|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 130 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 25 of 130:
| 
Oct 3 07:10 UTC 2003 |
I turned on the radio earlier today, and caught a snippet of one of the NPR
call-in shows. The caller was commenting on how nice it was to see the
Republicans, who still castigate Bill Clinton and campaign against
immigration, lining up behind a pot smoking immigrant who gropes women.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 130:
|
Oct 3 12:40 UTC 2003 |
Re #54:
> Meanwhile, the other big thing on the ballot is Proposition 54,
> which bans the state and local governments from collecting
> racial statistics.
"If you don't want to know the answer, just don't ask the question."
I think Arnold's campaign strategy is unintentionally brilliant,
actually. If you never take any positions, no one will strongly
disagree with you. And California is all about image over substance.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 27 of 130:
|
Oct 3 18:04 UTC 2003 |
i think it's GREAT that arnie is going to be the governor of
california.
DADA Lives on!
|
richard
|
|
response 28 of 130:
|
Oct 4 05:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 29 of 130:
|
Oct 4 06:08 UTC 2003 |
According to news reports, Arnold is running on two big issues:
1. He promises to rescind a bill Davis has promised to sign, which
would allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to obtain driver's
licenses. This stance is getting Arnold called a racist by latino
activists in the state, who claim that if the majority of illegal
immigrants were white-- and not latino-- this wouldn't even be an issue
because the state needs money badly, and allowing these people to get
licenses and buy auto insurance would provide a badly needed revenue
stream. They say Arnold wants to relegate undocumented immigrants, of
which there are many in California, to permanent second class status.
2. Arnold also promises to rescind the tripling of car license fees
that is due to take effect. This is another issue which could get a
lot of votes.
But the fact is it sounds like Arnold is trying to have his cake and
eat it too. The state is in desperate financial shape, and yet he
wants to roll back tax increases, and kill two bills which were passed
specifically to create desperately needed revenue streams. So where is
Arnold going to get the money, if you don't want to raise taxes and you
don't want to do things like raise license fees and make it possible
for more salary earners in the state to have licenses and thus pay fees
and pay insurance? The only thing I've heard Arnold mention, in the
way of raising new money, is he's going to try and find ways to shake
down the Tribal owners of the state's Indian casinos.
So lets see Arnold, you are going to cut taxes so you and your rich
mostly white friends will benefit. You are going to rollback the car
license fees, so you and your rich mostly white friends who have fleets
of cars in your driveways will benefit. You are going to shake down
the Indian tribes for money. You are going to disallow undocumented
immigrants, mostly poor latinos, from being able to pay their fair
share and from being able to rise out of their situations (drivers
licenses would allow them to open bank accounts and do other things
which could better their lives)
It seems clear to me, Arnold is going to widen the gap between the rich
and the poor in the state, between the upper and lower classes.
Between the rich whites in Orange County and the poor latinos who work
in the Orange groves and other farms. Exactly how is this going to
make the state of California better?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 30 of 130:
|
Oct 4 07:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 31 of 130:
|
Oct 4 07:10 UTC 2003 |
WEll, we could start by making the illegal aliens apply for visas and become
legal aliensm then they could get drivers licenses and do other things
legally.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 32 of 130:
|
Oct 4 07:52 UTC 2003 |
(re-posted with a couple of glaring typos corrected..)
> So lets see Arnold, you are going to cut taxes so you and your rich
> mostly white friends will benefit. You are going to rollback the car
> license fees, so you and your rich mostly white friends who have fleets
> of cars in your driveways will benefit.
Try not to be ludicrous. In the circles of genuinely rich people that
Schwarzenegger surely moves in, car registration fees are undoubtedly
chump change. Triple car registration fees isn't an issue intended to
reward wealthy patrons but it's almost guaranteed to resonate strongly
with the middle class, to whom it makes a difference.
> It seems clear to me, Arnold is going to widen the gap between the rich
> and the poor in the state, between the upper and lower classes.
And it seems to me that that gap is going to widen whether it's
Schwarzenegger, Davis, or Bustamante who winds up governor when
this whole mess is settled. I'd be genuinely surprised if you
could come up with any evidence that the income gap narrowed
during the Davis/Bustamante administration (except possibly in
the immediate aftermath of the dotcom crash, but it's hard to
give Davis & Bustamante credit for an event they'd have probably
done nearly anything in their power to prevent.) And if the
current governor and his wannabe replacement, the other two
likeliest-looking hopefuls, haven't done anything to reverse the
widening gap between rich and poor is it really fair to single
out Schwarzenegger for criticism on this count?
As much as I find the idea of a Schwarzenegger governorship ludicrous,
nothing does more to convince me to take it seriously as a possibility
than the political non-sequiturs being spewed forth by Davis's and
Bustamante's campaigns. Listening to any of the three of them, it warms
my heart to think that I don't live in California, whose voters really
do seem headed for the kind of government they deserve..
|
asddsa
|
|
response 33 of 130:
|
Oct 4 16:07 UTC 2003 |
re 29 I don't think Arnie reads GreX bbs
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 130:
|
Oct 4 21:26 UTC 2003 |
I hear Arnold has promised to let Ken Lay off the hook if he's elected.
Hardly surprising from someone who is basically Wilson's puppet.
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 130:
|
Oct 4 23:04 UTC 2003 |
Arnold is suffering a backlash due to allegations that he groped women in the
past. One woman says he tried to rape her. The Oakland Tribune withdrew its
endorsement. Maybe the head of steam Arnold had coming off the debate a week
ago is finally disappating.
|
murph
|
|
response 36 of 130:
|
Oct 5 01:52 UTC 2003 |
#32: Me too.
The only (major) candidate I really appreciate in that race is the Green party
candidate. He's apparently not running to win, but to steal enough votes from
Bustamante so that the Dems start to see that IRV would really be in their
best interest....
|
klg
|
|
response 37 of 130:
|
Oct 5 03:18 UTC 2003 |
Ha! Mr. richard is funny!!: Illegal aliens are second class citizens??
(We presume the remainder of his response is a joke, too.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 38 of 130:
|
Oct 5 04:53 UTC 2003 |
Michigan's recall law does not allow an official to be recalled during the
first N months of a term. (I forget the precise value of N, but it's
probably six.) In other words, you can't start hounding a Michigan
politician out of office the moment they get elected.
As I recall, California has no such bar.
The signature requirement for a recall election in Michigan is very
large: 25% of the number of votes cast for governor in the constituency
of the official in question. I'm not sure what California requires, but I
believe it is drastically less.
Many states, especially in the East and South, don't provide for the
possibility of recall at all.
The bizarre aspects of California's law is (1) the simultaneous recall and
election of a replacement, and (2) the lack of any kind of primary or
nomination process, hence, an "open" election with an unlimited number of
candidates. Presumably the rationale is that, once an official is
removed, filling the office is a matter of urgency, and there isn't time
to hold a primary.
Some states, for example Texas, used to hold all special elections this
way. If a congressman died in mid-term, they'd hold a y'all-come style
election with dozens of candidates, and the number 1 votegetter would win.
That worked well as long as all of the candidates were Texas Democrats,
but eventually a few Republicans (a tiny minority in 1940s Texas) sneaked
into office that way, and the process was revised.
Here in Michigan, the recall and replacement elections are held
separately. Even so, it is obviously assumed that there isn't time to
hold a primary; hence, if it is a partisan office, the political party
committees themselves nominate candidates for the replacement election.
|
polygon
|
|
response 39 of 130:
|
Oct 5 04:55 UTC 2003 |
er, that should be /bizarre aspects of California's law are/, not
/... is/
|
richard
|
|
response 40 of 130:
|
Oct 5 06:16 UTC 2003 |
klg, YOUR relatives were once illegal aliens ya know. At some point you had
relatives move to this country who were not citizens and presumably moved here
on their own to make a better life.
And even those who are illegal aliens, if they have children in this country,
those children are u.s. citizens. this is about classism, pure and simple.
and klg doesn't care, because klg thinks his race, his class, his country,
his everything is better than anyone else's. sheesh.
,
./
|
mcnally
|
|
response 41 of 130:
|
Oct 5 06:51 UTC 2003 |
re #40: unless you have specific knowledge of klg's family history,
which is doubtful given the broadness of the second sentence of your
post, you're either making a huge assumption or confusing the idea
of "immigrant" with that of "illegal alien." Here's a hint, the
adjective in "illegal alien" is a significant part of the phrase.
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 130:
|
Oct 5 15:22 UTC 2003 |
I dont have any ancesters who came here as illegal aliens. Sure, they
all were immigrants but they all came here legally.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 43 of 130:
|
Oct 5 15:35 UTC 2003 |
(If INS or whatever it is now called would grant visas without first deporting
people, illegal aliens might consider applying for visas.)
|
russ
|
|
response 44 of 130:
|
Oct 5 19:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 45 of 130:
|
Oct 5 19:17 UTC 2003 |
Quoth richard:
>And even those who are illegal aliens, if they have children in this country,
>those children are u.s. citizens.
Thereby giving those children a benefit due solely to their parents'
violation of the law, and the parents in turn (their children are
citizens). Other countries do not grant such boons to scofflaws,
and it's long past time that we revoked ours.
|
drew
|
|
response 46 of 130:
|
Oct 5 19:58 UTC 2003 |
'twould require a constitutional amendment.
|
polygon
|
|
response 47 of 130:
|
Oct 5 20:18 UTC 2003 |
At least one of my putative ancestors came to the U.S. in violation of
the laws of his country of origin.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 130:
|
Oct 5 20:34 UTC 2003 |
I think it is fair that anyone born in this country is a citizen of
this country even if their parents are here illegally.
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 130:
|
Oct 5 23:42 UTC 2003 |
The story is that my grandfather (who lived in or near Warsaw) was drafted
into the Russian army (20 year term), escaped, was caught and drafted again,
and killed someone to escape a second time before he emigrated to NYC.
|