Mag - he admitted to it...

You ask about the issues, OK, here's my response. My honest opinion is that not one of these candidates are going to be able to do a damn thing about these issues within the remainder of their term. The simple reason is the economy and the fact that their is no quick fix unless you substantially raise taxes, and we all know that will not go over well, especially with the problems it would create. Arnold says he can balance the budget without increasing taxes and not cutting current programs. How the hell is that going to happen?? Is he going to loan himself more money?? And what previous experience or skills does he have that are going to help him "fix" California?

Would you expect me to be able to take over a failing mechanics shop and make it profitable on new business alone(holding prices(taxes) and costs(spending) constant)?? I don't know a damn thing about owning a mechanics shop or fixing a car, and you can't expect the mechanics or my "team" to do it all for me.

I think the fact that has been addressed on National TV but not local is the fact that the national economy is bad, and 47 of the 50 states are under a budget deficit. It's not like California is sticking out like a sore thumb(anymore than usual that is) as the sole state that is in trouble. And if you really think anyone of these candidates has a magic wand up their butt that can make all of our problems go away then you're crazy. It's going to take time and it's going to take an intelligent person with good experience at running/working within large governmental bodies. McClintock is the best candidate by far, and I think he could have won were it not for this rediculous candidate we're going to be stuck with.

And by the way, this whole thing is costing us over 70 million dollars, now that's a step in the right direction.

This may not have been the answer you were looking for, but it gets at what your saying. I hope you don't think Arnold is really going to "fix" everything, if it were that easy we wouldn't be in this situation...

Well at least you tried. Some of your points are valid but you are incorrect about CA's problems. They are bigger than most of the other states. To start I believe the national unemployment is 6%, CA is 10%.

There may not be enough time to fix everything in one shortened term. But the sooner things start to change the better. And I'm figuring that unless there is a scandle or very bad decisions made by the winner of this election, this person will get another term to finish what gets started.

Next you respond like a typical Dem, even though you say you are independant. Why not cut spending, instead of raising taxes? You say it would fix things, but its unpopular. Thats not going to work.

Since Davis took office, revenue to the state increased by more than 20%. Spending has gone up more than that. That doesnt work.

Also, you already stated on another thread about the 70 million. I guess you dont realize the size of this states problems. 70 million is a drop in the bucket for this state.

EVERYDAY this state spends 27 million dollars more than it takes in. So 3 days of this is 81 million in the hole!!!!! So dont keep acting like 70 million is going to hurt this state. We need spending cuts!!!

Arnold says that the first step he will take is to open the books and start cutting the fat. Do you think we need to give grants for $100,000 here $250,000 there or more? Youve heard about crazy studies for information like what bugs do, or how lesbians do this or that. You get my drift. That crap has got to stop. And there is a lot of that. This is just one example.

Davis caused the problems, what makes you think he can fix them. Especially since he hasnt given us even one plan or idea to go on. All he's done is rip the candidates, mainly Arnold.

I cant remember what type of businesses Arnold had run. But I do remember that what was reported is that he has been very successful. Right now the biggest problems are financial. He has business experience. He will surround himself with knowledgable people to handle other issues.

Remember his family is into politics(the Kennedy's). Dont you think that he will have access to very qualified people to delegate segments of government tasks to? Governors govern, they dont do it all alone. With his popularity and fame he will find ways to have the right people around him.

Last, you said again "he admitted it". OK he did, now what? You tell me what, since you dont like my reasoning. What do you want him to do? Answer this question please.

Mag

One last point. Davis has the same amount of time, as a winning candidate, during this term to fix things. Since he will run out of time right in the middle of his attempt to get things back on track. Why not elect someone now, re-elect him/her and finish the job.

Mag

In the debate Arnold said he wasn't going to cut spending maybe I misinterpreted him, but that's what I remember him saying, hence why I asked how's it possible. The more I think about it though there’s no way he’s that stupid... And don't give me that typical Dem crap; I said the only way to do it quickly would be to substantially raise taxes, which I then essentially said would be stupid.

How much worthless spending do you think there is to cut? If you honestly think there's enough by simply cutting “extra” spending then you're crazy, especially when Arnold wants to roll back some taxes as well. It’s going to come out of education and a lot of other areas that are necessary if it’s going to happen quickly, and that’s what really scares me.

And if 70 million is so small then why mention $100,000 studies and $250,000 lesbian grants, these are markedly smaller than the 70 million.

As far as his businesses and contacts, that's quite a stretch. He has no applicable experience, and the Rebs don’t want to admit it because they know it’s true.



My question is how can you support him if he's just as much of a sleaze? That's why I was saying you were being hypocritical, you're letting go the same types of things that you've brought up over and over, but since it's a GOP now it's all fine and dandy. Morals are morals, no matter who the candidate is. And you still didn’t answer my question…

Your Question - What should he do? He should step down and endorse McClintock, that would be the classy thing to do. McClintock won the debate by a huge margin because he knows what he’s talking about and has a good plan. Even though I don't agree with McClintock's stand on abortion, I think he's the best candidate, and the only one that can really help CA.

just saw your other answer, I'll post over there...

Tailgater,

If you do some searching, you'll find that Rush has a long history of racist remarks. Two stand out: saying black and hispanic voters were not 'smart enough' to use voting machines in Florida, and telling a black caller to 'take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' There are many more. This is neither new nor a surprise coming from Rush.

So I wasn't jumping the gun here. There is a lot of history on this issue.

John

I did a search. All I found about Rush being a racist is the recent ESPN bull. Didn't see anything about "bones in the noses" of anybody or any long history. Johnny, did you know that Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court(but you prolly know him better as the "Pubic Coke can guy")officiated his marriage. Now if he had a long history offending people of color(or put in whatever politically correct statement du jour)do you think he'd participate in that ceremony? He'd of thought of some other excuse to get out of it. As far as the recent "charges" (and I put them like that because the police haven't charged him with anything yet) I'll wait and see. Personally, I find it very difficult for a person to carry on a drug habit and being on the air 5 days a week with random tv appearances. I don't recall ever hearing ramble on incoherantly about anything or haer any tirades that didn't make a rational point. I agree with a lot of things he talks about, but he's a human. He doesn't deserve God-like status(as any man should not!), but he does get his day in court. I'm willing to let him have that.

Get over yourself.

Ya know, it must suck to walk around and point out flaws in others all day like you do Johnny. You don't post about your favorite cigars. You don't post nice pictures of you or your hobbies. All you do is beat the dead negative "poor poor pitiful racist me" horse. Every single post of yours is some liberal slanted stick in the pot designed to stir up hostilities.

Professor, the fact that Iraq had WMD is not in question. What do you think happened to them?

DMV:

http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html 

Also, I do post on cigars and the like. You know that. You make even those posts the occasion for a personal attack. I was hoping you'd heed the call of folks here (as I have) to keep the personal stuff off the bbs. Email me if you want to get personal, ok? I've said it often, and I mean it.

Robby,

The phrase 'imminent threat' was the key to the case for war in Iraq. 'Having had' or 'intending to get' do not constitute an imminent threat.

I am inclined to believe Blix on this one (he does, after all, know a lot more than any of us about this issue), that Iraq created a sense that it had WMD in order to forestall an attack from the U.S. That seems to be the best theory based on the actual evidence (which is how I prefer to decide things), i.e., that there is NO indication of WMD in Iraq.

John

Then why did it take Blix that long and that much money to come to THAT conclusion?

You, me...private...yeah right!

Blather on "Professor"!

John, an artful dodge, but you did not answer my question. Was it not clear?

Robby,

I didn't actually intend to dodge. I thought my response made sense. Clarify? Then I'll answer.

John

John, did you see any of the footage of the Kurds that were gassed en-masse? Women and children lying bloated on the ground rotting in the midday sun? The USE of these weapons against his own people is documented. The USE of these weapons against Iran is documented. Therefore, given the known production, existence, ownership, and use of WMD, my questions stands, "what do you think happened to them?" Not what does Hans or Frans think happened, what do you think happened to them?

I'll give you a hint John... Saddam didn't sneak them out through IRAN.. you can rule that Country out.. because he'd a Had them right back in his Lap as I stated in another Post... only they would have been Live!!!!!! ohhhh here's another Hint.. we the USA lit up tons of the **** by Mistake in Gulf War 1 after the War ended and it Effected 160,000 of our own people with whats known as Gulf War Syndrom... Course no body gives a rats as about those FACTS now do they?

Hog

Robby,

Are you suggesting that we went to war as revenge for gassing the Kurds? That's a very new one to me.

I suspect the weapons have been sold and destroyed. All the evidence is that they no longer exist. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of existing evidence and blindly support a widely discredited administration position.

Sure, of course they did exist. Years of sanctions and inspections led to their destruction and the end of their production. Deny this all you want, but there is no evidence of any other position.

usahog,

By invoking GWS, you are going back a dozen years for justification for this war. And, again, THAT WAS NOT the reason for going to war. I suspect depleted uranium is to blame for GWS, which would better explain the culture of denial in the military about this syndrom. I'm on the victims' side on this one, hog, so we probably agree that MUCH more needs to be done...and heads need to roll for it taking so long.

John

"and heads need to roll for it taking so long."

Good John... that means you'll vote your Consious in 2004... because the first head I'd like to see is Clintons... but he is gone... and now how many members on the Arm's senete committie are there??? it took them virtually 12 long years almost to let loose... because of so much Pressure from the VA and other Organisations to get to the Facts of whats going on with our Veterans...Take a Real look at whose Cutting into the Veterans Budget.. I posted the link in one of the Threads... Rickamavan said he would save it and view it later... I haven't heard back from him...
bottom line... the Senate Folks you and I elected... really don't want WMD's to be to much exposure because there's way to much Cost involved in the long run!!!!
It's time to get back to We the people for the people.. and let these so called do gooders Retire!!!!

Hog

Sweet Bleeding Jesus....

I sure am glad that no one here (myself included) has any direct decision making power or influence over those who do. (For the love of God, don't give me a representitive democracy lesson...I know we can vote and you know that's not what I mean.)

Or maybe the decision makers should be as hellfire sure of themselves of the RIGHT and GOOD thing to do in any situation like both sides of these kinds of threads tend to be.

But as usual...what the hell do I know?

Well Billy... thats what they get paid for... and thats why we sent the to Washington... to represent the peoples best Interest... not to Profit from and for themselves!!!!

Hog

Yankees win!!!!

Professor!? And I use that term loosely...

"I suspect the weapons have been sold and destroyed."

So when I say, we know he had them, and what do you think happen to them? You truly in your heart of hearts believe? That a megalomaniac like Sadam who was hell bent on domination of at the very least his neighbors in the middle east, and arguably the region and attacks against us and our interest "sold and destroyed" all of the weapons of mass destruction he worked so hard to obtain? Do you REALLY believe this? Are you really educated as you claim?

If you’re truly intelligent, you can’t POSSIBLY “truly” believe this? It is more of a statement in keeping with your political views (if you’re truly intelligent).