The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree :evil4:
Archived80 replies · 1,720 views
Originally posted by Sean Taugher > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > > not by the people of california> > > So I guess the 1.6 million signatures were not from the people of California
tristan, agent did use the term "spearheaded," meaning that this attempt to recall davis is being lead by Issa instead of some angry coalition of voters. this recall's primary function is more about defacing Davis, than actually recalling him, just before Issa has to face him in the election. it is a more of a pre-campaign mud-sling than an honest attempt to remove davis. I love how issa funded the recal, but I just hope either Riordan or Arnold win.
alright michael. fair enough. i would love to challenge you to a match in FIFA on the XBox with Strangeways on the CD player...loser has to vote for the other side! I just can't believe you accept what Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Cheney are doing to our Country and the rest of the world. The reason i don't argue points is i've tried with Republicans for years and they NEVER FUCKING LISTEN TO REASON. EVER. But a night on the XBox does sound like fun.
Originally posted by PIPs Spanky this thing about the votes contested is complete BS because if you look at the votes in question in other states that were thrown out would have been a drop in the bucket compared to floridas couple of thousand.If i remember correctly that the washington post put our a article in the first part of 2002 that gave a state by state accounting of votes that were thrown out and reasons that that they were thrown out. It came out that there were like 3 or 4 democratic states that threw out like 50000 + votes for george bush, and very few for gore. it was like this across the board but when it came to florida and the democrats were looking defeat in the face they stated pulling as many strings and foul crys as possible.
a) if the democrats did it, so that makes it ok for the republicans to do it in florida? 
b) having worked in a county board of elections and run votes through the counter myself, i can tell you that if votes are legal (i.e. postmarked on time, signed by the voter and a witness, one voter, one vote, etc. at which time we cannot even see who the party has voted for anyway!) we don't have the time to even look at who people voted for, nor do we really care. we just want to get the job done and get the hell home because it's tedious work. it only becomes an issue once there's a recall. so i ask you, what are these three or four states and how was this information gathered if there was no recount, since the votes are then sealed carefully in boxes, and, as i said before, unless there's a recount the workers at the boards of elections can't tell who the voter has chosen when they determine if a ballot is legal or not anyway?
c) as i thought i made clear in my post, it wasn't the democrats who 'pulled strings' in the florida recount, but the republicans, by putting extreme pressure on boards of elections in republican-held counties to bend the rules when recounting while demanding that democratic strongholds maintain the strictest legal standards in their recounts.
d) al gore was not 'looking defeat in the face.' the election was too close to tell, electorally, and he already had the popular vote by half a million! this is hardly a defeat! it certainly makes sense to double and triple-check votes in this case. i'm sure george bush would have done the same thing were he in gore's shoes. and i would have supported his right to do so rather than complain about him being a 'sore loser.' when you've won the popular vote, you certainly don't want to concede an election until all has been done to ensure that you didn't win the electoral college, as well! (this discrepancy is why i have a problem with the electoral college, but that's a whole other story.)
and, no, i am not a democrat! :)
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by PIPs Spanky> this thing about the votes contested is complete BS because if you look at the votes in question in other states that were thrown out would have been a drop in the bucket compared to floridas couple of thousand.> > If i remember correctly that the washington post put our a article in the first part of 2002 that gave a state by state accounting of votes that were thrown out and reasons that that they were thrown out. It came out that there were like 3 or 4 democratic states that threw out like 50000 + votes for george bush, and very few for gore. it was like this across the board but when it came to florida and the democrats were looking defeat in the face they stated pulling as many strings and foul crys as possible.
a) if the democrats did it, so that makes it ok for the republicans to do it in florida?
b) having worked in a county board of elections and run votes through the counter myself, i can tell you that if votes are legal (i.e. postmarked on time, signed by the voter and a witness, one voter, one vote, etc. at which time we cannot even see who the party has voted for anyway!) we don't have the time to even look at who people voted for, nor do we really care. we just want to get the job done and get the hell home because it's tedious work. it only becomes an issue once there's a recall. so i ask you, what are these three or four states and how was this information gathered if there was no recount, since the votes are then sealed carefully in boxes, and, as i said before, unless there's a recount the workers at the boards of elections can't tell who the voter has chosen when they determine if a ballot is legal or not anyway?
c) as i thought i made clear in my post, it wasn't the democrats who 'pulled strings' in the florida recount, but the republicans, by putting extreme pressure on boards of elections in republican-held counties to bend the rules when recounting while demanding that democratic strongholds maintain the strictest legal standards in their recounts.
d) al gore was not 'looking defeat in the face.' the election was too close to tell, electorally, and he already had the popular vote by half a million! this is hardly a defeat! it certainly makes sense to double and triple-check votes in this case. i'm sure george bush would have done the same thing were he in gore's shoes. and i would have supported his right to do so rather than complain about him being a 'sore loser.' when you've won the popular vote, you certainly don't want to concede an election until all has been done to ensure that you didn't win the electoral college, as well! (this discrepancy is why i have a problem with the electoral college, but that's a whole other story.)
and, no, i am not a democrat! :) Then you are a member of the Green party
Originally posted by Tristan Jayol Then you are a member of the Green party
sh*t! is it that obvious! 
of course, i could be an independent...but no.
i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way.
strength in numbers...
i get yelled at by my family for being green. "it's your kind that lets scum like bush slip into office!" talk about over-reactionaries! kermit was right, this isn't easy. but at least in the last election, gore cleaned up in CA. i can sleep at night knowing that, even for voting green, bush didn't get these electorals!
Originally posted by Sean Taugher strength in numbers...i get yelled at by my family for being green. "it's your kind that lets scum like bush slip into office!" talk about over-reactionaries! kermit was right, this isn't easy. but at least in the last election, gore cleaned up in CA. i can sleep at night knowing that, even for voting green, bush didn't get these electorals!
living in florida...no comment.
although, i was living in israel at the time of the 2000 election. i'm terribly ashamed to say i didn't vote that year, either. i never got my ass in gear to pick up an absentee ballot. and since there are so many people with dual US/israeli citizenship living in israel, the israeli embassy, which was walking distance from my place in tel aviv, was disributing them, as well! no excuse, christy! looking back, my one vote could have made all the difference! damn me to hell! well, flori-duh, absentee ballots, who the hell knows....
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > Then you are a member of the Green party
sh*t! is it that obvious!
of course, i could be an independent...but no.
i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way.
Actually, we are a republic....... :D
Originally posted by Michael McDermott Actually, we are a republic....... :D
and a democracy. sometimes.
oh, and i specifically said democracy because, as you know, many democracies are not republics.
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > Then you are a member of the Green party
sh*t! is it that obvious!
of course, i could be an independent...but no.
i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way. It's too bad that your party is getting no where fast (at least you are not a Libertarian)
instant gratification isn't on the agenda for the greens. if it was, we'd start a green militia and train in the forrests of the Pac-NW.
I'm still a Democrat, but I think the party as a whole hasn't been living up to its repsonsibilities and taking on the Republicans over Iraq. The main Presidential nominees opposing the Bush Administration, Dean and Graham, are probably far from being the contender next year. Nonetheless, I can't just give up on the Dems, if we have to have four more years of Bush then I want to know that I at least made myself heard come November. It'll be a campaign more of wishful thinking than strong possiblities unless the Bush Administration really screws up, but I want to at least try. Maybe in '08 we'll have a decent candidate (Gore, perhaps?) 
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I'm still a Democrat, but I think the party as a whole hasn't been living up to its repsonsibilities and taking on the Republicans over Iraq. The main Presidential nominees opposing the Bush Administration, Dean and Graham, are probably far from being the contender next year. Nonetheless, I can't just give up on the Dems, if we have to have four more years of Bush then I want to know that I at least made myself heard come November. It'll be a campaign more of wishful thinking than strong possiblities unless the Bush Administration really screws up, but I want to at least try. Maybe in '08 we'll have a decent candidate (Gore, perhaps?)
more like Hilary, or maybe the Dems will get Gray Davis to run 
Originally posted by Sean Taugher naw... davis is too liberal. maybe they can get Riordan to race for their team?
Davis is not liberal, he just mishandles money, he's more of the moderate Democrat, which California seems to love :barf:
Originally posted by Sean Taugher i guess i am not as funny as i thought...
aww, ur funny, Riordan haha, but Schwarzenegger as the Democratic candidate for pres in 04 would be hilarious, but he's a Republican so it won't happen
don't placate me... 
i know how you REALLY feel...
(you know i am just f*ckin' with you, right?) :D
What if this keeps happening......
US economy grows 2.4 percent in second quarter Thu Jul 31,10:19 AM ET Add Top Stories - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US economic growth shot to an annual pace of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, shattering sluggish expectations.
Commerce Dept./HO Photo
Defying forecasts for growth closer to 1.5 percent, the US economy gave the clearest sign yet it is shaking off Iraq (news - web sites) war-inspired shock and gathering speed, with business investment finally back.
The return in business investment, a 52-year record surge in defense spending, robust consumer spending, and a red-hot housing market powered growth, early Commerce Department (news - web sites) estimates showed.
"This is a very positive confirmation that the economy is turning the corner," said BMO Financial Group economist Sal Guatieri.
Gross domestic product, which had grown at a sickly 1.4-percent pace in the first quarter, appeared to be responding to a double dose of tax cuts and 45-year record low interest rates.
Businesses, long cowed by the Iraq war uncertainties, lifted non-residential fixed investment by 6.9 percent, with spending on structures such as factories up by a 43-year high of 4.8 percent and equipment/software expenditure up 7.5 percent.
"The economy truly does look to be on the mend," said Naroff Economic Advisors president Joel Naroff, noting that investment in buildings had climbed for the first time since 2001.
Defense spending roared 44.1 percent higher, the sharpest increase since 1951 during the Korean war, as President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s administration conducted the Iraq war and a terrorism offensive.
As a result, federal government expenditure advanced 25.1 percent, the steepest increase since 1967, even as state and local governments trimmed spending by 1.5 percent.
Consumers stepped up spending 3.3 percent despite lingering agony in the labor market.
People ploughed 22.6 percent more money into big-ticket, durable items such as cars or washing machines. Residential fixed investment, coaxed by rock-bottom mortgage rates, surged 6.0 percent.
The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday.
Recovery hopes were bolstered by a separate Labor Department (news - web sites) report showing the seasonally adjusted number of new jobless benefit claimants shrank 3,000 to a five-month low 388,000 last week.
The bullish news tallied with a Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Beige Book survey, released Wednesday, indicating the economy had picked up speed by "a notch" in the past six weeks.
Factories, which had shed 2.7 million jobs during a three-year contraction, were finally coming out of the doldrums, it said.
"Consistent with the generally more positive assessments of economic activity, several districts noted increased optimism about economic prospects in coming months," the Federal Reserve said.
Bush, who has passed a 350-billion-dollar tax-cut package told a news conference on Wednesday that he saw "hopeful signs" the economy was accelerating and would generate more jobs.
His chief economic policymaker, Treasury Secretary John Snow, has forecast economic growth of more than three percent in the third quarter of this year, 3.5 percent in the last quarter and four percent in 2004.
The latest figures showed international trade was a drag on the economy, however, with exports sliding 3.1 percent in the second quarter. Imports, which detract from economic output, leapt by 9.2 percent.
Businesses trimmed their inventories by 17.9 billion dollars in the period, eroding 0.77 percentage points from the overall economic growth pace, the data showed.
and this happens....
www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm UH OH .. THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD
Well ... if the rumors pan out let's just say it doesn't look good for Democrats.
There's a bit of a buzz around Washington that our investigators in Iraq are meeting with more success than you have been lead to believe in the search for Saddam's weapons. One rumor has it that we can expect to learn a lot more in, say, about six months. I've been floating this idea for a few weeks not ... our D.C. pal Jamie Dupree has been pooh-poohing it.
Some might say that if Bush has the goods on Saddam now he should make the information available now. No way, not after that ridiculous 16-word fiasco. Cross all the "Ts" and dot all the Is" and then when you're absolutely sure .. call the press conference.
Now ... let's just say that we do discover incontrovertible proof that Saddam was building his ugly weapons. Somehow the left is going to have to make the case that it makes no difference, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We'll leave it to Howard Dean to make that case.
What will the Dems do in '04? What message will they craft to combat news of economic growth and found eveidence of WMD's? They will find themselves if the awkward position of denouncing economic growth and military success. Maybe hillary will just go ahead and hang on to that Senate seat......
All partisianship aside, I would really like to know what you think the Dem strategy should/will be.
In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.
When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?
Originally posted by Michael McDermott What if this keeps happening......The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday.
I was talking about the numbers in the article you provided. Contrast those numbers with GHW Bush's numbers, and Clinton's numbers, whatever they were.
