Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

eric · Sep 15, 2003, 05:12 pm

What a mess. Being a Southern California native, all I hear about is this recall. An amusing array of gubernatorial candidates has flooded the media and thus has rendered it a mockery of the nation. Some are pretty well educated, Bustamante, McClintock, and of course Arnold. Yet some are a disgrace, Larry Flynt, the porn star, and Gary Coleman. What do you guys/girls make of this extravaganza?

also, what do you guys say about Bustamante's extreme pro-mexican ambitions. In the 70's Cruz was a member of an organization that was devoted to incorporatin California into Mexico, thus secceding from the Union to join Mexico. To this day, when asked about it, he still DOES NOT neglect the idea. This shows that he might still have interest in such a feat. Even if he does take office, something that radical would never be allowed, for reason s that couldnt be more obvious.

also, whats up with Davis handing out Driver's Liscences to Illegal Immigrants?! HA! talk about a ploy for a Hispanic Minority chunk of votes... Keep in mind, he's refused such a propostion twice before, and suddenly, when he is about to be recalled, he enforces it... this is by no means a race issue, it has nothing to do with hispanics, it simply is an issue of dignity, whereas an illegal immigrant does not want to follow US Laws, but they can drive???

Geoff332 · Sep 15, 2003, 06:27 pm

At one of the British pop awards a year or so ago, someone from one of the bands who won (it might have been cold-play) comments on Kylie Mignogue winning an award. He said, "they've clearly mistaken celebrity for talent." (He also said, "You'll always be Charlene to me, love" -- which was very funny, but not really relevant). That's my impression of California at the moment: a sideshow, where substance is far less important than image.

G. Adams · Sep 15, 2003, 07:50 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-15-2003 06:27 PM
(He also said, "You'll always be Charlene to me, love" -- which was very funny, but not really relevant).

I don't think the Americans will get Neighbours jokes.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 15, 2003, 08:39 pm

He called 'Ahnold' well-educated. I'm not sure he'll get very many references at all...

Geoff332 · Sep 15, 2003, 09:01 pm

I didn't think they'd get it, but I did think it was very funny.

eric · Sep 15, 2003, 10:02 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@09-15-2003 08:39 PM
He called 'Ahnold' well-educated. I'm not sure he'll get very many references at all...

he's not as stupid as you think

eric · Sep 15, 2003, 10:02 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-15-2003 09:01 PM
I didn't think they'd get it, but I did think it was very funny.

didnt get it =[

ColWTH · Sep 16, 2003, 04:32 am

RebelwithanAK,

Well, since you are close enough to Arnold to know how well educated he is, say hello for me next time you see him.

Oh, wait. You don't know ANYTHING about Arnold, do you? Your'e jsut ASSUMING.

You know what they say about ASSuming!?

eric · Sep 16, 2003, 01:27 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ColWTH@09-16-2003 04:32 AM
RebelwithanAK,

Well, since you are close enough to Arnold to know how well educated he is, say hello for me next time you see him.

Oh, wait. You don't know ANYTHING about Arnold, do you? Your'e jsut ASSUMING.

You know what they say about ASSuming!?

haha, very true...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 16, 2003, 01:51 pm

So let me get this straight: You're defending a man with no political history and doesn't even have a god damned clue about the financial situation of the state he wants to take over - who hasn't even given a real position about that very issue or many others; a man who told his running partner to shut up for telling the truth that CA needs to raise taxes if it ever wants to get out of the hole it's in, why?

Because he starred in Terminator II. Oh, right.

eric · Sep 17, 2003, 03:44 am

Quote:

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@09-16-2003 01:51 PM
So let me get this straight: You're defending a man with no political history and doesn't even have a god damned clue about the financial situation of the state he wants to take over - who hasn't even given a real position about that very issue or many others; a man who told his running partner to shut up for telling the truth that CA needs to raise taxes if it ever wants to get out of the hole it's in, why?

Because he starred in Terminator II. Oh, right.

dude, who ever said i like him and will vote for him? ;)

deep breath AK, now relax =]

ColWTH · Sep 17, 2003, 05:05 am

I never SAID I supported Arnold. I also never claimed he knew everything about the economy in California.

YOU, however, said he was uneducated. You have no basis to make such a claim. He is a Real Estate mogul and has made MILLIONS of dollars in business quite separate from the movie business. An udeucated lout cannot suceed so.

Where is YOUR multi million dollar business holdings, if YOUR'E so smart?

ColWTH · Sep 17, 2003, 05:08 am

... Oh, and California's problem is not taxes. It is SPENDING.

Do YOU spend 40% more money than YOU take in in YOUR household each year?

They do not need to raise taxes. They need to jettison social(ist) programs. They need to stem illegal alians flooding their borders for such programs and they need to pass a balanced budget amendment to their constitution.

Of course, teaching a Democrat to be American is nearly impossible.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 17, 2003, 12:09 pm

Brainstorm, ColWTH - why do you think Bush sent us $500 billion more in debt with a giant tax cut? Was it because it would destroy the very heart of democrats' agencies that enforce a standard of living? *gasp* Say it ain't so! When the EPA can't even enforce emission standards, you know it ain't spending that's the problem; when the NYC schools have to fight to bring the class size DOWN to 34, you know we aren't spending "too much" on democratic programs.

California's been hit like everyone else from Bush's idiotic tax cut - the budget problems due in part to deregulation as well as lack of federal support are the main reason for the recall (which was thankfully delayed). We here in NY have been screaming bloody murder at our governor as well, but certainly it isn't SPENDING that's the problem, here!

einned · Sep 17, 2003, 02:20 pm

The thing that ticks me off the most about this whole thing is that a lot of the "candidates" just see this as some great price they could win. You can't tell me that Arnold or Flint have any idea what is waiting for them once they are elected.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 17, 2003, 04:56 pm

That's what got me - why are we recalling a governor whose problems are outside his control? He can't control federal policies nor commercial forces, and now he's being harassed by what looks like a mix between a fashion show and a three ring circus. It's a god damned popularity contest, and that irks me to no end.

...pardon my French. =p

ColWTH · Sep 17, 2003, 06:59 pm

Too bad history and reality isn't on your side RebelwithanAK.

EVERY time tax cuts are tried Federal revenue goes UP!

Coolidge proved it
Kennedy proved it
Reagan proved it

Too bad you are so bogged down in party hack rhetoric to see reality.

Geoff332 · Sep 17, 2003, 07:31 pm

The argument for cutting taxes increasing revenue is that taxation is a cost to business and decreasing taxation decreases costs, frees up capital; more capital is available for investment and hence economic activity increases, increasing the overall tax-take. The extent to which the flow-on effects actually work is hotly debated by economists who study and model this sort of thing. The sides in this argument have a distinctly ideological flavour to one another.

The actual evidence is far more equivocal (as evidence is wont to be). In the three cases you cites, economic activity around the world increased, independant of tax cuts in various nations. The fact that there was increased revenue after the tax cuts does nothing to prove that the tax cuts caused the increase in revenue. One could just as easily, and defensibly, argue that the global increase in economic activity both made it possible to implement the tax cuts and led to the increased tax revenue. In this model, tax cuts take a secondary role to economic cycles.

Bush's tax cuts were implemented as the global economy was slowing down, which is why the federal budget was hit with double whammy: decreased revenue because of decreased taxes and decreased revenue because of decreased economic activity. The third strike of massively increased "foreign policy" spending has led to a budget blow-out.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 18, 2003, 09:16 am

If I remember correctly, ColWTH, Reagan tripled the federal deficit in only two terms of office.

EDIT: And, now that I think of it, fomented a recession and raised unemployment and crime rates. Go weakened government power!

ColWTH · Sep 18, 2003, 06:22 pm

No REAGAN didn't triple ANYTHING.

The Democratic Congress did. A Congress that ignored their half of the deal to cut spending. Reagan was right on with his plan, the Demosocialists in Congress ignored their promise and his plan.

Sep 15, 2003, 05:12 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
eric Sedimentary Rock Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 14	What a mess. Being a Southern California native, all I hear about is this recall. An amusing array of gubernatorial candidates has flooded the media and thus has rendered it a mockery of the nation. Some are pretty well educated, Bustamante, McClintock, and of course Arnold. Yet some are a disgrace, Larry Flynt, the porn star, and Gary Coleman. What do you guys/girls make of this extravaganza? also, what do you guys say about Bustamante's extreme pro-mexican ambitions. In the 70's Cruz was a member of an organization that was devoted to incorporatin California into Mexico, thus secceding from the Union to join Mexico. To this day, when asked about it, he still DOES NOT neglect the idea. This shows that he might still have interest in such a feat. Even if he does take office, something that radical would never be allowed, for reason s that couldnt be more obvious. also, whats up with Davis handing out Driver's Liscences to Illegal Immigrants?! HA! talk about a ploy for a Hispanic Minority chunk of votes... Keep in mind, he's refused such a propostion twice before, and suddenly, when he is about to be recalled, he enforces it... this is by no means a race issue, it has nothing to do with hispanics, it simply is an issue of dignity, whereas an illegal immigrant does not want to follow US Laws, but they can drive??? hi

Sep 15, 2003, 08:39 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	He called 'Ahnold' well-educated. I'm not sure he'll get very many references at all... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 16, 2003, 01:51 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	So let me get this straight: You're defending a man with no political history and doesn't even have a god damned clue about the financial situation of the state he wants to take over - who hasn't even given a real position about that very issue or many others; a man who told his running partner to shut up for telling the truth that CA needs to raise taxes if it ever wants to get out of the hole it's in, why? Because he starred in Terminator II. Oh, right. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 17, 2003, 12:09 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Brainstorm, ColWTH - why do you think Bush sent us $500 billion more in debt with a giant tax cut? Was it because it would destroy the very heart of democrats' agencies that enforce a standard of living? gasp Say it ain't so! When the EPA can't even enforce emission standards, you know it ain't spending that's the problem; when the NYC schools have to fight to bring the class size DOWN to 34, you know we aren't spending "too much" on democratic programs. California's been hit like everyone else from Bush's idiotic tax cut - the budget problems due in part to deregulation as well as lack of federal support are the main reason for the recall (which was thankfully delayed). We here in NY have been screaming bloody murder at our governor as well, but certainly it isn't SPENDING that's the problem, here! . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 17, 2003, 02:20 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
einned Sedimentary Rock Location: The Netherlands Posts: 24	The thing that ticks me off the most about this whole thing is that a lot of the "candidates" just see this as some great price they could win. You can't tell me that Arnold or Flint have any idea what is waiting for them once they are elected. A runner must run with dreams in his heart, not money in his pocket. Emil Zatopek

Sep 15, 2003, 06:27 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	At one of the British pop awards a year or so ago, someone from one of the bands who won (it might have been cold-play) comments on Kylie Mignogue winning an award. He said, "they've clearly mistaken celebrity for talent." (He also said, "You'll always be Charlene to me, love" -- which was very funny, but not really relevant). That's my impression of California at the moment: a sideshow, where substance is far less important than image.

Sep 15, 2003, 09:01 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I didn't think they'd get it, but I did think it was very funny.

Sep 16, 2003, 04:32 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	RebelwithanAK, Well, since you are close enough to Arnold to know how well educated he is, say hello for me next time you see him. Oh, wait. You don't know ANYTHING about Arnold, do you? Your'e jsut ASSUMING. You know what they say about ASSuming!?

Sep 17, 2003, 05:05 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	I never SAID I supported Arnold. I also never claimed he knew everything about the economy in California. YOU, however, said he was uneducated. You have no basis to make such a claim. He is a Real Estate mogul and has made MILLIONS of dollars in business quite separate from the movie business. An udeucated lout cannot suceed so. Where is YOUR multi million dollar business holdings, if YOUR'E so smart?

Sep 17, 2003, 05:08 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	... Oh, and California's problem is not taxes. It is SPENDING. Do YOU spend 40% more money than YOU take in in YOUR household each year? They do not need to raise taxes. They need to jettison social(ist) programs. They need to stem illegal alians flooding their borders for such programs and they need to pass a balanced budget amendment to their constitution. Of course, teaching a Democrat to be American is nearly impossible.

Sep 17, 2003, 04:56 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	That's what got me - why are we recalling a governor whose problems are outside his control? He can't control federal policies nor commercial forces, and now he's being harassed by what looks like a mix between a fashion show and a three ring circus. It's a god damned popularity contest, and that irks me to no end. ...pardon my French. =p . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 17, 2003, 06:59 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	Too bad history and reality isn't on your side RebelwithanAK. EVERY time tax cuts are tried Federal revenue goes UP! Coolidge proved it Kennedy proved it Reagan proved it Too bad you are so bogged down in party hack rhetoric to see reality.

Sep 17, 2003, 07:31 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	The argument for cutting taxes increasing revenue is that taxation is a cost to business and decreasing taxation decreases costs, frees up capital; more capital is available for investment and hence economic activity increases, increasing the overall tax-take. The extent to which the flow-on effects actually work is hotly debated by economists who study and model this sort of thing. The sides in this argument have a distinctly ideological flavour to one another. The actual evidence is far more equivocal (as evidence is wont to be). In the three cases you cites, economic activity around the world increased, independant of tax cuts in various nations. The fact that there was increased revenue after the tax cuts does nothing to prove that the tax cuts caused the increase in revenue. One could just as easily, and defensibly, argue that the global increase in economic activity both made it possible to implement the tax cuts and led to the increased tax revenue. In this model, tax cuts take a secondary role to economic cycles. Bush's tax cuts were implemented as the global economy was slowing down, which is why the federal budget was hit with double whammy: decreased revenue because of decreased taxes and decreased revenue because of decreased economic activity. The third strike of massively increased "foreign policy" spending has led to a budget blow-out.

Sep 18, 2003, 09:16 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	If I remember correctly, ColWTH, Reagan tripled the federal deficit in only two terms of office. EDIT: And, now that I think of it, fomented a recession and raised unemployment and crime rates. Go weakened government power! . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 18, 2003, 06:22 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	No REAGAN didn't triple ANYTHING. The Democratic Congress did. A Congress that ignored their half of the deal to cut spending. Reagan was right on with his plan, the Demosocialists in Congress ignored their promise and his plan.