It's GOVERNOR Schwarzenegger now.

[Nick15]

http://msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

Lord helps us all if someone plans on recalling Schwarznegger....

[Carrington388]

a publicity-hungry porn actress who wanted to tax breast implantsThat was Mary Carey.and an artist who dressed in all blue and described his candidacy as the ultimate piece of performance art.Trek "Thunder" Kelly is this one.

I watched the "victory party" on Game Show Network, which had, for the past seven days, aired a game-show style debate featuring Gary Coleman, Carh Mehr, Kelly, Carey, Nate Walton, and Bryan Quinn, and the winner of a $21,200 campaign contribution (the maximum allowable by law) was determined by the viewers. GSN said they were the first to predict that the recall was successful. (BTW, Mary Carey won the $21,200.)

[Maverick Hunter Zero]

Governor Schwarznegger. Hm.

*Thumbs up*

[ShadowOfTyranitar]

I'm really surprised...

[Skywolf1]

All I can say is "God Help US ALL!"

I am not going any futher than that.

Truly a sad day for the United States, and an even worse one for the state of California.

Skywolf1

[Orange Soda]

Governator, huh?

Why didn't they go the more logical route: if you're gunna oust the governor, up the vice governor.

[Android17a]

Hey, at least you Americans get "politicians" with personality.

[League Leader Terry]

I'd say that California was going to Hell in a hand basket if it wasn't already there. :)

[ToysRUsKid]

like i said when Bush Was Elected

Were Doomed. =/

Anyone have enough money to Recall Swartz?

Funny, I have no clue why people would put a idiot in office.

He has no clue whats going on.
He thinks this is gonna be an easy job, ya, right ... everything that hits his desk will prolly be like .. I PASS!

Very Very Sad Day in the history of California.

Hell, Gary Coleman would be a better governor than this fool.

~truk

[)v(ajin_ipg21]

=/

Well, at least this won't catapult him into the White House.

I am NOT looking forward to all the Pete Wilson clones in advisory positions.

Don't worry the LEGISLATURE will make him pay dearly for his win.
*Then again it may endear him EVEN more to all those who voted for him*

THe fun only begins... tomorrow morning the CHALLENGES will be filed in court *hope not, let this END now*

[Tego]

First Bush, now this.

[UncleBob]

Hey, Arnold cannot do much worse than Gray Davis managed to do, and that's pretty much all I can say on that.

"<I>Why didn't they go the more logical route: if you're gunna oust the governor, up the vice governor.</I>"
I don't think anyone was too big of a fan of the Vice Governor either... and those who started the recall (republicans) really wern't fans of the VG...

[BJJ763]

"Well, at least this won't catapult him into the White House."

Are you sure about that?

"First Bush, now this."

Don't you mean Reagan?

Glad i'm East Coast.

[Maverick Hunter Zero]

:rolleyes: Pretty sure, considering the whole "You have to be born here" requirement for the president.

Looks like I have a massively different opinion than everyone else here. Again. Ah well.

[SD PokeMom]

Yep, Juan...more of THIS (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283&row=0) is what we're in for, I fear...

'mom

[Porygon3]

Woooooottt!! We win!! Go Republicans!! Yay!!
My thought? He is the new Regan and will bring in the golden years!! Perhaps some change to the system will alow him to become Presdent!! Yeah, we nead a good man like that to lead!!

[)v(ajin_ipg21]

THAT is the issue.

NO SPECIAL INTEREST?
My butt. ANYONE who complains about special interest DOES NOT HAVE their special interest in power.

Arnie owes some VERY POWERFUL people favors. HE MUST. HE is a very lucky man, very lucky. Shrewd? Yes. I even underestimated him *or underestimated the population of CA - BUT who else was a viable candidate =( - AND NO WAY is the LATINO Bloc of one mentality, how misunderstood we are*

I trust few in power.
I hope that OUR best interest in mind, AND NOT of the few * this VOODOO economics & Trickle Down theories IMO don't mean squat*

This sets a very scary precedent. I am against term-limits BUT there is a reason WHY we vote REPRESENTATIVES. WE need SPECIALIST to tackle economic/political issues & we are suppose to VOTE those we hope best represent us. Too bad there is very little COMPROMISING occuring in Sacramento.

"THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?"
Who funded this recall? HE lives nowhere nor knows my neighborhood.

At least Arnie KNOWS Manner snacks & Nutella...
Reminds me of Presidente Fox... so easy to say SO hard to do.

*Only time will tell, can only hope now, or pray...

[)v(ajin_ipg21]

Hey android17a,

Isn't the current EU president a "colorful" personality?

Here it is mighty important how they come across in the MEDIA.

IN CA, there were qualifies candidates and NEITHER won.

[Monkey]

haha, I wanted Gary Coleman to win but, oh well! :)

*Goes back to playing Postal 2*

[Nick15]

The only reason why a lot of people are against Schwarzenegger is simply because's he's Republican. Had he been a Democrat, then I'm sure half the people here would be like "thank God he won" over "this'll be hell for the next 4 years". Lousy knee-jerk reactions. I mean Larry Flynt registered Democrat and I never heard anything about him, and he's done considerably "worse" things than Schwarzenegger. Or is it because no one cared because everyone knew he wasn't gonna be elected anyways? (Ooohhh, this is why this two party system bugs me so.)

What ticks me the most is all this "my Governor is better than your Governor" bull that I hear. Arnold has done a LOT of "bad" things, while the other Democrats are as clean as a whistle. I mean I didn't vote for Bustamante only because of his whole "For the race, everything!" deal a few years back. And trust me, voting JUST because of race is the worst reason anyone can vote for. My mom, a Korean, has been screwed over so many times by other Koreans, but she keeps going to Korean businesses just because they're Korean. Race means nothing in terms of how much (or little) one will screw you over.

Concerning the will of the people; Californians are no smarter/dumber than the rest of the nation. (Give me a few minutes and I can bring up some crazy scheme from YOUR state/country.) Just because were "ooh!" Californians doesn't mean we're any worse off than the other 49 states. Apparently a majority of the Californians feel that Schwarzenegger can do a hell of a better job than Davis would, and they just proved it last night. :) I thank GOD that California is MORE than the San Francisco Bay Area.

In ALL honesty though, no Californian can really say that their lives are gonna be affected by any of this. If you turn off the TV, stop listening to the radio, and ignore the news prints, then this day (and the every day for the next 4 years) will feel like the other days. Sure you might notice a difference in how much tax you pay.... but that's pretty much it. I challenge anyone to explain any significant impact they felt on their lives between Reagen, Wilson, Davis, and now Schwarzenegger, and how it might have been totally different if "the other guy" was elected.

-----

ToysRUsKid:
like i said when Bush Was Elected

Were Doomed. =/

You probably wouldn't be saying that if you lived through the Nixon era. Bush is a teeny little boy compared to Nixon.

.... I'd better stop before I go toooo far here. :\

[yoshi1001]

All I wanna say is, how much you guys wanna bet they make a movie about this?

[GreatFox]

Meh...I'm completely nutral in all of this. I really don't care who's Govenor... Only one of two things will happen either way... He will make things better or he will make things worst.

Besides, no one complained this much when Reagan went into politics!

Now, the funny part was those who ran as a Joke or to promote thier Products and still got votes with no compaining at all. :lol:

[League Leader Terry]

Here's what I'm afraid of. Remember Demolition Man? Someone mentioned a president Schwarzenegger. Stalone, obviously confused, asked about this and he was told that Schwarzenegger as a congressman managed to get an Amendment through that took out the "you have to be born here" clause and ended up becoming President. So, don't say it can't happen....

[Nick15]

So, don't say it can't happen....

Actually, ol' Arnie here had been persuing ammending that little cluase, changing it to something like... you have to be an upstanding US citizen for like a minimum of 25 years, or something to that extent. It's been shot down a few times, but people will eventually crack. :)

Ahhh.... President Schwarzenegger. American Politics kicks butt. :D

[Joe Monkey]

yoshi1001, I bet 20,000pokeyen:)

[PokePop]

So, don't say it can't happen....
Ahhh.... President Schwarzenegger. American Politics kicks butt. :D

Well, at least we all agree with the region under discussion.

[)v(ajin_ipg21]

I've followed Bustamante's career. I was impressed with his humble upbringing, Speaker of the House to LT Governor.

AND THEN he opened his mouth and SCARED off so many people =/

THE MECHA issue was blown out of proportion. IT WAS a 70's organization the came about from the 60's politics *Black Panthers, Brown berets, etc.*. OF COURSE it will come off very combative, SO WAS the political AWARENESS on college campuses.

TODAY UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES are full of ETHNIC organizations that play the very scary RACE CARD. Mecha is not alone.

*I pray... his press conference IMO to good, too good to be true. It had to scare the right wing republicans on his socail issues.

THE OTHER Issue is what will OUR IDIOT legislature butt heads with him.

BTW, IF Richard Riordan becomes an education advisor as I heard on my local radio, TEACHERS beware. HE funded so many candidates here on LA that were SO ANTI-teachers. *I like the former mayor of LA, but what he wanted to do with the LAUSD school board was scary and it almost worked*

[RaNd0m]

It seems we have a few Arianna Huffingtons on this board, dragging Bush into every issue, explaining what an idiot he is... :lol:

Ok first off, I wouldn't have voted for Schwartzaneggar if I had lived in Cuhleeforneeah. I probably would've voted for McClintock. He was the ONLY person in the debate Ahnold was in that actually seemed like he KNEW what he was talking about. Bustamante might be a good guy, but I disagree completely with him on social issues... and I don't think bringing in someone from the current administration is a good way to solve a problem the current administration caused. =P

And our country being doomed based on the fact that Bush was elected TRUK? Yeah, we're doomed. Let's see, if a democrat were in office, we probably would've...

A.) Not taken an aggressive stance against terrorism, and probably would've been attacked within the next year.

B.) Had a WORSE economy, based on the lack of stimulus packages... and I might add the economy falling was NOT Bush's fault, it was inherited. (The stock market decline began on Clinton's term.)

C.) A dictator would still be killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

D.) We would be promoting agendas that are to the far-left... which isn't bad depending on your point of view.

Regardless, I'm sick and tired of hearing people complain about how Bush has "ruined" this country etc. If you can't back up your statements, shut up. =\

~ RaNd0m

[UncleBob]

hmmm.. Bush...
A.) Not taken an aggressive stance against terrorism, and probably would've been attacked within the next year.

Talking about not backing your statements up. You can make that statement about as well as I can say "If Bush was never in office, we never would have gotten attacked in the first place".

B.) Had a WORSE economy, based on the lack of stimulus packages... and I might add the economy falling was NOT Bush's fault, it was inherited. (The stock market decline began on Clinton's term.)

Yeah, that tax cut really helped things. Lord knows I'm still getting $200 taken out of my paycheck... Maybe I should go out and buy a $80,000 SUV so the Tax Cut will help me out a little.

C.) A dictator would still be killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

No, instead the US army manages to kill civilians. Not to mention the fact that the country that *really* wants us to have a full presence there (and the country where the international community would welcome us and the country that we pretty much owe) is in turmoil because we can't spare the troops right now...

D.) We would be promoting agendas that are to the far-left... which isn't bad depending on your point of view.

Yeah... I'd hate to have agendas that protect the enviroment and such... Yay for the destruction of the planet! Down with Captain Planet!

[Nick15]

Living with Bush = so-called "hell".
Living with Gore = so-called "hell", but just a more Gore-ish version of it.

American would have won/lost no matter who's in charge. Frankly my life hasn't farred better or worse with Bush in power. Likewise, I'm sure it wouldn't have been much different with Gore.

Though to touch on what Random said on point A: Had Gore been in power, I think the downtown anti-war protesting would have come from conservative college students over the liberal college students, much in the same way Clinton's own bombing of Bagdhad was blasted by the Republicans. Either way, SOMEONE'S gonna complain.

Curse this two party system. It's true that this nation has been the most polarized it's ever been (but then again, I've only been alive for the last 21 years of it, so.....).

As for point B: if there's one thing I've figured, it's that Democrats are good with money and Republicans are good with war (but don't take that as solid fact, that's just my guesstimation of the views). Clinton helped pull the US out of a slump after Bush Number One. But then again, I do recall the Dow/Nasdaq slipping while Clinton was still in office. So who's to blame for the economy? You and me. :)

As the economy, first of all it's near impossible to attribute the rise and fall of any economy on one single person (unless that person physically blew up Wall Street). Therefore I don't think anyone could blame Bush Number Two from ruining it, nor could anyone praise Clinton for helping it. We really only have us to blame for thinking that the economy is doing poorly... because like a wilde fire, the rumor would spread into doubt and remorse. :) Fortunatly though, the best way to get a good idea on the economy is by talking to people who drive big rigs who deliver goods from one part of the country to another. A lot come into my work, they tell me that they've been busier than ever. :) .... So if you wanna help the economy, buy-buy-buy a LOT of Pokémon cards!! :D

Concerning C; I'd have to side with Random here. If you leave Saddam in power, you guarentee civilian deaths. I mean Lord only knows when he would have croaked, and when even when he would, he'd just be replaced by one of his worse sons, either Uday or Qusay. Right now US soldiers are killing civilians (hah, IMHO), but this sort of death would be temporary. Give it say 3 years for Iraq to be rebuilt, then the US leaves, leaving a non-killing, non-Saddam Iraqi gov't in power. As in no more civilian deaths after the US leaves come 2007. As opposed to Saddam still in power by 2007. .... In a war, civilians will die, but only for a short while. .... That is unless the US installs another Saddam-esque fellow in power, but here's praying we don't.

D: This is just an issue of who's in power. Like I said, SOMEONE'S gonna be mad with no matter who's in power. Be it Bush or Gore, either the far-left or the far-right would be bugged by them. Not much one can do about that.

....Uhm.... not that I want to escalate this into annoying proportions. Just stating my opinions. :) ... As a moderator though, I would DEFINITELY reccomend that no one resort to name calling, saying someone is wrong just because their opinion is different... or even implying any of this. Keep things civil folks. :D

[UncleBob]

The real problem concerning point C is that it is not our place to go around the world and pick and choose which countries' governments we want to remove and which ones are okay to stay in power. Saddam was an evil, awful man, no doubt, but, IMHO, he wasn't much more evil than, say, Andrew Jackson - and we still have that mass murder on the $20 - nevermind the fact that he probably would have been thrilled to have been able to do what Saddam did.

Anywhoo, my original point. *We* had absolutly *no* right to go into Iraq the way we did. We tried to say we were just enforcing what the UN agreed to ignoring the fact that the UN did not agree with what we did. Now we've screwed up the entire nation of Iraq (even worse than it was before) and, of course, we whine and complain when it comes to spending the money and using the people/troops that it will take to fix what we've done there. Oh, and we try to tell all these other countries that they should dedicate money and troops to the effort when they tried to tell us in the first place that the were not willing to do such a thing.

We tried to say it was for the people - yet there are many, many other countries around the world where people are treated the same and worse than Iraq. Why aren't we there (even when *everyone* wants us in one of them?)

We tried to say it was for the weapons of mass destruction that we *knew* they had (with diagrams and maps and all the details)... yet we haven't found squat - not to mention other countries that brag and threaten with their WMD's...

We tried to say it was because Saddam had ties to Bin Laden... yet I've failed to find any credible source (and no, Bush has proven not to be a credible source, as he was quite okay with spewing faulty intel) that's willing to agree to such a claim. And yet, governments that many credible sources claim are tied to terrorism, well, let's lend them troops to help keep their murdering dictatorships in power...

I'm no Gore fan either, btw...

[)v(ajin_ipg21]

GET BACK ON TOPIC.

Well we don't have to, either one leads us into DANGEROUS territory.

I like the heat...

Sure there are 'evil-doers' but I thought Clinton was criticized for spreading us thin around the world and policing it. *We have to admit that the reasons we did so in Iraq had to been for ECONOMIC reasons. BUT WHOSE? Bechtel's? Cheney's Corp? or to undo OPEC?*

Otherwise Why are we not in Africa removing all those dictators? *PLEASE I do not want a repeat of the Banana Republics of Latin America, OUR TRACK record is not good*

The SPINcontrol that White House has been in the Post-Iraqi War? I Mean Liberation, no I mean Occupation, no I mean... Rice vs Rumsfeld...

Confusing Times.
Fascinating times.

[Nick15]

Heat is good. Just only if we keep is CIVIL and be understanding of each other's viewpoints. Let's not get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" shoving match here... that might help avoid turning this into a flame war. :)

Thing is though, the US in the past has helped both Saddam and Iraq during the 1980's in an effort to defeat Iran. However now that the American people have learned that "helping" Saddam was a terrible mistake, what should we do about it? Should we just leave him there and say "sure we gave him the tools to be able to commit his terrible acts of evil, but he's YOUR problem now?" We helped Saddam, as terrible as that was on our part, so I feel that we have/had the moral obligation to get rid of him.

Note though, regardless of the fact that our military is spread out, the US has't done a lot fo invading of other nations. And it is my opinion that outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US won't be doing much of that any time soon. Of course this is gonna be one of those "just wait and see" sort of things. But then again, we didn't put any of the African dictators in power (as far as I'm aware), so.... [shrugs] what can we do about it?

.... Concerning Jackson, if we had a time machine, I'm sure people would go back in time and fix him goooood. Problem is that we don't, therefore everything he had done will forever remain. So bringing him up is a nonissue, in the sense that no one in power today can be held responsible for the actions Jackson took upon the Native Americans. It would be like blaming the current German administration for the atrocities done by the Nazi gov't during World War Two. .... Saddam on the other hand has a murderous dictator who the current American administration WAS in a position to dethrone... I figured that they saw the perfect oppurtunity to take him out. "Why not?" they would ask? I guess it had to happen sooner or later. If Bush didn't do it now, the next one would have. SOMEONE would be taking flack from it, maybe Bush decided to be the one to take the mdeia bullet. [shrugs]

Concerning on whether or not the war in Iraq was a just war... this is a toughy. On one hand, I feel the the ends dictate the means; we helped Saddam in the past but made the mistake, taking him out was the goal and we pretty much did that. On the other hand, the big reasons Bush wanted us to go to war aren't there... no Weapons of Mass Destruction... yet... which I STILL wonder why the Iraqi acted like they were hiding something. Heaven forbid if Iraq somehow sucessfully smuggled them out of the country. .... Plus you have to figure that it's humanly impossible to rebuild Iraq in one month then bugger out. It took 3 years to rebuild Japan after World War 2, and the American-funded Marshall Plan didn't even reach war-torn Europe until 1946.

That is why, in all honesty, I say the jury is still out on the Iraq vendetta. It would be too early for ANYONE to close the book on this, aside from the fact that it's still going on. Best thing to do would be to do what one can to help Iraq in any way possible, I'd give that 3 years (more or less), and wait. Well we, by 2020, look back at 2003 and think "you know, in the end it was a good idea that we 'invaded' Iraq", or "invading Iraq was truly the dumbest thing Bush ever did".

-----

Going back on how this all related to Schwarzenegger... why do you think Arnold won "by a landslide"? Why do you think voter turn out in California was the largest it's been in quite some time (larger than last election's 23-someodd precent)? It was because this "circus" of a Governor's election actually made politics interesting for Californians. Arnold won because many people felt he had a more sparkling charisma than the other candidates, regardless of his opinions and actions. Even if you didn't like Schwarzenegger, you've got to admit you paid more attention to the recall election over the 2002 Davis vs. Simon Governor election...

Then consider the 2000 election. Bush was an idiot and Gore was boring. Who wanted to vote in that one?? Even the Californian Governor elections last year had terrible turn outs due to the simple fact that it was BORING. :)

Maybe this'll set a precident in further national elections. The parties better get "cool" candidates, otherwise they'd be doomed.

2004 Elections are already in stone as to how uncool it'll seem. It's either "Feurer" Bush versus some no-named Democrat. Joy. Hopefully by 2008, the elections might have a bit more spice to them. [crosses fingers]

[UncleBob]

Diversity is what makes the world go `round!

Thing is though, the US in the past has helped both Saddam and Iraq during the 1980's [...] so I feel that we have/had the moral obligation to get rid of him.

I do partially agree with that... but... (and there's always a but) we've helped North Korea quite a bit, and we half-founded Liberia (a country which was created because of some of the horrible things done in our country). Don't we have moral obligations there, also? And look at everything we've done for the terrible government of Saudi Arabia - a government that's almost as bad as Saddam's.
Also, we have to take into account world opinion, even if we don't like it. I mean, sure, *we* may feel like we owe it to the world to do something, but if the world doesn't want us to then there's a good chance we shouldn't be doing it.

.... Concerning Jackson, if we had a time machine, I'm sure people would go back in time and fix him goooood. Problem is that we don't, therefore everything he had done will forever remain. So bringing him up is a nonissue,

Not really. As I said, Jackson is still on the $20. We name schools and monuments for him and other Presidents that were... questionable at best. Why do we leave Jackson on the $20 but take Saddam off of Iraqi currency? How would you feel if you were going to Adolf Jr. High? Or lived in Bin Laden, Missouri? Granted, we can't go back and undo the horrors that Jackson commited any more than we can go back and undo what Hitler did - but that doesn't mean we should be celebrating the man either.


On the other hand, the big reasons Bush wanted us to go to war aren't there... no Weapons of Mass Destruction... yet... which I STILL wonder why the Iraqi acted like they were hiding something.

Probably just to tick us off and make us look like fools to the rest of the world. But this brings up an interesting point. One of the reasons Bush decided to go into Iraq was to make the world safer.

1.) We have absolutly no idea where Saddam is.
2.) Saddam has even *more* reason to hate us now.
3.) Under the assumption there were WMD's, we have absolutly no idea where they are at either.
4.) We've learned that our intelligence isn't quite as good as we throught it was - faulty at best.

Do you feel safer?

Plus you have to figure that it's humanly impossible to rebuild Iraq in one month then bugger out. It took 3 years to rebuild Japan after World War 2, and the American-funded Marshall Plan didn't even reach war-torn Europe until 1946.

The differnece being that a large part of the world wanted us to go into Japan *and* we had their support. And that took three+ years. How long is it going to take in Iraq. How much money and how many troops (and how many more lives?)


That is why, in all honesty, I say the jury is still out on the Iraq vendetta. [...] "invading Iraq was truly the dumbest thing Bush ever did".

Oh, we'll never know for certian... all I can do is hope it works out and someday we can see Bush's smiling face on the $20. ;)

-----

Why do you think voter turn out in California was the largest it's been in quite some time (larger than last election's 23-someodd precent)? [...] the Californian Governor elections last year had terrible turn outs due to the simple fact that it was BORING. :)

I'm not from California, but I think a part of this can be attributed to the number of people who just *hated* Mr. Davis's work for the past five years. Yeah, the glitter and gold helped make it more attractive to everyone, but apparently Gray Davis wasn't very well liked - espically when you consider how big the margin was that he was recalled by, coupled with the fact that many people voted "no" on the recall because a) they felt it [the idea of a recall] was a bad idea, b) they didn't want to risk a Republican in office, or c) they didn't want Arnold to get office. I wonder if the vote was *just* yay or nay on giving Gray das boot, without looking ahead at who'd replace him, how the vote would have turned out...

Maybe this'll set a precident in further national elections. The parties better get "cool" candidates, otherwise they'd be doomed.

Becareful there. You'll end up with stuff like Bill Clinton playing the Sax on late night TV because it's "cool". Though I have to admit, I was floored when Hillary appeared on the Daily Show... Man, it'd be weird if she became president...

[BJJ763]

Maybe this'll set a precident in further national elections. The parties better get "cool" candidates, otherwise they'd be doomed.

Lord, NO!!! We do not need MTV politics.

[RaNd0m]

First off, with Iraq...

President Bush never said it was going to be easy. The media did. President Bush NEVER said there was an imminent threat. The media did.

Nick touched on how many far-right conservatives would be ticked if Gore went into Iraq, and he is probably RIGHT. That's why I can't give anti-war people any credibility unless they opposed the Kosovo operation as well. It seems that none of the liberals complaining NOW about the war ever did back then, which is a huge double standard considering it's the same thing, only Iraq has a bigger value to America.

On the issue of the economy...

It's doing well. It has been for months now. The media doesn't allow us to see that. See, many of us (especially 15-17 year olds) only saw the 90's where it was a period of EXCESSIVE growth. Now that the economy is "lagging", we're thinking it's bad. In fact, if you study the stock market (which I do), you'll notice that we're in an uptrend now, and it's not just a little jump. It's a TREND.

Nick hit ANOTHER great point (I swear, he knows everything) on how the economy really isn't affected by the current President. It's relatively true. The tax cuts, if anything, will minutely help the economy itself, but it does make the people HAPPY. And I truly think that the people know how to use the money better than politicians in Washington. But yeah, one could argue that "Reagan is the reason the 90's economy soared" and then another could argue "Clinton did it". I ask, "What did either of them do to 'make it soar'"? It just did.

What I'm worried about is that if you study the history of the stock market, the 20's and the 90's were VERY VERY SIMILAR economically. While the rest of the world is suffering a severe recession bordering on depression, we aren't yet. I'm not sure whether we will or not, but history usually repeats itself.

We were right to go into Iraq, and 70% of the country agreed. They agreed based on what Bush said, that there may be an imminent threat in the future, and we need to act quickly. Now the media is putting words into Bush's mouth that he never said. And of course, the liberals are enjoying this ;/

~ RaNd0m

[yoshi1001]

Bush actually said:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. "
2003 SotU

Which begs the question-if the threat wasn't imminent, why did we go to Iraq? We might as well euphenize every dog that might bite someone.

On the issue of the economy...

"It's doing well. It has been for months now. The media doesn't allow us to see that. See, many of us (especially 15-17 year olds) only saw the 90's where it was a period of EXCESSIVE growth. Now that the economy is "lagging", we're thinking it's bad. In fact, if you study the stock market (which I do), you'll notice that we're in an uptrend now, and it's not just a little jump. It's a TREND."

I disagree. As someone who was looking for a job a few months ago, I can safely say that the job market was (and is) terrible. Furthermore, the stock market is not necessarily the best indicator of where the economy is headed. Companies can do quite well while people suffer.

"The tax cuts, if anything, will minutely help the economy itself, but it does make the people HAPPY."

Yeah, whee! I can buy a box of macaroni and cheese!

In any case, I'm not against the war in Iraq. I'm against having done it when we did, with virtually no international support and insufficient planning.

[UncleBob]

I have to agree with Yoshi here. If the "threat" from Iraq was not imminent, then there was still a chance that the situation could have been made better through either talks or international support.

And while the entire state of the economy is in no way Bush's fault he has done little to nothing to help actually improve the economy. If all else, he's hurt it by making the citizenry uneasy about out future, etc., etc...

We were right to go into Iraq, and 70% of the country agreed.
And 95% of the rest of the world disagreed. ;)

Yeah, whee! I can buy a box of macaroni and cheese!
Maybe you should go out and buy an $80,000 SUV and reap the rewards of Bush's Tax Cuts!

[Dek]

Anyways, BACK ON TOPIC!!!

Now that Schwarzenegger is Governor, I have just thought of some interesting predictions:

1. for Arnold...Terminator 4: Rise of the Candidates

2. For Gary Coleman...cameo appearances for the next 5 "Postal" games where, this time, he will actually be saying "What you talking about, Willis?" every time you hit him.

3. Mary Carey...Doing another adult film. EDIT: Got a little out of hand last night. sorry guys.
As for this stuff about Iraq, look at what Bush started. He flushed a few million dollars down the toilet (in this case, bombing the living crap out of them), and now look what happens. We, as the United States of America, are now in more debt than ever

[RaNd0m]

That child tax credit helped my family out, a LOT. It gave us some cash to pay off some irritating bills that we had a hard time paying. =\

And that 95% of the rest of the world figure isn't true. It's what liberal propaganda says, but we actually had 30+ countries supporting us in Iraq. =\

~ RaNd0m

[PokePop]

That child tax credit helped my family out, a LOT. It gave us some cash to pay off some irritating bills that we had a hard time paying. =\

And that 95% of the rest of the world figure isn't true. It's what liberal propaganda says, but we actually had 30+ countries supporting us in Iraq. =\

~ RaNd0m

I'm trying to stay out of it, but that "30+ countries" that gets bandied about makes me laugh.

Care to list them, including population?
Care to list how many troops and how much money they ponied up in support?
Or did we pay many of them with loans and grants?

We had one major supporter. Great Britian.
I will say though, if you only have one, that's the one to have.

[UncleBob]

That child tax credit helped my family out, a LOT. It gave us some cash to pay off some irritating bills that we had a hard time paying. =\

And what about people and families that don't have children? Again, that didn't help me one bit. Also, I find it important to note that most people who followed the entire tax cut issues felt that, if Bush's administration had their way, the Child Tax Credit never would have went through - in fact, it wasn't until the news media noticed that the entire Tax Cut had passed without the purposed Child Tax Credit did the change get made.

And that 95% of the rest of the world figure isn't true. It's what liberal propaganda says, but we actually had 30+ countries supporting us in Iraq. =\

Yeah, you're right (partially). While I did pull that 95% out of my back side, we did not have 30+ countries supporting us. We had partial amounts of the governments of 30+ countries supporting "us". Even our biggest supporter, The United Kingdom, was largly against the war and if Tony Blair wasn't in power, I honestly don't believe the UK would have been in on it... Lord knows the general population of the UK was against it...

[afireinside]

haha.

americans :rolleyes: ...

[RaNd0m]

UncleBob: The idea behind the child tax credit was to help FAMILIES... and the fact of the matter is, if you don't have children, you don't spend as much. Children cost money... and lots of it.

Pokepop: Sure, I'll name a few of them. Now whether they've submitted troops or not does not necessarily apply... it does to the top 4, and I'm not sure about the rest.

Great Britain
Australia
Poland
Italy
Turkey (which is questionable indeed, no doubt)
Israel
Jordan
IRAQ
Slovenia
Lithuania
Greece
Czech Republic (I believe... wouldn't be my life on it)
Pakistan
Afghanistan (well since we essentially run Afghanistan now... hrhr)

I can't think of any more at the moment... but there's quite a few.

~ RaNd0m

[tyais]

While I definitely would not have voted for Arnold (I have some different views than he does when it comes to ethical issues such as abortion. He is completely Liberterian in case anyone hasn't noticed. Why he didn't run under that ticket and get some much needed press for the under-represented party, I don't know.) .... While I wouldn't have voted for him, I actually believe he will do a fine job as a governor, especially for California's economy. He is a huge free market proponet and has done work with the well known economist, Milt Freeman (sp?).

To be completely honest, Ventura did an awesome job for Minnesota and everyone thought he'd screw it up. Reagan did a fine job with California and the Doc even thought that Michael J. Fox was psychotic for suggesting that Reagan would be governor. I think Arnold will do a good job.

And, there are others in the Senate and the House who are trying to ammend the Constitution in order for foreigners to be able to run for President. (A horrible idea in my opinion.) Arnold isn't the only one going after it (the beloved idiot Orin Hatch is pushing it... man, I really don't like that guy....)

[sjmp]

Only In America.... (Actually I Think He Will Do A Good Job Too)

[UncleBob]

UncleBob: The idea behind the child tax credit was to help FAMILIES... and the fact of the matter is, if you don't have children, you don't spend as much. Children cost money... and lots of it.

A couple should keep this in mind before they have children (or get themselves into a situation where they *could* have children). After this tax cut (that, again, the belief is the Bush Administation wasn't too worried about getting passed until the media pointed out it wasn't there) I'm left wondering how many unresponsible teenage/early 20's parents *may* hard eared money is ending up going to simply because I wasn't stupid enough to get someone knocked up in high school.

Now I'm not saying this is everybodys situation by any means. In theory, the Child Tax Credit was a great idea with good intentions (the intentions of helping the middle & lower class famlies, not the intentions of making sure you get reelected...) - however I personally don't feel an all-sweeping tax credit to any PEZ dispenser mother is the way to go...

[UncleBob]

if you don't have children, you don't spend as much.

Oh, and I forgot... What does the amount of money that I spend have to do with the amount of taxes I should have to pay? Tax money should go to pay for government services. A family of four uses more government services than a single adult, so why the heck is the single adult paying more taxes than the family of four?

[RaNd0m]

You don't spend as much, as in you have more money leftover than a parent that made the same income last year you did. The money benefits the person who has less of it more than the one with more money leftover.

The way I see it with taxes, that was your money to BEGIN with. Although I don't support welfare (paying taxes shouldn't mean receiving money from the rich... erm government), I do support the idea that taxes should be LOWER because we know how to spend our money better than the government.

And the fact that some parents spend the money on crack doesn't mean the majority do. If we spend time worrying about what happens to the money the MINORITY of the time, we overlook the whole idea to begin with.

~ RaNd0m

[UncleBob]

You don't spend as much, as in you have more money leftover than a parent that made the same income last year you did. The money benefits the person who has less of it more than the one with more money leftover.

Heh.. we went from the California Recall to a debate on the entire system. ;)

Anywhoo, Just because I have more money left over, why should *my* money go to support other families?
I worked just as hard for my bi-weekly paycheck as did Daddy Bill. *I* had absolutly no say in him choosing to have children or how many, etc., etc... So because he made his own choice to give birth to a child, he gets tax cuts that I don't get - even though we both work at the same job for the same wage? Or let's say I work logging in northern Alaska... I do much harder work than Gas Station Joe (there's nothing wrong with a respectible job, btw...) - I'm working harder (and therefore, making more money) and I'm already paying more taxes than Joe... and now because he's chosen to have children, he gets even more of a Tax Credit? That is in no way, shape or form fair (life isn't fair!).

It's like a non-working mother of two. Her children go to school and she doesn't pay taxes, so she doesn't support the school. Then, she gets all kinds of government support to get her children to school, etc., etc... All funded by the tax money of others, including individuals who don't use the school... Is that really fair?

[yoshi1001]

One might also ask why TC bothers compiling rules if all they get to do for it is more work, or why I pay $20 a month to finance an internet radio station I make nothing off of. It's called doing something for the greater good of society, and some people actually do make good use of that money you're pating out. Some things are more important than money, actually, a lot of things are. So, yeah, it's fair.

[UncleBob]

See, here's the difference. Everyone involved with TC gets to choose if they want to work with it or not. And they get to choose the terms and conditions of how they want to work with it. You get to choose if you wish to run your internet radio station - and the terms under which you spend that $20 a month.

I however, get no say over who gets my $200 a paycheck and how it gets spent and what not. Morons who smoke get my tax money to pay for their medical bills because they were stupid enough to choose to smoke. Unfit parents get my tax money because they wave their children around like trophies then spend the cash they get donated to them on drugs. Inept politicians get to spend my tax money on killing people (innocent and not). Meanwhile, the only real choice I have is to either a.) Keep working my back end off day in and day out to support these efforts or b.) Stop working and mooch off of everyone else's hard work/tax money.

And I agree, a lot of things are more important than money. However, many of those things require money to get. :)

[yoshi1001]

So you don' have a choice, yet you do? Don't contradict yourself.

Besides, the situation is more parallel than you think. By being a part of TC, the members take up certain duties and responsibilites, such as maintaining rules, of which there is no guarantee they will be used correctly. By creating an internet radio station, I take up certain responsibilites (legal requirements, etc), and there's no guarantee my station will be used properly. Furthermore, as a citizen of the United States, you pay taxes, and there's no guarantee they'll be used correctly.

So you see, they're not so different. It's just that some of these statsus-obligation pairs are easier to escape than others.

[UncleBob]

Yeah, yeah, life isn't fair and such... I know. I'd hardly consider the two options I gave much of a choice. If you want to look at it this way, you have a choice between breathing and death... ?:|

Anywhoo... I'm not saying one should or should not have to pay taxes... That's a whole nother ball of ear wax. I am, however, saying that Bush should not be credited for things that may temporarly be good, but in the long run are just going to () us all over eventaully.

And, of course, I'm doing this with out making fun of anyone's accent...