Firestarter

Eh. Schwarzenegger didn't address 54 at all, although he's on record as opposing it.

He went on the offensive, ignoring most criticism and attacking his opponents right back. In this format that was actually much, much better than being defensive. Trust me, he did fine.

Davis doesn't have a chance. He has the kind of negative ratings politicians dream about as positive ratings.

Marney's California Ticker Tom McClintock: way up (strong showing, but as Garrett noted, did not broaden base. Remains unelectable in California) Arnold Schwarzenegger: way up (merely solid, but nothing more was needed. He had to prove he could hold his own, and he did just that. Relentless and pointed but good-humoured jabs at Huffington, the easiest target, demonstrated political skill. Avoiding going up against McClintock was very smart, ganging up with him against Bustamante very cunning, ignoring Comejo common sense) Arianna Huffington: down (Schwarzenegger's people obviously picked her as his primary punching bag, and he tore her up one side and down the other. She came off as petty, carping, and venomous, which is a fair summary anyway. Didn't help that she picked another fight with Bustamante, who deflected her easily, while she was still reeling from Schwarzenegger's attacks. Didn't help either that she complained about the President and Pete Wilson half a dozen times; she isn't running against them, as Schwarzenegger pointed out) Cruz Bustamante: way down (shades of Al Gore. Supercilious and contemptuous, sighed too much, rolled his eyes, and shook his head. Didn't appear to take other candidates seriously and, as Hume noted, tried to stay above the fray. Passive and weak showing overall) Peter Comejo: way, way down (merely ridiculous. Now isn't the time to be criticising America in that tone, not even in California. Appeared mawkish and sentimental when he didn't appear unpatriotic and foolish) Current rankings: Schwarzenegger comfortably ahead of the pack, McClintock following some way behind, Bustamante a distant third, Huffington gasping for breath, and Comejo running very fast but in the wrong direction.

Update: FNC is broadcasting the debate live in 5 minutes. It will air again on 09/25/03 at 0100 hours.

The FTC isn't backing down on this one. Neither is the House or the Senate. Update

Sure. Pick up this book and read Chapter 6: The Paper Chariots in Flames.

Just wanted to point out that I was better than right, and gloat over it for a bit. That is all. Carry on.

FNC article: "Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, also doubted that the Nevada effort would be successful. He added that it is unlikely California's process will be repeated elsewhere. 'You can't have something this big in the nation's largest state without there being ramifications elsewhere. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a trend though. There are only 18 states and the District of Columbia that have any kind of statewide recall provisions and most of them have much more restrictive laws than California.'"

That's nice. And if it's silliness like "The Shizzolator" it'll continue to be moved. (Which I had nothing to do with, incidentally.) Explain how that was a "current event." Or have we redefined "current event" to include anything and everything that has recently had any kind of effect on your life? Anything that makes you laugh, think, or vomit? Anything at all? Spare me the hoity-toity marching-to-a-different-drummer bullshit. The last two threads you posted were fine, even though I'm not personally interested in either of them. But it's simply foolish to pretend that your history in that forum is one of posting such threads. Mostly they've been of the "Man cuts own penis off" variety. And that, as chave said, belongs in GC. Not CE.

Not really. Two states is hardly "nationwide." Are there more? And how does it provide any more of an impetus for the parties to present decent candidates than a normal election? As Tyler said, all this will accomplish is to make the elected officials of states which have recall provisions engage in endless term-long re-election campaigns and popularity contests. I don't see how that helps anyone.

As Dave Barry said in the column Mike mentioned, "you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers. But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home."

Absolutely not, unless the governor in question is named Gray Davis. In that case, yes, it is in the best interests of the people, but it's still wrong. Absolutely not, unless the governor in question is not named Gray Davis. In that case, yes, it is in the best interests of the people, but it's still wrong. But even though it's wrong it is nevertheless legal and constitutional. And that should still matter in a country which is supposed to be governed by the rule of law. I don't support the recall. I don't like the recall. I don't want the recall to happen. But it WILL happen, and it MUST happen, because it is mandated under California's state constitution. I'd say the same thing even if the governor were competent, intelligent, and Republican. AFTER the recall, California should amend its constitution again and remove the provision for the gubernatorial recall. UNTIL then, politically motivated activist judges shouldn't try to invalidate legal procedures explicitly mandated under the state constitution.

If it makes you feel better, you guys don't have a monopoly on this kind of stupidity.

True, but most of the news you post about isn't significant in any meaningful sense of the term. It's simply weird, disgusting, or stupid shit that happened on that particular day. It isn't important. It doesn't affect anyone outside the story. Whether or not it's current, it isn't news and it isn't an event. That's fine, and I'm not saying that CE should be entirely about politics. I believe you're confusing me with JMA.

Registered with the GOP yet, Jobber?

C'mon, stop quibbling. It's just the damn state constitution. Surely the courts can set that aside in the interests of the people! I mean we're all Democrats here, right?

This has already been addressed.

Wouldn't work in CE. Sometimes more than one big thing occurs in the same day which is completely unrelated to anything else, and there's no sense in delaying discussion for a day or more on major issues - the forum is called Current Events, after all. Multiple threads on the same topic get merged by the mods anyway (Jobber and I posted threads about the same 9th Circuit decision at exactly the same time, and they were merged), and very few threads are ignored by anyone. Those that are ignored usually consist of the sort of inane, trivial news items that Rant or Boo Bradley get from their current issues of the Weekly World News or something. This rule might have some application in GC or NHB, but people would need to change their posting habits drastically (not that that would be a bad thing, necessarily). I don't really care what you do to those forums, though, so I have no further comment on that. Absurd reasoning. No thread is entitled to "fair attention." Say someone posts something completely stupid, like the aforementioned tidbits a few people put up from time to time: "Yoko Ono To Be Naked" or "Church used for Porno." Sure, it's funny for a minute, but the federal appellate court's decision was handed down the same day. Should we have had to wait a day to comment on that because Yoko Ono decided to have her clothes cut off her again? CE would have to be exempt. If the admins on this or any other board ever try to make me respect anyone, I'll leave the same day. Respect is earned, not mutually enforced by fiat. No, this rule is lame and unacceptable. Intent matters more than words. I have one thing to say: these people are incredibly full of themselves. Fucking patronising holier-than-thou dipshits. What's the implication here? Black people are so immature and weak-minded that they're going to have a hysterical crying fit because they see someone typed NIGGER on a computer screen? I'm disgusted. Same goes for FAGGOT. There's no fucking asterisk in these words. Leave that * bullshit on the Friday the 13th forums. MOMMY MOMMY JSN4EVER475 CALLED ME A BAD WORD AND IT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ONE OF THE LETTERS REPLACED BY AN UNASSUMING LITTLE SYMBOL OH GOD PLEASE MAKE THE PAIN STOP MOMMY Jesus Christ. The necessary and sufficient response to this is "Go to hell." Whatever. Whatever. No problem with this one. Two words: "Strom" and "Thurmond." Take this rule and shove it with the first five. Like duh. "Avoid crime" is a fairly basic guideline on most message boards. Common sense. Ditto. Ditto. So, 7 rules are trivial, already extant, or simply common sense, and 6 rules are just asinine. What was the point of this again?

I'm confused; why does anyone care enough to bother him in the first place?

No, I don't see. A sense of humour makes people less likely to take offense, not more. So essentially you're spending your days fighting against the xenophobia you believe comprises at least half the posts in a folder you consider "shitty" on an internet message board. I'm curious, doesn't the futility and meaninglessness of your life ever depress you? I do, thanks. KKK's post was obviously a satire of racist attitudes. Many of his posts in this "shitty folder" exaggerate such attitudes to the point of absurdity in order to make them appear even more ridiculous than they inherently are. This is a specific application of irony (defintion 2a: "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning") known as reductio ad absurdum. Look it up. I know what the intent of KKK's post was because I go through this forum fairly regularly. His post followed an established pattern which is either unfamiliar to you or way over your head. No. You are wrong. You are ignorant. And you are foolish. Take your pathetic little jihad somewhere else.

Because you're just like totally super, super, super-smart.

Worse. Before, during, and after World War II, the Catholic Church actively collaborated with the Nazis. After all, they were killing Jews, and like the rest of Europe, the Church didn't have much of a problem with that.

Oh, and I'd also appreciate it if the next Pope was capable of understanding that waging a war to remove an insane dictator from power and NOT letting him and his spawn rape, murder, torture, starve, and enslave the population of an entire country is a GOOD thing. Y'know, all that shit in the Bible about acting righteously and protecting the weak from the evil? "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked." - Psalms 82:3-4

I'll settle for anyone who can take a shit by himself. Anyone who doesn't think he'll be judged by the number of people he saints. Hell, I'll settle for anyone who doesn't look like a three year-old corpse and can get through more than five words of a speech without having a fucking aneurysm. Taking a moral stand against raping children would be kind of nice, too, but it is the Catholic Church, so I'm not getting my hopes up.