust in such enterprises. Perhaps the people who lost all their life savings in those disasters are the ones to ask if the economy is stable. How would such anecdotal instances prove whther we were stable or not?

I don't know of anyone who claims that capitalism is a perfect economic system. I support limited regulation and I hope that those individuals who broke the law go to jail.


Come on then RandFAn or Randafn Jr whoever you really are tell me what you think happened and if you agree with the magic bullet theory. If the magic bullet was not in fact magic (a preoccupation of a certain James Randi I believe) then there was more than one assassin. If there was more than one assassin who were they. Who funded them etc? I dont know. I have read quite a bit on the subject and while I have my ideas I am not an expert. It certainly is not germaine to the issue at hand.

Did the government change? Hold on there. I don't think you understand. Was there massive or even significant changes in markets, capital or policy?

NO! Why? Because our framers figured out away to get past such problems.

Yes the government did change from the policies being followed by Kennedy. LBJ reversed several policies within 4 days of the assassination. {sigh} So what? Did the value of the dollar fluctuate wildly as a result? Was there capital flight?

I'm not certain that you understand what is meant by "stability".

He also escalated the Vietnam Conflict. No they are not perfect... Again, can you show any real extrme effect to the nation as a whole, business, the dollar?

The Vietnam war was unfortunate. It should be noted that Kennedy also escalated the war several times.

I'm afraid that ... you are going to have to work a bit harder than that to substantiate your point. Nothing more to substantiate.

1.) The House and Senate did not change

2.) The state governments did not change.

3.) Federal and state courts did not change.

4.) The police, national guard, army, comand and leadership did not change.

It is demonstrable that the United States was stable throughout the transistion. You can believe the opposite if you like but it is silly.

What happened to Kennedy? Was it a single man who fired faster than human nature allows who killed him or more than one man? Was there a magic bullet that did more than any other bullet in the history of the known universe while being left in a pristine condition apart perhaps from something Arnie used before he arrived on a previous earth in Terminator I, 2, Gazillion. Perhaps that small time crook Jack Ruby really was engulfed with anger at the murder of a man he had no reason to like and maybe that is why he developed such a virulent cancer from being consumed by his hatred? It always surprises me how complacent many in the US apparently are over what hapened to Kennedy. What exactly do you believe happened than and why did it happen? My beliefs won't change the fact that the assasination while tragic and horibly wrong and resulted in the changing of a president precisely as the framers had intended.

Again, the fact that a president was assasinated does nothing to prove that we are unstable.

Are you claiming that the Democrats disenfranchised themselves? I don't know to what degree there was disenfranchisement. I do know that the people who ran the districts were there were so many complaints were democrats IIRC.

Can I just ask you why they disenfranchised themselves? Did they not want Gore to win? Begging the question. I would have thought you would have known better than that.

I don't know to what degree blacks where disenfranchised. Could provide proof that they were and to what extent they were? And could you respond to the study by John Lott from Yale Law School.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/158418.html

For months following the 2000 presidential election, Americans were told that to ensure the election of George W. Bush the ballots of many black Democrats were disqualified. But now it develops that the highest rate of ballot spoilage for blacks was among black Republicans. The finding is based on detailed data from USA Today provided for analysis to professor John Lott of Yale Law School.

Is it so hard to debate the truth? It is very hard if you are going to rely on fallacious argument. Further more it does get tired making the same argument over and over. The facts have been presented. But we can trot them out one more time. I'll happily stand by them.

Er it's not actually my feelings just the facts of the matter as a response to your claim or was it someone else's claim that you had a very stable ....political system. Again, fallacious.

If what happened in Florida is a stable sytem please preserve the UK from stability. We can do without the equivalent of thousands of African Americans being labelled felons and denied a vote or our highest court being partly appointed by one of the candidate's father and voting agains counting votes. It was an epic farce of truly fourth or fifth world proportions. Fact. Thousands of African Americans were denied a vote. Evidence and pleas respond to the above. There has been many iregularities in the American system. They are wrong but a small part of the overall picture. Many experts believed that Nixon lost the election due to fraud. I DON'T excuse it. I do say that our system is not perfect. It is very good though.

That might just have had a bearing on the result. After all you can only know the result if all the votes are properly made. Otherwise the result is unknown. The difference was so small it would not have made a difference scientifically. There have been a number of analysis and Bush won in some and Gore in others.

And what does this establish? That you don't have farces in your political system? Wrong. The system was found to have failed in many aspects in Florida. Perhaps, there will always be failures but this does NOT prove that the entire system failed.

The system returned a result but was the result correct? If you don't count all the votes properly you don't know and you didn't count all the votes properly. How do you know how I wanted it to work? I noticed you didn't speak out against the disenfranchisement of Republicans. The attempts to stop the vote counting of overseas ballots. Your narrow focus speaks volumes. But still irrelevant. The system worked.

All I actually want is for all the votes to be counted in any so-called democracy such as Zimbabwe or Iraq or Florida. Isn't that the way democratic electoral systems are supposed to work? Apparently that is no longer necessary in states run by a presidential candidate's brother where the election machinery is in the hands of the Co-Chair of the presidential candidate's state election campaign and when judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father rule out counting all the votes. I am afraid that unless all the votes of the people ae counted then by definition it cannot be a goverment of the people, for the people by the people. I think that is surely clear to you by now whoever you are. No one said it was perfect.

Scientifically it was a statistical tie. The real winner was unknowable. That does nto excuse any wrongdoing that might have happened. But the system did work. If there truly was a grave error in a couple of years the people can correct it.

Not all power is concentrated in the president. Our forefather made certain of that. THAT is why the markets didnt crash. That is why there was no capital flight. That is why the dollar remained relatively stable.

We were before and still are the world's single economic and military superpower.

It is instead a government of the peple Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris did not disenfranchise and more particularly for the people that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris did not disenfranchise. Jeb Bush even had the cheek to veto a voter education programme. Talk about rubbing salt into the wounds of democracy. I'll wait for your evidence expecting innuendo, speculation and conjecture.

Do you have any facts that prove (not suggest) your contention that Katherine Harris acted improperly?

I am afraid that every society makes mistakes but unless it is possible to honestly discuss them... E.J.,

I find very little honesty in your post. Everything is one-sided and you seem to revel in turning speculation into fact.

I had put you on my ignore list in the past. I took you off hoping you would have something to say.

You know I have a lot of freinds on this forum with ideologies opposite my own. I have many discussions with allot of posters who disagree with me. They are usually honest and not condesending. When they are we can usually resolve our differences and at least agree to disagree after we have each had our say.

On a number of instanceson this very forum I have changed my mind and adopted the opposing side of an argument. So my honesty I think stand on it's own.

You are so much like many of the woo-woos. Holding on to bits and pieces as though they prove your theories. I don't have answers for everythign like magic bullets and John Edwards guesses. I keep an open mind and make decisions based on the facts and not conjecture and evidence that can't be explained.

I see little reason to continue a discussion with you. It's obvious that you are incapable of accepting such a simple concept like America remaining stable for 200 years inspite of our problems. You think the problems prove we are unstable when if fact the prove the exact opposite.

I will read your response and offer a small rejoinder but it is back on the ignore list you go.

[Regnad Kcin]

E.J.Armstrong:

We are seriously off-topic here, so I'll be brief.

That you cite a 900-word review which lists a handful of supposed inaccuracies contained in a nearly 600-page book (including over 2,200 notes) and thus condems it outright is sad.* If your desire is to find people who disagree with Mr. Posner, you'll discover there is no shortage.

You claim to be familiar with the assassination, yet your questions seem to reflect only a marginal understanding of the topic. I invite you to read Case Closed and then see if you don't discover that Occam's Razor fits the situation perfectly.

*Gerald Posner concedes that a single book investigating not only the assassination, but Oswald and Ruby as well was bound to invite those who'd be ready to look for examples of selective inclusion or outright exclusion. (Noted attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi is currently working on a two-volume examination of the event. He has already asserted, by the way, that he is of the mind that Oswald acted alone.) Even considering that it covers much ground, Case Closed is a remarkable book.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Regnad Kcin
If your desire is to find people who disagree with Mr. Posner, you'll discover there is no shortage.
Perhaps there is a reason for that observation? Perhaps there isn't?

To imply that a 900 word review by an expert on the JFK murder is somehow not able to highlight serious errors in a 600 page book is a rather novel idea and not one I feel I can support given that that is what reviews by experts are supposed to do where necessary.

In regard to factual acuracy the following is from my link.
In the presentation of a corrupt picture of Oswald's background, for example, he states that, under the name of Osborne, Oswald picked up leaflets he distributed from the Jones Printing Company and that the "receptionist" identified him. She in fact said that Oswald did not pick up the leaflets as the source that Posner cites indicates. Either Posner is correct or he isn't.

In regard to proper use of others work the link also points out that Posner crowns his theory with the certainty of science by using one side of the computer-enhanced studies by Failure Analysis Associates of Menlo Park that his text implies he commissioned. The firm, however, lambastes his use as a distortion of the technology that it had developed for the American Bar Association's mock trial of Oswald where both sides used it. Either they did or they didn't.

If the length of publications and their associated notes or assertions by people who have carried out studies are actually your measures of accuracy, then on that basis EriK Von Daniken must be immensely accurate. For real solutions Occams Razor normally only applies to factually accurate data.

[Regnad Kcin]

E.J.Armstrong:

I do not know if Mr. Posner has refuted any of the points raised by your source or not. (It's been nearly ten years since his book's publication.) Frankly, I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of innacuracies given the muddy and aged waters he must've had to navigate in doing his research. Nevertheless, having followed the case myself, I think that Case Closed presents an intellectually satisfying take on the events leading up to and including those of November, 1963.

Look, if you wish to believe that JFK was murdered as a result of some far-reaching conspiracy, you're more than welcome. You've got lots of company. But rather than citing an undated review (certain parts of which are misleading, BTW) from an "expert" who may have motive to discredit another's work, why not read the book yourself?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RegadKcin
Look, if you wish to believe that JFK was murdered as a result of some far-reaching conspiracy, you're more than welcome. You've got lots of company. But rather than citing an undated review (certain parts of which are misleading, BTW) from an "expert" who may have motive to discredit another's work, why not read the book yourself?
What I wish to believe is the true story based upon all the relevant evidence filtered for factual inaccuracies. The expert I quoted highlighted factual inaccuracies in the book you quoted and those have still to be overturned. If you find that difficult to handle so be it. Are you claiming a/ that the person I cited is not an expert and b/ that he has a motive to discredit another's work. Please be open if that is what you think he is doing rather than apparently making allegations about his reputation and his motives and declining to quote which parts of the review you claim are misleading.

I note that the factual inaccuracies he quoted remain to be answered. Perhaps you know of where they have been answered. He also noted many other inaccuracies in the work you cited. Perhaps you believe that he has a 'motive' for mentioning those as well in his review?

I continue to believe that highlighting inaccuracies in a book which crucially attempts to build its thesis upon facts is a highly correct thing to do and if the factual inaccuracies are shown to have merit and be material to the thesis then that may throw doubt onto the thesis constructed using incorrect information.

If you are one of those who still happen to believe in the lone gunman theory I recommend you read http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id171.htm.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
I don't have a password. I had my account disabled for awhile because I was spending too much time here. My son logged in and I could only respond under his nic.
I've been away for a while so here goes. It is dishonest to use another's identity. Apologising after the event is a bit like a thief saying sorry after he's nicked the video. While not in the same category of offence you appear to have done it before elsewhere (see Marilyn on Puzzles for an example which is difficult to explain if you were who you claimed to be). If you were truly honest all you had to do was to clarify who you were before replying.How would such anecdotal instances prove whther we were stable or not? If you are not prepared to take on board major problems with the regulation of the stock market as indications that things are not completely stable then so be it.Hold on there. I don't think you understand. Was there massive or even significant changes in markets, capital or policy?

NO! Why? Because our framers figured out away to get past such problems.
I will call this RandFan response N+1. That is where you resort to claiming that people do not understand what they are talking about. Just to help you a bit the Oxford Compact English dictionary defines a coup d'etat as a violent or illegal seizure of power. President Kennedy was deposed in a violent manner and his office changed hands to someone who immediately began to alter Kennedy's programmes. {sigh} So what? Did the value of the dollar fluctuate wildly as a result? Was there capital flight?

I'm not certain that you understand what is meant by "stability".
Here we go again - resorting to the suggestion that the person you are 'debating' with doesn't understand simple terms. If that is the level of your argument can I suggest that it is a fairly sad tactic. Can I also suggest that violently deposing an incumbent is not a very stable way to effect a transfer of power and amounted to a coup. You are entitled to disagree of course.Again, can you show any real extrme effect to the nation as a whole, business, the dollar?

The Vietnam war was unfortunate. It should be noted that Kennedy also escalated the war several times.
It appears that your definition of stable has now changed to include the word extreme. I don't believe that is a necessary condition to demonstrate instability in anything.Nothing more to substantiate.

1.) The House and Senate did not change

2.) The state governments did not change.

3.) Federal and state courts did not change.

4.) The police, national guard, army, comand and leadership did not change.

It is demonstrable that the United States was stable throughout the transistion. You can believe the opposite if you like but it is silly.
The presidency changed through a violent act. There is no need by definition for a coup d'etat to involve those other matters you cited to happen. That you believe those other factors are necessary is up to you but I note that you now resort to RandFan response N+2 namely calling people silly for apparently merely expressing an opinion which differs from your own. Now that is what I call a sad but recognisable trait of yours.
My beliefs won't change the fact that the assasination while tragic and horibly wrong and resulted in the changing of a president precisely as the framers had intended.

Again, the fact that a president was assasinated does nothing to prove that we are unstable.
Good for you. You said you didn't have a coup. I believe along with many others that you did. The other factors you mention are not necessary to establish that a coup happened.I don't know to what degree there was disenfranchisement. I do know that the people who ran the districts were there were so many complaints were democrats IIRC. I note that you are not making a claim of any substance here despite seemingly wanting to infer something.I don't know to what degree blacks where disenfranchised. Could provide proof that they were and to what extent they were? And could you respond to the study by John Lott from Yale Law School. Really. I am very surprised as you quote a link which discusses the Commisssion On Civil Rights report on the way in which blacks were disenfranchised in the Florida Presidential elections. On the CBS site http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/08/politics/main295656.shtml relating to the official US Commission on Civil Rights report on the Florida Presidential elections it notesIt said thousands of Floridians, especially black voters, were deprived of their votes by outdated equipment, improper purging of voter rolls and inadequate access to voting booths.
If you really want to know more there are plenty of sites discussing the findings and what actually happened to disenfranchise black voters. They are not too difficult to find.

The study you quote and the link you cite contain simple assertion with inadequate factual information to support the conclusions reached. The site quotes Lott as claiming that Black Republicans are a small minority in Florida, about one for every 20 black Democrats. Let us take the figures quoted in the link you provided as fact. If there were 180,000 spolied votes and blacks provided 54% of them then the total number of spoiled black votes was 97,200. If those votes were in the ration of 20:1 as the site you quoted suggests then republican black voters cast only 4,629 of those votes while Democrat black voters cast a massive 92,571. This shows conclusively that Democrat black voters were massively disenfranchised with respect to Republican black voters on Lotts own analysis.

As you know it is not therefore possible to validate all the assertions made by Lott due to the lack of more real data. The link you quoted states that
The commission argued that blacks in general had been "nearly 10 times more likely to have their ballots declared invalid." Lott says his findings established that this figure is impossible to verify.
The CBS site however makes the following observationThe result was that tens of thousands of black voters were disenfranchised, said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University.

Lichtman said there was a "tremendous disparity" between the rates at which black and nonblack votes were not counted.

"I was quite amazed by what I found," said Lichtman, a voting rights expert who reviewed Florida vote data for the commission. For example, he said, in Duval County (Jacksonville) about one in five ballots cast by blacks were not counted. That was based on a detailed analysis of the county vote roken down by precinct.
Therefore the rate at which black voters were disenfranchised was based on a detailed analysis of the county vote broken down by precinct. Given the problems with Lotts assertions until his divergent opinions are properly validated then I believe impartial observers from around the world will treat them with the caution they deserve.
It is very hard if you are going to rely on fallacious argument. Further more it does get tired making the same argument over and over. The facts have been presented. But we can trot them out one more time. I'll happily stand by them. RandFan response type N+3. State that an argument is fallacious but decline to say why. Not very honest is it?Again, fallacious. There it is again - the unedifying and uninformative RandFan response type N+3 in all its lonely glory. Evidence and pleas respond to the above. There has been many iregularities in the American system. They are wrong but a small part of the overall picture. Many experts believed that Nixon lost the election due to fraud. I DON'T excuse it. I do say that our system is not perfect. It is very good though Evidence already provided. Please read. The difference was so small it would not have made a difference scientifically. There have been a number of analysis and Bush won in some and Gore in others. Unless you count all the votes how do you know? Perhaps it's a guess, of the sort Uri Geller makes? I have a very simple belief. Democracies count all the votes people decide to cast. You do not put hindrances in their way to vote as is done by some third world countries and as was done in Florida. Perhaps, there will always be failures but this does NOT prove that the entire system failed. Who is claiming that the entire system failed?I noticed you didn't speak out against the disenfranchisement of Republicans. The attempts to stop the vote counting of overseas ballots. Your narrow focus speaks volumes. But still irrelevant. The system worked. Perhaps you don't read my posts? If you go back to the last but one comment I stated that I believe all votes should be counted. That means all of them. Perhaps I should explain. All means every legal vote - whoever casts it and for whichever party. In that sense it appears I differ from you and the US system on occasion.

You make a claim that I have a narrow focus in relation to the discussion on counting votes. As I have demonstrated that is a demonstrably false statement. No one said it was perfect. It doesn't have to be perfect it just needs to count all the votes. That's what democracies do.Scientifically it was a statistical tie. The real winner was unknowable. That does nto excuse any wrongdoing that might have happened. But the system did work. If there truly was a grave error in a couple of years the people can correct it. If you don't count all the votes and disenfranchise large numbers of people in the process of holding an 'election' how do you know? Over here we like to count all the votes. The people then have confidence in the result. If you only guess the result it makes a mockery of the notion of elections. I can make random guesses at numbers as well as the next man but it doesn't make me right. We were before and still are the world's single economic and military superpower. And your point is what exactly? Does that mean you don't or won't need any help in Iraq or that your voting process is above reproach?I'll wait for your evidence expecting innuendo, speculation and conjecture.

Do you have any facts that prove (not suggest) your contention that Katherine Harris acted improperly? There you go again. You seem to need to deingrate others by infering that their contribution will be innuendo, speculation and conjecture. That is a really sad indictment of your mindset mindset and sadly typical of your approach to those who disagree with you. Whatever happened to free speech?

Given that you already know about the official US Commission on Civil rights report I find your response to be surprising at the least and potentially deeply dishonest at worst. As you already know Jeb Bush was the Governor of the State of Florida and Katherine Harris was the Secretary of State in charge of the election process at the time of the materially flawed election process in Florida. In the authoritative report of the Commission of Civil Rights on the matter a number of damming conclusions were reached about how the State leadership failed to discharge their duties properly. The report states
During its investigation following the 2000 presidential election, the Commission identified a lack of state leadership and guidance as primary contributors to problems with purging voter rolls and providing adequate notice to voters of their removal from the voting list.
The report also goes on to say thatIt was important for the Commission to revisit Florida to discuss the implementation and likely impact of Florida’s reforms. Unfortunately, the Commission found that the governor, the secretary of state, and other state elected officials are no longer willing to discuss voting rights and election reform. So much for accountability to the voters and an important message about how the Bush administration in Florida treats those who have the temerity to question their practices. If you wish to suggest that the report is not authoritative or is factually incorrect please provide proof. Proof as in not unsubstantiated assertions. I find very little honesty in your post. Everything is one-sided and you seem to revel in turning speculation into fact. Here we go again. Typical RandFan false claims. Making assertions without support. I will try to help you once again. When you post on this site you have to justify your claims. You have yet to show one single point where I have been dishonest. I challenge you to do so now. I have already shown that you are factually incorrect in your statement about one sidedness. Please show where I have turned speculation into fact. You are posting on a sceptics forum RandFan or whoever you are. It is time to front up.I had put you on my ignore list in the past. I took you off hoping you would have something to say. If you are not interested in freedom of speech then so be it. I frankly couldn't care less what you do as it seems you have dfficulty sticking to it anyway. If you want to be dishonest feel free but when you accuse others of doing so at least have the guts to back up your assertions. You know I have a lot of freinds on this forum with ideologies opposite my own. I have many discussions with allot of posters who disagree with me. They are usually honest and not condesending. When they are we can usually resolve our differences and at least agree to disagree after we have each had our say. And? What is stopping you here? I have invited you to take a different position from me.On a number of instanceson this very forum I have changed my mind and adopted the opposing side of an argument. So my honesty I think stand on it's own. If you were honest you would not post under another name without disclosing immediately who you are. I have also shown elsewhere what you level of honesty is. Why not try backing up your claims about me? You are so much like many of the woo-woos. Holding on to bits and pieces as though they prove your theories. I don't have answers for everythign like magic bullets and John Edwards guesses. I keep an open mind and make decisions based on the facts and not conjecture and evidence that can't be explained. I am afraid that I have no idea what you mean by a woo-woo. If you mean to be rude without providing support for your claim then that certainly fits your MO. Can I just point out that when you make an assertion you need to back it up. I invite you to do so once again. I see little reason to continue a discussion with you. It's obvious that you are incapable of accepting such a simple concept like America remaining stable for 200 years inspite of our problems. You think the problems prove we are unstable when if fact the prove the exact opposite. I note that you see little reason to back up your assertions and false claims but that is no surprise. I will read your response and offer a small rejoinder but it is back on the ignore list you go. There speaks someone who believes in free speech? You do like to run away from those who have the temerity to actually engage in free speech so this is no surprise. When you back up your assertions with facts and stop making false claims then you might begin to be taken seriously.

If you aren't going to do so like a man then off you go and hide your head in the sand. The we'll all be able to see again is a bum (or should that be two bums) sticking up in the air.

PS for non-British readers - if any insomniacs have overcome the sheer tedium of this 'debate' to actually get this far - bum means ass.