Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive 01	50		2003/08/12, 07:43 pm

Batster...oh how I don't want to participate in a fresh debate over the Clinton perjury, but something's got to be said.

The perjury took place in the context of Paula Jones's civil lawsuit. That lawsuit should never have been brought. It came about solely as a product of Republican operatives approaching the deeply stupid Ms. Jones a LONG time after the fact and whispering in her ear - something like...do what we say and we'll see that you are on Celebrity Boxing one day and you'll get paid to spread your disgusting shit on glossy Penthouse pages. Plainly the sole purpose of Ms. Jones's manipulators was subversion of the Clinton presidency (sue me Paula, O.K.). The court recognized that the lawsuit was fake and spurious and dismissed it before trial on summary judgement...i.e. the allegations were inadequate to entitle Ms. Jones to her day in court. Legally the court was saying that if every single fact that Ms. Jones alleged in her lawsuit was proven at trial to be 100% true, she still had ZERO grounds to sue.

So in the course of this fake politically motivated lawsuit prior to it's dismissal, Bent Bill is compelled by the trial judge to give a deposition under oath which includes questioning about Ms. Lewinsky -- a wholly different matter. Clinton should never have had to face this lawsuit during his presidency and never should have been compelled to testify in the first place. The court would ultimately rule that Ms. Jones's viewing of the Presidential Pipeage did not constitute an actionable offense. But even if it had, the U.S. Presidency should not have been disrupted over a matter wholly irrelevant to the conduct of public affairs -- the case should have been postponed until the end of Clinton's term. The whole thing was a setup by politicos from the getgo.

So he perjures himself in a fake lawsuit that he did not commit adultery...neither a crime nor grounds for any civil action outside of divorce. He also makes the argument that some may find reasonable (including numerous TJ harlots), that fellatio is not a sex act...he did not have sex with that woman.

The American public correctly responds, "Big Fucking Deal" as his polls go higher and higher with each new revelation of his debaucheries. The stock market is booming, we are at peace, no inflation...hell, Everybody Must Get Blown!

Statistically, most married individuals, men and women are adulterors/adulteresses. EVERYBODY lies about it and it is expected that they will. That those utterings were regarded as an impeachable offense by the Republicans in Congress turned Congress into a laughing stock...all over the world and among the vast majority of Americans. The purposeful subversion of a popularly elected President and his policies over such a matter is a sickening disgrace.

Batster, I'm going to TJ tomorrow AND the day after. Please don't argue with me!

Clinton should have been tried before a Japanese court. When I'm in Japan and pass by the pay for play places (okay, sometimes I don't pass by but rather go in), it is typical for them to say "no sex" but then say they do, however, offer blow jobs. So in Japanese speak, Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Speaking of Clinton, the first time I was in Rio he was walking the streets of Copacabana, with his pimp, errr, I mean friend, Anthony Hopkins. I believe Fidel Castro was there at the time too, probably supplying Bill with some good ol' Cuban cigars. No Rush Limbaugh wannabees, thank god, so I was able to have some peace and quiet without having to tolerate the hysterical rantings of the right, not that I am saying this thread is full of them.

Getting back to the matter at hand, while it annoys me immensely that Clinton perjured himself during the deposition (not exactly a good example for the rest of the country), and his overall reckless behavior was particularly a betrayal of those who voted for him and hoped he would re-set the country's priorities, the fact that he committed perjury during a civil deposition is not the real reason he was impeached; he was impeached because the Republicans hated him and would jump at anything to get him. While occasionally (actually extremely occasionally) someone is prosecuted for civil perjury, in the exceedingly rare instances where it happens it is almost always because the prosecutor has another reason to want to get the perjurer but doesn't have the evidence so uses perjury as a substitute. A variant on this theme occurred with Clinton's impeachment.

While I don't agree that Clinton had a right to perjure himself even given that the lawsuit against him was fairly bogus (we can't have people deciding whether to tell the truth at depositions depending on whether they believe the lawsuit they are involved in is unfair), the notion the Republicans impeached him because they could not abide his perjury is ridiculous. They impeached him because politics has gotten extremely nasty and partisan, and they used perjury as the cover. Clinton, of course, assisted them by falling right into the perjury trap that was concocted by those on the far right who were behind Paula Jones's case but didn't have any interest in Paula Jones except to use her to get Clinton.

And just so I don't have to see any posts accusing me of being a Clinton lover (oh, how painful the insults) let me be clear that I believe that Clinton behaved like an asshole, as did the Republicans (actually for the Republicans, you can "pluralize" asshole in the preceding sentence). Now, if Clinton had shown some class and done Marilyn Monroe or a contemporary equivalent rather than Paula or Monica, then maybe he would be my hero.

[The preceding has been evaluated for at least some relevancy to the purpose of this board, and has been found to contain sufficient sexual content to be posted here]

(Message edited by LAguy on August 12, 2003)

[The preceding has been evaluated for at least some relevancy to the purpose of this board, and has been found to contain sufficient sexual content to be posted here]

LOL!!! Glad to see that you've graduated slightly from your shallow, apolitical, one-dimensional view of this board. I nominate LAguy for Hypocrite of the Year.

Bull_Wrinkle,

You are the second person to call me stupid on this board in less than 24 hours. I guess that is better than Pops, but still I prefer either Studs or Stud.

Regarding Molina Rojo; yes my information is rather incomplete, but like I said, if you just use some common sense, oh never mind I forgot whom I was talking too.

I will continue to investigate. Perhaps there might be a young librarian assistant at the main TJ library that could assist me in my research. I wonder if she would be offended if I offered her money?

Ben: I think you are giving yourself too much credit. I called one of your sentences STUPID, which it was. This is different from calling you STUPID. If I had wanted to call you STUPID, I would have done so directly. Then again, I suppose it was rather STUPID for you to use my sentence to put a notch in the "Ben is STUPID" belt, something which you now apparently are proudly wearing. So, I ask you the simple question, how many times have you been called STUPID in the last 24 hours? Please do the calculation, and then explain how this whole misunderstanding is the Democrats' fault, how life really is not worth living as long as there are Democrats to make your life miserable, and how the Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist friends if they get into power are going to make life so much better for the Club Hombre community.

Laguy and super successful businessman,

"So, I ask you the simple question, how many times have you been called STUPID in the last 24 hours?" Uh not sure, but I prefer to be called Stud or Studs.

"Please do the calculation, and then explain how this whole misunderstanding is the Democrats' fault, how life really is not worth living as long as there are Democrats to make your life miserable, and how the Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist friends if they get into power are going to make life so much better for the Club Hombre community."

What misunderstanding? My life is not miserable, but I am getting "enraged".


Why do you keep saying and your/their friends? You posted something similar in an earlier post, but I am too bored to go back and look. You have made many assumptions about me that are just, uh will, stupid.

I know many Republicans who are not very religious, believe in a woman’s right to choose regarding abortion, and are very supportive of many social issues.

I have a bunch of elderly wacko Uncles and Aunts back in Oklahoma and Texas who always vote 100% Democrat and love Clinton and at the same time are anti-abortion. They go to fundamentalist Baptist, Methodist and Church of Christ churches where most of the congregation are Democrats and will be to the day their spirits are sent to haven.

I think the Democratic will someday get tired of that old saw.

I thought you were going to put me on ignore?

I am leaving for a few hours as I need to do some research about wind mills, but I should be back by 6:00 just in case you would like to apologize to me and acknowledge that the Democrats have truly fucked up this state.

STUDS

Dogster: Good to see they let you out of the kennel, even if for only a few hours.
"I nominate LAguy for Hypocrite of the Year." Dogster, does that mean I get a monetary reward from Hombre? I could sure use one because I need to develop a war chest of cash so I can catch up to that San Diego teacher who after working for 25 years now makes $75,000 per year, thereby "enraging" Ben.
Actually, though, and in fear of jeopardizing my monetary reward and nomination, in light of what I learned over the course of the last few weeks, I, like Ariana Huffington, am willing to admit the error of my earlier views. I now consider Dogster my personal hero, and will do everything I can to be just like him, short of fucking chicas muy gorda in Tijuana. I think I may be getting most of it down, but I have a few questions. What procedures are most effective for spamming all of the chat boards on this site with tired political messages? I would like to know so that in my hypocrisy I can be more like the Dogster. Also, with regard to the affirmative action debate you initiated, is it okay if I chuck your slogan: "Simple solutions for simple minds?"

Ben: It must be tough coming from a family of in-breeds. I think I now have a greater understanding of where you're coming from. LOL

Erip,

I stand by my comment. The Clinton impeachment was a bad idea, but it was not just about a hummer. There was a whole lot more going on. He did reach a deal where he lost the right to practice law for 5 years rather than face disbarment. And it looked like he was going to be disbarred.

And he can not be forgiven for porking a pig like Lewinsksy. I mean come on he was the Pres of the United States.

And I still cant believe we defend bad behavior in people just because they are "on our side of the issue". Or do you just want to argue moral equivalency?

Now get down to TJ and stop arguing with me dammit. And remember last time I saw you you agreed to lunch. When?

Batsterthetroublemaker

Hmmm,,we should start a poll. Which one would you bag,,,Hillary or Monica? LOL
At least we know Monica likes "tube steaK"

Ben: It must be tough coming from a family of in-breeds. I think I now have a greater understanding of where you're coming from. LOL"

I come from a family of half-breeds, not in-breeds, but like I said earlier, when a liberal can't make a factual point based on reason he either hangs up the telephone or starts making personal insults.

A guy like you, who is so financially successful, should be ashamed of himself for picking on a poor Republican who just wants the Dems to go away.

Laguy,

I thought you might enjoy this article.

I saw this asshole, I mean Democrat being interviewed on CNBC today. He lost his temper when they brought up the energy crisis. No wonder Gray Davis 18 months ago appointed him as chief of the CA budget.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/12/22/MN97188.DTL

Your Friend Ben

The most salient part of the article:

"Peace's attraction to overly complex problems may have doomed any thoughts he had of running for statewide office. In 1996, Peace oversaw several weeks of intense negotiations between big business, utilities and power companies that eventually produced the state's electricity deregulation plan.

Hearings lasted well past midnight, but Peace finally brokered a deal.

The result, however, was what many consider to be one of the worst public policy nightmares in recent American history."

And Gray Davis appointed him to head up the CA budget.

Tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.

Your Honor "I rest my case".

Your Friend Ben

I don't have the time right now to respond to previous posts (I'll try to find some in a day or so). All I can say right now is Power to the People!

Kendricks:

"Bullwinkle says: "This recall stuff is a big mistake, I think. It sets a bad precedent here in CA and elsewhere."

That's a horseshit statement. Precedent has nothing to do with it - this recall is being conducted pursuant to the California Constitution."

Normally I don't agree with Kenny but he is right on here. It has been done in another state back in 1921 in N Dakota.

www.recalldavis.org

Talk about fate, it's time for Arnold to do the real : "TOTAL RECALL"

Businessman Arnold's got some really good people with Warren Buffet and George Schultz on his team.

-DJ

Gray Davis is going down.

According to a new poll put out this morning 58% of Californians support the recall of Davis. Of course things can change quickly in three months.

DJ: North Dakota?? That's somewhere in Canada isn't it?

My Uncle just drilled an oil well in North Dakota and yes near the Canadian border in a place called Mohall.

This just in from Joe Kernan from CNBC.

The Black Out on the east coast was caused by the Bush tax cut.

Ben: Happy to hear that at least one of your wacko relatives stopped their hooping and hollering long enough to do something potentially productive (other than voting for Clinton).

This is another Uncle on the other side of the family. The intelligent side.

He is an atheist and a Republican right of Barry Goldwater.

My hat is in the ring.

See my latest Rio Video, MostBeautifulBest.

With hype and humilitude,
Bull_winkle

Ben,
Saw the article about Peace and found the discussion of his role in the energy bill interesting. Note, however, the following quote from the article, "He was a member of the "Gang of Five," a group of moderate Democrats that rebelled against powerful Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, voting with Republicans and challenging the liberal wing of the party." If you have something against liberal Democrats, you are choosing the wrong guy to bash.

As to Davis, let me say it again. I don't particularly like him but like the notion of a recall even less. A very bad precedent (those of you who don't like use of the word here, look it up in the dictionary before you start complaining) for California. If Davis only gets 40 percent against the recall, and then California elects a new governor who gets 25 percent (you only need a plurality to win on "Question 2") what is to prevent a recall of the new governor, and the expenditure of another 65 million taxpayer dollars for that election? If you want to waste that kind of money, why not waste it by overpaying teachers, or giving handouts to people on welfare?

The venom that you spew out about the Democrats in California, however, sometimes gets downright illogical. For example, you initially attacked me for suggesting that the Republicans may have had some responsibility for the California energy disaster along with the Democrats. In this regard, you stated the Repubicans had been out of office for "nine fuckin' years," but when I pointed out that Pete Wilson left office in Jan. 1999 (the California energy crisis began, I believe in 2000, the first half of 2001 at the latest) you stated (as though it were obvious) the Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and were therefore in control, notwithstanding the Republican Governor (and 16 previous years of Republican governors). But, in another post, you were applauding the fact that when Pete Wilson left office, in Jan. 1999, the state had a huge surplus, etc. Well, if the Democrats were in control (your words) shouldn't they get credit for the huge surplus in effect when Wilson left office? It appears you are blaming everything bad that happened "when the Democrats were in control" on the Democrats because "they were in control" but everything good during that same time period should automatically go to the credit of the Republicans.

Incidentally, the bill to decrease the vehicle license fees passed in 1998, when, according to you the Democrats were in control. The bill included a provision (disputed, however) whereby the taxes could revert in the event of a budget shortfall. So, at least according to your framework, it looks like the Democrats should get responsibility for both decreasing and increasing these fees, not just the latter.

There are a number of reasons why California faces the problems it now does. Undoubtedly, Davis and many of the Democrats made substantial mis-calculations about the business cycle and how it would affect California. However, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, California does not operate in a vacuum. Now I don't really know the degree to which 9/11 has affected the national and state economies. But isn't it interesting that while George Bush invokes this unforeseen event as one of his excuses for the miserable national economy (including high unemployment and record national deficits), you don't see the Republicans making the case that it also affected negatively the California economy and therefore may have contributed to some of the current economic problems in California. Like I say, I don't know the degree to which this excuse really applies, but let's see some consistency in how people use the excuse.

How about taxes and wasting money? I understand that the Democrats sometimes overspend. There is waste in many government programs. But it bothers me when Republicans get all bent out of shape because the benefits to welfare recipients are a bit too high, or teachers are getting too much money, or what not. These are all legitimate issues, but where is the outrage about the fact that owing primarily to federal budget deficits racked up under Republican Presidents, your federal taxes last year included over 300 billion dollars on interest on the national debt. This truly wasteful expenditure is nearly as much as the entire budget for the Department of Defense. Why is this hidden expenditure, which your taxes go to pay, any less objectionable than the tax payments that give a teacher $75,000 a year after she has been teaching for 25 years?

I have mixed feelings about Clinton, some of which I stated in earlier posts. The best thing he did for the country (and I wish Bush would learn from his example) is that early in his administration he appointed economic advisors who saw to it that the right signals were sent to the financial markets, primarily signals about how the federal government was going to adopt a fiscally sound budget and eliminate or significantly lower the deficit. These signals (and accompanying budgetary measures) were repaid by the markets ten-fold. The markets fueled seven or eight years of sustained economic growth. Do I remember that the market began a downward descent towards the end of the Clinton Presidency? All too well, although part of this was the price of some overexuberance, and perhaps part of it was related to the business cycle. We can argue about whether the descent would have continued to the degree it has under Bush if Bush had not sent the signal to the markets that the days of fiscal responsibility were over, but my take on it is the economy would have been much better off if the markets had seen fiscally responsible economic policies.

Getting back to that $75,000 a year 25-year veteran teacher salary, and weaving into the discussion your point about a flight of people out of California, it amazes me how right-wing Republicans can so easily talk about the benefits of a free market economy, but are so blind to examples of the free market economy at work. As much as you may think California teachers are overpaid, the reason they are making as much as they are is largely the result of severe national teacher shortages, which I believe were more serious in California than elsewhere the last few years. If memory serves me right, there was a ten percent increase in California teacher salaries signed into law a few years back because California was not able to get enough teachers for its schools. Now one of the reasons the problem was particularly acute in California was because of the outrageous housing costs here. Not only did the outrageous housing costs result in a teacher shortage, but, contrary to the impression that might be left by your post, the housing costs also contributed significantly to a flight of workers out of California to more affordable states, a phenomenon that began in California when Pete Wilson was governor, but, when the Democrats, of course had full control over the State (according to you). This, in turn, affects companies' abilities to recruit and retain workers, etc. so companies' are less likely to locate here. Is that a bad thing? Well, if you believe in unbridled growth, the answer is yes, it is a bad thing. However, if you have to commute on the highways in Los Angeles, or buy a house at obscenely inflated prices, or breath the smog, maybe we don't really want California to be a magnet for every business and person who would like to live in a sunny climate. While I don't disagree with those who say there may be too many petty regulations affecting businesses here, and maybe taxes could be lower (although as I noted above, to say that Californians are overtaxed relative to other states based solely on an analysis of income taxes is misleading) there are other factors, really outside the direct control of the government, that affect whether businesses wish to locate here (of course, many companies would like the legislature to think that taxes are the main factor, because if they succeed at that con, they would end up paying lower taxes).

Here is another one. Remember Proposition 187, which attempted to limit the services provided to illegal aliens. I bet you, Ben, really liked that one, even though anyone with much knowledge of constitutional law and federal preemption doctrine would have known that it would be found unconstitutional. But wait a minute, it was found unconstitutional (essentially) because under our constitution it is the federal government, not the states, who pass laws that affect and regulate immigration. Well, let's see here: George Bush is a Republican, and both houses of Congress are Republican. What have THEY done to help California deal with the problems of illegal immigration and the burden it places on this State. Nothing? I believe that is the answer. If the Republicans liked Proposition 187 so much, let them pass a similar law at the federal level, a law that would not be subject to a constitutional challenge on the grounds of federal preemption.

Finally, you stated "when a liberal can't make a factual point based on reason he either hangs up the telephone or starts making personal insults." Actually, right-wingers such as Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing talk show shock jocks are the one's most responsible for transforming political discourse into personal insult time. Unfortunately, alot of right-wingers are now Rush Limbaugh wannabes. You can see that in some of the posts in this thread, as well as in some of the other political threads on this board and elsewhere. My first posts on this thread were devoid of personal insults towards anyone here; it was only after the right-wing contingent started hurling personal insults that I responded in kind.

Now, I have had my say. I don't intend on any additional long discourses, unless they pertain to Thailand, Rio, or some other suitable location.

Latest Field Poll: Bustamonte 25%; Arnold 22%...nobody else figures in the race. Being the only Democratic candidate in the field, Bustamonte will win this thing so long as the voters show up. Arnie's got nowhere to go but down. The Republicans created this monster and now find themselves in the hole because their leading candidate is unqualified and a social liberal whose campaign is being directed by an emanation of the Kennedy family! Too funny.

If Cruz Bustamonte becomes Gov who become Lt. Gov?

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the recall backfire on the Reputa-blicans but since the margin of error of the poll is 5 per cent it's basically a dead heat.

Reytj

Thought I had an answer to the Senator's question, but upon re-review I did not, ergo the re-edit of this post.


(Message edited by LAguy on August 16, 2003)

Reytj, that is true that we have a statistical dead heat. But as I said, Arnie can only go down from here as GOPers figure out what he's about (and now even Buffet is causing his campaign major headaches) and lower income Democratic voters get recruited and educated to the process.

The day after Arnie announced his candidacy he had 25% of the vote to Bustamonte's 15%...so the headings are clear.

Erip: I hope your analysis is right (about Bustamonte having the edge), but I see a potential problem with it. The latest poll shows Bustamonte ahead of Ah-nie by only 3 points. Simon and McClintock, both conservative Republicans, have a combined 17 percent of the vote, or thereabouts. If Ah-nie remains the front runner among the Republicans and it becomes obvious that neither Simon nor McClintock is going to win, some of that 17 percent is going to migrate to another candidate. More of it will go to Ah-nie than Bustamonte even though Ah-nie is not your prototypical conservative Republican. That is why Ah-nie still has the edge, although as his novelty wears off, he may wear thin. The best Bustamonte can realistically hope for is Ah-nie losing some support; Simon and/or McClintock becoming competitive with Ah-nie thereby making it a true race as to who the Republican frontrunner is; and, with a split Republican vote, Bustamonte squeaks in. Having said this, two months is a long time in politics, and anything could happen including Gray Davis winning the recall vote.

Bustamante 25%, The Robot 22% ---- 5% margin of error.
Arnold 27%, Bustamante 20%
Bustamante 30%, Arnold 17%
Looks close, but I wouldn't call it a dead heat for now.

I am kind of curious how one votes for Lt. Governor Bustamonte as you are also voting out Governor Davis. I mean aren't they part of the same deal.

Bustamante will really have to tap dance to say on the one hand I am not for the recall of Davis, but if you do decide to vote the bastard out, then vote me into the office.

Oh well, why ever try to use logic when talking about or to a Democrat.

Most of those polls are also running between 35% and 45% "undecided"!

I can't see Arnold going all the way on this thing because it would be too much of a loss of revenue for that Republican! He'll bow out when it becomes clear that he won't win. He certainly will not let himself "not be elected". Also, it's not like it could lead to anything further "politically" as he's not a natural-born American.

>>>Bustamante will really have to tap dance to say on the one hand I am not for the recall of Davis, but if you do decide to vote the bastard out, then vote me into the office.<<<

I doubt whether Bustamante will use the word "bastard." Problem solved.

Mary Carey (the porn actress turned gubernatorial canditate) has some excellent campaign platforms, such as making lap dances a deductible business expense, and wiring the governors mansion with web cams to generate revenue. See www.marycarey.com

I was going to vote for Gary Coleman, but I think I'll vote for Mary instead.

As predicted by this report.

Now Bustamante attacking Gray Davis.

According to "SD Union" Bustamante claims Davis aides are undermining his campaign by asking Dems, not to contribute to Bustmante.

This is just great.

HAHAHA

Oh Laguy,

"I have mixed feelings about Clinton, some of which I stated in earlier posts. The best thing he did for the country (and I wish Bush would learn from his example) is that early in his administration he appointed economic advisors who saw to it that the right signals were sent to the financial markets, primarily signals about how the federal government was going to adopt a fiscally sound budget and eliminate or significantly lower the deficit."

I thought maybe the Republican majority in the House and Senate was the reason for our economic success of the mid 90's. At least that would be using the same logic you spewed at me regarding California was doing well during the mid 90's because of a Democratic majority in the state legislature.

Her campaign slogan is, "We've had Brown, we've tried Gray, now it's time for some blonde."

Holy shit, those DD things are natural. If elected, her support may sag during the middle of her term.

Ben:
You are just one regular distortion machine aren't you? My point, rather obvious to any unbiased reader, is that if YOU are going to use who was in control of the legislature for purposes of an automatic assignment of credit for good or bad things that happened during a given time period, YOUR LOGIC (which I incidentally do not agree with) should dictate that the Democrats should automatically (without any need for further analysis) get credit for both the good things and the bad things that have happened in California while they controlled the legislature. Your application of the principle of giving credit to whoever controls the legislature is skewed: if the Democrats controlled the legislature give them credit for all the bad things that happened under their control while denying them credit for anything good.

The fact that this is apparently YOUR view of the world, of course, does not preclude me from commenting on good things Clinton (or anyone else) did as well as bad things, nor does it preclude me having an opinion as to the effect those things had on our country. I simply don't agree with your simple-minded method for assigning responsibility for the good and the bad. On the other hand, I don't believe it is a coincidence that when Clinton was President and had a Republican Congress (at least part of the time) the direction was towards balanced budgets and surpluses. Shortly after Bush became President, with the same Republican Congress (with a short period of nominal Dem control of the Senate), everything fiscal fell apart, so bad that Bush ended up firing his economic team. I suppose that is what you get when you have a president who goes before his alma mater to say "I am an example that even C students can become President." What a friggin' genius.

Arrianna Huffington- I can't stand this broad's shrill voice. Even her ex husband(Politician Mike Huffington) went on TV to say he supports Ahnold. Who could blame hime after a nasty divorce. She an her ex are rich so they send their kids to private schools and she said on TV she would not send her kids to public schools because she doesn't want them to be "Guinea Pigs"! So all kids attending public schools are guinea pigs? What a bitch. It was hilarious to see her on TV news trying to stand next to Ahnold and Maria Shriver just to get exposure. Better to take off your clothes, girl!

Cruz Bustamente-just looks too much like a Mexican(god bless) Al Capone for my tastes.

Marey Carey-Don't know her but I met and checked out the vagina of another porn star called Mariah Cherry. She looked like a deadringer for pop star Mariah Carey.

Grey Davis- The California energy crisis which costs taxpayers billions was thought by many to have been rigged. And it WAS after a couple of whistle blowers came forward. But before the revelation, Grey Davis made deals with the energy companies for expensive electricity and that's one of the reasons people want him recalled. He is probably corrupt.

If Ahnold is ever corrupt, which I highly doubt, everything he worked for in his life, his 'legacy' will turn to shit. It doesn't matter he is considered the greatest bodybuilder ever, a huge movie star, a shrewd businessman, he will always be remembered as a corrupt politician. Much the way Clinton(god bless) will always be remembered for his blowjobs from that fat broad Monica. Ahnold was a millionaire by 22 yrs and now is estimated to be worth at the very minimum 200 million. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/10/201110.shtml
He has too much to lose(esp. his 'legacy') to be corrupt. Doesn't mean rich folks won't be corrupt. But Ahnold is the only one with the charisma and fame to shake things up and hopefully make Calif better.

>>But Ahnold is the only one with the charisma and fame to shake things up and hopefully make Calif better<<

DJ: Didn't you claim that you had a certified high I.Q.? Well, act the part. LOL

LOL. Sorry to be putting down democrats, whom I usually prefer. But who else has the fame and charisma? Bustamante? Ueberoth? Simon? Hey if Robert Redford runs I'd look into that. Ahnold has some good people around him, Schultz, Buffet, and esp. his wife. LAguy, don't underestimate charisma and fame in a leader. And how it can affect the people. JFK had it. Even though he was screwing around with Marilyn Monroe, no one cared.

You were right about Canada though.

Now I'd like to see Ahnold debating. It should be funny. He talks tough and funny like me. I should know, I'm one of his publicist and speech writers.

I think it will be a tough race for Arnold. I would lay 60% odds that he doesn't finish the race (or at least will not be actively campaigning at the end).

One of you should go to an Arrianna Huffington press conference and ask the following question:

"Hi, I'm from Club Hombre, and our readers want to know: since you're Greek, do you prefer anal sex over vaginal sex and oral sex and if so, do you use anal desensitizing cream or just go with a little extra lube?"

"Shortly after Bush became President, with the same Republican Congress (with a short period of nominal Dem control of the Senate), everything fiscal fell apart, so bad that Bush ended up firing his economic team. I suppose that is what you get when you have a president who goes before his alma mater to say "I am an example that even C students can become President." What a friggin' genius"

Talk about simplistic and distorted.

You are not only long winded and totally missing the point in most of my posts, you are just getting boring.

Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush came into office nine months after the stock market had hit it’s all time high and our economy was already in a downward spiral. In addition 9/11 comes waltzing in to compound the economic problems.

Lets see, Clinton comes into office as the economy has just come out of a recession and was(I will give him credit) smart enough to bring in Robert Rubin as his Economic Advisor and then later Sec. of Treasurer. Clinton, who no question was/is a brilliant politician with a very high intellect was also smart enough to leave Alan Greenspan in charge of the Federal Reserve.

OH, it is funny to me, how you totally ignore the most salient parts about "The Steve Peace Death March" article to mention that Steve Peace once went up against Willie Brown. What the hell did that have to do with Steve Peace, a Democrat, getting most of the credit for deregulating the energy business in CA. AND then Gray Davis making Peace his top economic advisor a couple of years ago.

I would guess that no amount of logic or facts regarding Gray Davis and the Dems majority in the CA Assembly and Senate would move you to acknowledge how they have screwed up this state.

I still find it hard to believe you are a successful businessman, as you sound more like a labor union official or a public employee, but I certainly can't dispute your claim. It is just puzzling to me, but many things are confusing to me(I an trying to make this easy for you).

Just one question and I would like to give up.

Do you really think our energy and fiscal problems in CA have been created more by Bush or by a Democratic legislature and Executive office?

Ben: Your article says Steve Peace oversaw the negotiations over deregulating the energy business in California. My article, http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/12/wilson.deregulation/ gives Pete Wilson the credit for proposing and seeing through deregulation of energy, credit Wilson completely takes. What is your point?

>>Perhaps you have forgotten that Bush came into office nine months after the stock market had hit it’s all time high and our economy was already in a downward spiral. In addition 9/11 comes waltzing in to compound the economic problems.<<
Perhaps you didn't read my posts carefully.

>>Lets see, Clinton comes into office as the economy has just come out of a recession and was(I will give him credit) smart enough to bring in Robert Rubin as his Economic Advisor and then later Sec. of Treasurer. Clinton, who no question was/is a brilliant politician with a very high intellect was also smart enough to leave Alan Greenspan in charge of the Federal Reserve.<<
Well, we agree on one thing at least.

>>I still find it hard to believe you are a successful businessman, as you sound more like a labor union official or a public employee, but I certainly can't dispute your claim.<<
Is there a reason you feel compelled to personalize everything? Does paying a payroll service, paying workers comp premiums, paying a city business license tax, etc., qualify me as a businessman? In any event, I am surprised that in all your research you haven't discovered that there are many very successful businessmen who don't agree with your right-wing analysis of the world.

>>Do you really think our energy and fiscal problems in CA have been created more by Bush or by a Democratic legislature and Executive office?<<
I believe that Bush, his advisors, and the Republican Congress are destroying our national economy. This has had serious effects on California. I also believe Davis and the Democratic legislature did not foresee that the economy's glory days were over, and their budgets (which in California cannot pass with less than 2/3 support in the legislature, ergo it requires Republican votes) were therefore irresponsible. I have not reached a firm conclusion as to who is most at fault but I tend to believe the scope of the irresponsibility is greater at the federal level, where there appears to be no attempt to rectify the problem. As to energy problems, it is ridiculous to blame only Gray Davis and the Democrats for the energy problems that California faced.
Getting back to the point of the thread: Irrespective of whether Davis has made some mistakes, I do not believe he has acted in a manner that justifies the extreme step of a recall.

I think and hope Bustamante is our next Gov. and do agree that the recall is bad. I never said I supported the recall.

I didn't mean the statement about you being in business as a personal insult. I apologize if you were insulted.

I need to go to the gym.

>>I think and hope Bustamante is our next Gov.<<

Ben, has there been an invasion in the San Diego area of communist mutants from outer space? Are you being held hostage? LOL

Not to personalize this but you don't understand (as usual). I don't want to let the Dems off the hook after they have screwed up this state.

This mornings SD Union announces that Bus. will raise taxes on the rich by 8 fuckin billion and lower auto taxes on cars worth less than 20k. Also he plans to spend more money on education.

Bustamante has already been endorse by three large unions and I am sure the CTA will come out for him with the, more spending for education idea. Also a program to offer free medical to the poor. Same old story of higher taxes and more spending. Typical CA Dem platform, which works. There will be someday a day of reckoning as businesses will continue to leave the state. I bet that platform will really help the CA bond rating. You remember that we have the lowest credit rating of ANY state in the U.S.?

No mention about cutting back on spending.

I am voting for Bus,

While we are at it, Bush has had an energy bill on the table for over two years, which included an improved grid nationally. It has been held up among other things because the bill also encourages drilling in Alaska and some national forest areas of the Rocky Mountains.

I hope the bill never passes as I own stock in a natural gas company located in southern Colorado called Evergreen Resources EVG, which is doing nothing but making money. I would encourage everyone to look at natural gas exploration companies as a potential good investment as I am sure we can count on all the environmentalist and liberals to kill any bill that will actively encourage domestic drilling for natural gas. I hope they keep preaching solar and wind as the solution.

Of course nuclear energy would solve the problem, but that makes to much sense to ever happen.

So thank you for caring about the environment and keep up the good work.

This last subject regarding energy applies to all who just don't really get it regarding our NG shortage in this country and not to you Laugh(personally)

I meant Laguy(personally)

Fruedian slip????

Yeah but Cruz is going to raise taxes on drinkers, smokers, and higher income folks. And the $20K car idea is of no help either.

jeez

I tell ya, I get no respect, my Dad would take me to the beach and pay the lifeguard 5 bucks NOT to watch me.

Too bad Rodney isn't running.

About why Ben will vote for Bustamonte: >>Not to personalize this but you don't understand (as usual). I don't want to let the Dems off the hook after they have screwed up this state. <<

Yeah, you made that real clear in your earlier posts. Jeeez.

>>I hope the bill never passes as I own stock in a natural gas company located in southern Colorado called Evergreen Resources EVG, which is doing nothing but making money<<

Spoken like a true Republican. All that matters is your personal stash of money.

"Spoken like a true Republican. All that matters is your personal stash of money."

By far your dumbest statement to date.


All that matters to me is to not have to depend on any level of government to take care of me. Therefore, yes I am very concerned about my retirement and my health care.

I don't understand. What could possibly be of greater importance to any individual than his own personal stash of money?

I suggest that everyone invest in energy company MSSN, if they want to profit off of the natural gas crisis.

The only thing important to me is World Peace.

Ben,
Do you mean 'peace' or 'piece'?

"What could possibly be of greater importance to any individual than his own personal stash of money?"

Precisely, anybody who says different is stupid. And I'm a bleeding heart NY demo liberal! First and foremost is for everybody to take of themselves. Social programs are for childern, elderly, crippled, retarded, sexy latinas, and Benosaurs.

...and to support affirmative action...

At least we know Gov Davis is a moonger. He had a fling I think with Cibil Sheppard (probably spelled wrong), or someone else claiming to have been with Davis.

At the time she claimed to be with Davis, she was only 16.

Maybe we can even find Davis on a CD in the police station in the near future.

OH