|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 130 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 75 of 130:
| 
Oct 8 13:19 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. Those immigrants are a very important part of the labor force in
California. I think the answer to the immigrant problem is to not only
have free trade of goods in North America but to have free trade in
labor too.
|
gull
|
|
response 76 of 130:
|
Oct 8 14:01 UTC 2003 |
Re #74:
> But even in California, non-US citizens can't vote.
Though that doesn't stop "B-1 Bob" Dornan from complaining on every
single show he does that the illegal immigrant vote cost him his election.
|
klg
|
|
response 77 of 130:
|
Oct 8 16:12 UTC 2003 |
re: "#74 (scg): . . . But even in California, non-US citizens can't
vote."
(Shh. Don't let Mr. richard know they are being treated as 2nd class
citizens.)
And, is what we heard true about participation in this election greater
that in any previous gubernatorial election?? Gee, that must make
Swartzeneggar the most legitimate governor in Cal. history!
So, now that Ah-nuld is the gubernator-elect, who's moving to Canada??
(And, don't forget to write.)
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 130:
|
Oct 8 16:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 130:
|
Oct 8 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Re #77: Why would I move to Canada because California did something
stupid? The great thing about states is that there are 50 of them.
|
richard
|
|
response 80 of 130:
|
Oct 8 18:23 UTC 2003 |
you can bet the recall arnold movement is starting today. arnold's i mage
was really tarnished by all those sexual harrassment charges. I find it
interesting that all those republicans who acted holier than thou over
Clinton's indiscretions and voted to impeach him, were falling all
over themselves to vote for Arnold for Governor despite all the women who said
he groped or sexually assaulted them. Whats the message? democrats held to
higher moral standards than republicans>?
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 130:
|
Oct 8 18:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 130:
|
Oct 8 18:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 130:
|
Oct 8 18:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 84 of 130:
|
Oct 8 18:41 UTC 2003 |
And there was a report of Davis "manhandling" a 60+ year old staffer of his.
Recall AS over this? The people had the chance to do that by not voting for
him. Get a grip, richard.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 130:
|
Oct 8 19:12 UTC 2003 |
If a recall Arnold effort is put into motion, who do the Democrats have
to put up against him? Davis and Bustamente won't be viable.
|
tod
|
|
response 86 of 130:
|
Oct 8 19:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 87 of 130:
|
Oct 8 21:17 UTC 2003 |
The Dems could always run the California-Kennedy, Maria Schriver.
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 130:
|
Oct 8 21:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 89 of 130:
|
Oct 9 01:30 UTC 2003 |
What vote totals I could find:
Davis out 4,400,000 votes
Davis in 3,600,000 votes
1 Schwarzeneger 3,700,000 votes
2 Bustamante 2,400,000 votes
3 McClintock 1,000,000 votes
4 Camejo 210,000 votes (green party)
5 Huffington 40,000 votes (dropped out a week ago)
6 Ueberroth 20,000 votes (dropped out a month ago)
7 Flynt 14,000 votes (Hustler publisher)
8 Coleman 12,000 votes (child star)
10 Carey 9,300 votes (porn star)
16 Gallagher 4,800 votes (comic)
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 130:
|
Oct 9 02:08 UTC 2003 |
Re #86: I guess voting for a candidate that has no positions on issues
is one way to avoid being lied to.
|
russ
|
|
response 91 of 130:
|
Oct 9 02:23 UTC 2003 |
Richard, you (in my personal opinion) are exhibiting your excellent
command of knee-jerk PC responses. Illegal aliens are lawbreakers,
and should not get off more lightly than people who go 10 MPH over
the speed limit. And for your information, the vast majority of
the country is nothing like NYC (and thank goodness); someone who
can get along in an enclave in NYC would be just another hapless
tourist in the vast majority of the nation. They wouldn't be able
to be part of much because they couldn't *communicate*.
(Incidentally, you're deficient there too.)
Because I knew there would be someone piping up with a POV like
Richard's, I saved this little gem from today's Houston Chronicle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2143275
Immigrate legally or pay price
[Regarding the Oct. 6 Viewpoints letter from Carlos Sanchez,
"Hispanics truly exploited":] If Hispanics are exploited in this
nation as a labor force, it is because they allow it. It is said that
Hispanic immigrants will do all the jobs other Americans won't do.
That's not exactly the case, but they are willing to take menial jobs
for low pay.
If they'd take the time to learn the language and assimilate the
culture, they'd find themselves not so limited in the opportunities
that are available to them.
Moreover, if they'd take the front door into the nation and immigrate
legally, they'd be availing themselves of the same set of systems as
[can be utilized by] any citizen.
I know successful Hispanic businessmen who employ only
English-speaking, documented workers. It's in the best interest of
their businesses to do so.
And it's not a few "fat businessmen" who prosper from this system:
Cheap labor benefits us all to some extent.
That is why we continue to allow it.
The price of illegal entry into and refusal to fully participate in a
nation does and should result in a reduction to legal protection.
Berry Muhl, Houston
|
polygon
|
|
response 92 of 130:
|
Oct 9 05:14 UTC 2003 |
Re 89. I see you omitted the 9th-place finisher, who got more than 10,000
votes. He was the highest-ranking candidate among the "unknowns" who got
no media attention. He finished ahead of the porn star.
Hmmm, so in the absence of any news coverge or other free media, why was
the #9 candidate so much stronger than any of the other "unknowns"? Great
TV commercials? An inspiring stump speech? A local base of support?
Nope.
His name was Schwartzman. And I bet most of his votes came from precincts
where he was listed ahead of Schwarzenegger on the ballot.
|
tsty
|
|
response 93 of 130:
|
Oct 9 08:14 UTC 2003 |
simon finished farther down than the porn quean. must suck t be simon.
btw, being 'exploited' in america is WAYFARBETTER tahn being
respected i mexico - think about it for a couple seconds.
|
janc
|
|
response 94 of 130:
|
Oct 9 17:49 UTC 2003 |
I hadn't known about Schwartzman. I had to dig the vote counts out
several different articles, and I had to round them off to make them
agree.
|
carson
|
|
response 95 of 130:
|
Oct 10 04:16 UTC 2003 |
(while listening to the BBC last night, I heard someone suggest that
Schwarznegger's gubernatorial run was a warm-up for a possible run
at the White House. if you don't know what's wrong with that assessment,
don't raise your hand; I don't want to know who you are.)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 96 of 130:
|
Oct 10 04:18 UTC 2003 |
Was it Dan Rather asking Arnold that some Senators were suggesting
legislation to change that? He replied that he had no aspiration to
high office.
|
other
|
|
response 97 of 130:
|
Oct 10 04:19 UTC 2003 |
He could run for First Gentleman (First Husband?)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 98 of 130:
|
Oct 10 04:33 UTC 2003 |
Heard on the radio that this was the 31st recall "election" in California,
and only the first one to "succeed".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 99 of 130:
|
Oct 10 05:45 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I've been hearing things like "the first recall in a hundred years" or
"first governor to be recalled in a hundred years." I've not cared enough
to hunt up the facts.
|