posted on October 7, 2003 09:04:19 PM new
Yea! D.M.V. tax!!!!!!! boooooh!! 3 times the fee? License for illegals? Buulllllll! and all those other crap things Davis did,,,,,Reversal,,,,,,OF THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE,,
posted on October 7, 2003 09:10:52 PM new
Jack - are you aware that the govenor cannot repeal laws by himself? That the same legislative majority that passed them must also vote to repeal them or are you as ignorant of that fact as our probable future govenor? Nothing like a govener who promises to reach beyond his legal capabilities before he even gets the job.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 7, 2003 09:30:49 PM new
Fenix03,,,What now, will be,,,,,I said my piece,,,,,I am not, a Political debator.....New blood,,,,,New future. The people said,,,,,dump him. They did. Whoever heads the State is nothing but a figure head and the cabinet must ratify whatever the PEOPLE demand. WE THE PEOPLE........I am going back upstairs where I like it. I,,,,,,can change Nothing,,,,The PEOPLE.......Vietnam,,,,,,,,,The PEOPLE......WE can only take sooooooooo much and then,,,,,,TIME for Change........
End of my,,,,,thoughts.
Back to raising hell on e bay. I can only choke down so much. One step at a time.....
posted on October 7, 2003 09:35:56 PM new
You know - it's funny that no one praises Davis for slashing the car tax by 66% a few years back.... they just #*!@ when it gets returned to its old level... or did you forget that part?
And I wans't debating ... I was just pointing out a fatal flaw in your gleeful celebrations... like the law.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 7, 2003 09:40:30 PM new
fenix - [i]are you aware that the govenor cannot repeal laws by himself? That the same are you aware that the govenor cannot repeal laws by himself? That the same legislative majority that passed them must also vote to repeal them or are you as ignorant of that fact as our probable future govenor?
majority that passed them must also vote to repeal them or are you as ignorant of that fact as our probable future govenor[/i]?
I think most people understand that. That is those who were able to figure out what they needed to do to be able to vote without pictures. lol
Don't you think, just maybe, that IF there turns out to be a *large* difference in the numbers the between the two candidates, that they'll see 'the writing on the wall' and vote to reverse some of these issues that have so angered the voters? Triple DMV fees....licenses to illegals....lying about the shape CA was really in, etc?
posted on October 7, 2003 10:48:23 PM new
:: Triple DMV fees....::
Linda I think what a lot of people do not understand is that the licensing fee issue was not a new law. A few years back when the budget was in surplus as a way of giving a rebate of sorts to tax payers the fees were discounted. There was however a trigger in that measure which stated that if the budget was to delve into deficit the tax would be returned to it's original level. In order to "repeal a repeal they would actually have to pass a new measure discounting liscensing fees. As for people understanding that Arnold can't do it on his own... Arnold does not seem to. Overturning the repeal was one of his "first 100 days" promises.
:: licenses to illegals....::
Please tell me why this needs to be repealed? I brought this up to Twelve but he had no answer. The only thing that a drivers license allows one to do in California that cannot be done with a Consular card or Passports (wih or without a valid visa) is to obtain insurance. You can rent an apartment, open a bank account, get utilities all without a drivers license. You cannot get get Medical, etc without a social security number so that isn't it. The law was enacted and lobbied for to help reduce the number of accidents involving uninsured motorists. It is a protection of others issue. BTW - considering that Arnold took money and support from the insurance lobby, do you really think he is going to overturn that one?
::lying about the shape CA was really in, etc?::
How do you lie about state budget issues... they are public record.
As for the legislature seeing the writing on the wall? It's a democratic majority legislature and no, I don't think that they will bow to Arnolds will just because he got votes. Unfortunately I think that Arnold got a tremendously disproportioant amount of publicity in the campaign and that Bustamonte ran an ineffectual campaign - I don't think that the Arnold win is a mandate of his views... especially since we don't really know what they are
BTW - How wierd was it seeing the new Republican Gov surrounded on stage by a see of Democrats in the form of Maria and her family.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 7, 2003 11:13:35 PM new
fenix - It's my position that most sharp people understood about the DMV issue. My point is this wouldn't have happened IF Davis hadn't increased spending 40%, which caused this to occur.
licenses to illegals....::
Please tell me why this needs to be repealed? I brought this up to Twelve but he had no answer.
I can't speak for twelve but I know he agrees with me on the illegal immigration issue. IMO, NO benefits of *any* kind should be given to illegals. They should be deported and required to enter the US legally....according to our laws. Maybe that's what's turned some voters to vote for this recall. There are many variables here.
considering that Arnold took money and support from the insurance lobby, do you really think he is going to overturn that one? I don't know...we'll just have to take a wait and see attitude. All politicans get donations from someone/group of people. The dems get a ton of their support from lawyers....therefore, they tend to vote on issues in their favor. That's just politics.
How do you lie about state budget issues... they are public record. No, we're talking here about 'projected' budget deficits...not yet public record, a 'guesstament' if you will. And Davis gave the public an estimate which was billions of dollars less that what it actually turned out to be.
It's a democratic majority legislature and no, I don't think that they will bow to Arnolds will....I'm aware of that, but the republicans have been able to block a couple of items the dems wanted passed....because there were enough dems that agreed with the republicans.
I think this just might be a wake up call to them on what the VOTERS, *not Arnold*, are saying to their elected leaders. The voters were sending a loud message about their unhappiness on how the present administration is running the state.
that Bustamonte ran an ineffectual campaign - A couple of issues here. First Cruz was going against the dem position of NO dem running against Davis. Then when it looked like the recall just might go through, Cruz said he wanted dems to have another option. I think some Californian's weren't happy that he wouldn't answer or deny his support of the group that wants to return CA to 'it's rightful owners'..mexico. Then I think that many felt a vote for Cruz would be a vote of support for the way the state was being run....and maybe they didn't feel that way.
I don't think that the Arnold win is a mandate of his views no comment here...I would have voted for Tom.
How wierd was it seeing the new Republican Gov surrounded on stage by a see of Democrats in the form of Maria and her family. Isn't Carvel married to a republican? Thought I'd read that. Anyway....there are moderate democrats....more centralists. So a moderate republican and a moderate democrat might agree on a lot of subjects.
posted on October 8, 2003 02:14:01 AM new
::fenix - It's my position that most sharp people understood about the DMV issue. ::
Sure - most sharp people do... but what about most voters A was at a party the other afternoon - average people, not super into politics - none of them were aware that this was a repeal of a past tax cut.
::IMO, NO benefits of *any* kind should be given to illegals. They should be deported and required to enter the US legally....according to our laws. Maybe that's what's turned some voters to vote for this recall. There are many variables here. ::
SO you think that all illegals should be denied the right to pay insurance fees every month to protect others with whom they may be involved in an accident with? I realize that you don't think they should be here, butthey are and if you are in an accident with them, wouldn't you rather that they have an insurance policy that would help you to pay for the damages to your vehicle and medical costs? Are you so against the issue of illegals that you will deny other individuals the opportunity to be protected from an uninsured motorist? That is really the issue.
:: All politicans get donations from someone/group of people.::
Ah but Arnold cried from the mountain tops that he would not accept special interest money....
::I think this just might be a wake up call to them on what the VOTERS, *not Arnold*, are saying to their elected leaders. The voters were sending a loud message about their unhappiness on how the present administration is running the state. ::
What is the message? They want better health care, they want better schools, they want no defiicit, they want no taxes? At least Bustamonte was honest and said that this deficit is not going to go away by osmosis and it was going to take tax hikes in some areas to help wipe it out. Arnold would only say that he couldn't promise that there wouldn't be.
First Cruz was going against the dem position of NO dem running against Davis. Then when it looked like the recall just might go through, Cruz said he wanted dems to have another option.
::I think some Californian's weren't happy that he wouldn't answer or deny his support of the group that wants to return CA to 'it's rightful owners'..mexico. ::
I think that the only place that was an issue was on this board. I watch 3 different local news stations here in San Diego and none of them ever brought up the issue. No one that I knew ever mentioned it as an issue. The problem was that Cruz never came out and said what he was standing for, what he wanted to sccomplish and what he would do differently. As many political ads as I have seen in the past couple weeks, the only Bustamonte ad thatstuck in my mind was the no on 54 one. To the average citizen, he did not really ever present himself as a strong individual candidate.
:: Isn't Carvel married to a republican? ::
Yeah but Linda - it was Kennedy's tonight that surrounded him Actually there are a couple things that they do agree on - i.e. Arnold is pro choice (although why that matters with a govenor has always baffled me - it's not as if they have a say).
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 8, 2003 03:33:23 AM new
Linda, nice answer on the illegal issue...
To answer Fenix on the other question about uninsured motorists... if they have no license they can't drive legally... if the people won't stop illegal immigration one way, maybe the prospect of getting hit by an uninsured/unlicensed motorist will open their eyes to the need to block that border.
Once again you miss the point fenix... THEY ARE ILLEGAL AND DESERVE NOTHING! Would you feel comfortable knowing that felons can once again own firearms? Sexual Predators are no longer published in the paper or neighbors notified of their presence?
Fenix why stop at one illegal activity? There are so many others we can overlook too...
posted on October 8, 2003 05:51:49 AM new
All the Presidential candidates also get up and say what they want to change when they campaign too. Nobody ever complains they have to convince Congress to do it. The Clintons for example could not with health care reform. However they can make life hell for the politicians that won't go along if they have the guts to get tough.
posted on October 8, 2003 07:58:36 AM new
ct. 8, 2003, 12:59AM Voters reject proposal to end racial tracking Californians also kill budget initiative Associated Press
LOS ANGELES -- California voters overwhelmingly rejected a contentious ballot initiative Tuesday that would have banned state and local governments from tracking race in everything from preschools to police work.
Opponents of Proposition 54 had criticized it as a blow against antidiscrimination policies, while backers insisted it was a leap toward a "color-blind society."
With 30.5 percent of precincts reporting, 1,471,369, or 58.8 percent, were against Proposition 54, while 1,032,605, or 41.2 percent, favored the measure.
Voters also turned back a second initiative that would eventually steer 3 percent of each year's state budget into a fund to fix roads, bridges and sewage plants.
With 30.5 percent of precincts reporting, 1,558,994, or 64.9 percent, rejected Proposition 53, while 845,017, or 35.1 percent, supported it.
Even Proposition 54's chief proponent, Ward Connerly, quipped that Tuesday night's "victory party" would better be dubbed a wake.
The proposition would have banned the collection or analysis of racial information in public education, contracting and employment. It would have been the first of its kind in the nation.
Propositions that allocate chunks of the state budget to specific causes have had mixed success, and critics of Proposition 53 said it would drain money from health care, education and other state programs.
It did receive a late infusion of cash from American Indian tribes who supported the measure with a $1.5 million TV advertising blitz in the campaign's final days.
posted on October 8, 2003 08:43:15 AM new
Arnold gets the 100 days he pledged to turn the state around then HIS recall starts. That's why the recall was bad. It opens the floodgates for the recall of the other party governor. Recall the Democrat then recall the Republican then recall the Democrat, etc.
The non-encumbent party will try to recall encumbent party over and over.
-------------- sig file ----------- *There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
Mr. Schwarzenegger has given us several striking examples of the danger inherent in a character speaking without a script. When a farmer asked him why California needed a state Environmental Protection Agency when there is also a federal E.P.A., Mr. Schwarzenegger ad-libbed as follows: "What you just talked about is the waste overlapping agencies. They cost a fortune. We have to strip that down and get rid of some of those agencies."
Oops. Arnold's handlers scriptwriters by any other name were quick to say he didn't really want to eliminate the state agency, Cal/E.P.A. No, no, no. He definitely didn't want to abolish the agency, which just happened to have been founded by the co-chairman of Mr. Schwarzenegger's campaign, Pete Wilson, the former California governor.
The man hasn't a clue. He's a real candidate, but he campaigns as if he's playing one on TV.
An article in The Times on Friday quoted the following telling passage attributed to Mr. Schwarzenegger in a book proposal:
"The feeling like Kennedy had, you know, to speak to maybe 50,000 people at one time and having them cheer, or like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being in total agreement with whatever you say."
Mr. Schwarzenegger was unconcerned about the profound differences between a Kennedy and a Hitler. He was interested only in the wild applause, the unrestrained adulation and how he might get a taste of that for himself.
Narcisissm is about seduction, manipulation and the quest for power and control. There is no better breeding ground for it than Hollywood. But even in Hollywood, Arnold is an extraordinary case.
He just grabs whatever he wants.
He can do this because the public allows him to do it. After all, he's a movie star. The Terminator. Why should anyone demand that he come up with some kind of program for a Schwarzenegger administration? Or even demonstrate a minimal understanding of the state's problems, or how its government works?
Mr. Schwarzenegger is the favorite in California because, incredibly, he's perceived as a strong leader by many voters. In reality, he seems little more than an aging but still frisky goof-artist, a fun-loving egomaniac with a winning smile and very little understanding of what is appropriate behavior.
But he's played spectacularly strong leaders in one cartoonish movie after another. As scary as it seems, for a lot of voters in California, that's reason enough to hand him the reins of their government.
posted on October 8, 2003 09:18:46 AM new
::Looks like the majority of the California voters have come to their senses.::
Bear if you look at the main organization that was backing 54 it was law enforcement. You see if there was no mention of race there could be no statistics to show racial discrimination in the way different cases are handled on a race basis.
The proposition would have been a medical nightmare. It is known that different races are more prone to various diseases but it would be impossible obtain stastical data is there was no race designation in medical records.
I believe that the proposition was overturned because of a lack of a will to have a color blind society but a realization that that goal is obtained in the hearts and minds of individuals, not via a lack of statistical data collection.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 8, 2003 10:08:15 AM new
With Bush screwing up the economy, it could happen anywhere, twelvepole.
We are having an interesting problem here today.
Shooting From the Lip
It was quite a screw-up. The open-mouth, insert-foot kind, even.
At a domestic violence prevention conference Friday, Kendel Ehrlich -- Maryland's first lady -- had a lot to say about educating young women to be independent and had no problem getting everyone's attention.
"If I had an opportunity to shoot Britney Spears, I think I would," the former prosecutor told the crowd at Hood College in Frederick.
Interesting choice of words to use in the closing remarks of a conference rooted in anti-violence.
Frederick radio station WFMD came across Ehrlich's remark while reviewing a conference tape recording and ran a news story about it on Monday. By yesterday, the first lady's office was forced to issue a statement. "As a working mother raising a 4-year-old son, the first lady has concerns about the negative influences that the entertainment industry can have on young children and teenagers. During a public appearance, she inadvertently used a figure of speech to express those concerns," her spokeswoman, Meghann Siwinski, said.
Ehrlich recently returned to the political circuit after a hiatus this summer to devote herself to her son, Drew. During July and August, she declined press interviews and speaking engagements. But over the past few weeks, the first lady has reemerged, making a number of public appearances, according to The Post's Lori Montgomery.
For his part, first-term Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who campaigned against gun control, didn't offer an opinion on the topic.
Spears's record label did, though. A Jive Records spokesperson issued this statement on behalf of the singer: "Since this unfortunate comment was made at a domestic violence prevention conference, it seems that Mrs. Ehrlich has shot her own self in the foot by promoting violence as well."
but they are and if you are in an accident with them, wouldn't you rather that they have an insurance policy that would help you to pay for the damages to your vehicle and medical costs?
Yes, they are here, agreed, and my position is they need to be sent back whenever it's realized they are here illegally. I see absolutely NO reason for them to be given *any* benefits, of *any* kind, paid for by our tax dollars, just because they managed to come here illegally. To me that rewards breaking our laws and continues the incentive for others to do so also.
I read toda that the Associated Press, along with others, did a survey and 70% of the CA voters were against giving illegals drivers licenses, which is what Davis did. 70% speaks to the issue of how strongly Californian's [a democratic state by far] feel on this issue.
As far as protecting other CA citizens against those who drive with no licenses and who have no insurance....to me that's a very weak argument. One can easily protect themself against *all* un-insured drivers....when I was there it didn't cost very much to purchase that additional insurance. To say we need to give them licenses so they can get insurance to protect OTHER drivers...is silly, imo. One can protect themself already. If they choose not to....that's their choice...and their loss.
Again...on this issue I feel strongly. [Can you tell ] *No* benefits for any illegal. Neither the democratic nor the republican administrations have dealt with this issue strongly enough, imo.
I'm tired of our tax dollars being used for any benefits for illegals. That includes medical care, education, etc. We have so many of our own that are in need and those same funds being spent on illegals *should* be spent on our own citizens....not those who have broken our immigration laws.
[i]What is the message? They want better health care, they want better schools, they want no defiicit, they want no taxes[b]?
Well...the way I look at this is we ALL "want". Our list of "wants" might go on forever. But we're aware that we can't have all we want and we live within our budgets. Sometimes we use our charge cards to purchase what we 'want' when we really shouldn't. But eventually the 'bill' comes due. Just as our federal 'bill' will come due. There's a difference between wants and needs, to me.
Did you see the post I made that showed how many states had positive revenues, but the reason they were now in trouble is because they still spent more than they brought in? I think CA said "STOP now...we don't want to pay anymore than we're already paying. You're taking enough."
Bustamonte was honest and said that this deficit is not going to go away by osmosis. I think most people realize that no matter who is governor. But Davis still continued to put forth measures long after he knew what the budget crisis was. Cruz would have continued the same statisquo...a Davis Jr.
I think Arnold was honest too, when he said it would probably take a couple of months to go over the 'books' and see where there was waste, duplication and spending that wasn't absolutely necessary.
Arnold would only say that he couldn't promise that there wouldn't be. Yes, and he still got elected. HEAR the message of the voters, fenix....they want things done differently.
::to return CA to 'it's rightful owners'..mexico:: I think that the only place that was an issue was on this board. I watch 3 different local news stations here in San Diego and none of them ever brought up the issue.
Well...that doesn't surprise me. I saw it on more than a couple of online news articles. I wouldn't expect the liberal press in your area would shout the issue loud and clear, no more than I'd expect the Los Angeles time to not blatantly support Davis NOT being recalled. AND not on the op-ed pages, but in their news articles. But it was being reported. I personally saw a TV interview [quick clip] of Cruz, with him in SD, where he was asked about this. He brushed it off, but never would denounce what the groups stand for. And many right wing groups were after him to answer. They wanted to make it an election issue.
posted on October 8, 2003 06:36:39 PM new
::Well...that doesn't surprise me. I saw it on more than a couple of online news articles. I wouldn't expect the liberal press in your area would shout the issue loud and clear,::
Have you ever been to San Diego? Have you seen the results from here? San Diego is more conservative than Orange County (there's a scary thought) and defeated the recall by a something along the lines of a 10% higher margin than the state as a whole. This is not a liberal area. Also , if you don't expect San Diego and LA to cover the issue, how do you think Joe Average is going to finf out about it for it to have been part of the deciding factor as you believe it to be.
::And many right wing groups were after him to answer. They wanted to make it an election issue.::
The wanted to but it never became one. I think most people wereeither dazzled by the Arnold machine or just wanted something non political. Unfortunately I don't think many knew what Bustamonte was even about, the publicity machine was not working for him.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 8, 2003 07:57:48 PM newHave you ever been to San Diego?
Yes, many times. I have both family and friends there.
Have you seen the results from here? Are you referring to this recent election? If so, no. Because if you are, I don't think the way the voters 'rebelled' this time is an indication of the political leaning of those there, but rather a majority of Californian's who are pissed off at the way things were going.
if you don't expect San Diego and LA to cover the issue
I do expect them to cover the issue. To report the *news* in the news section, and to leave the 'opinions/leanings' for the op-ed sections. Something the LA Times did NOT do. They went WAY overboard FOR Davis...and against Arnold and Tom. Their news articles were FULL of *opinions*, not reporting the news, on why Davis shouldn't have been recalled. Journalists are suppose to report the news....and leave the forming of opinions to their readers. Have you read the number of people who have recently cancelled their subscriptions because of this? Other's see it the same way I did.
posted on October 8, 2003 08:07:18 PM new
fenix - I'm posting this URL of a map of how California votes voted in this election. Now we all know California is a democratic state. Gore took the state in the last Federal election. They elected a democratic governor [Davis], Cruz is a democrat and their legislature votes predominently liberal and the dems have the majority. It's a liberal state. But look at the areas on this map of how the voting went.
posted on October 8, 2003 08:24:42 PM new
And every news program on TV lead off every show with Arnold. They pretty much ignored anybody else. They did not even report Arnold's supporters roughing up another Rebublican candidate, a woman, while Arnold and Maria looked on. They even wrote all over her with marking pens.
There wasn't even any stories about them roughing up the nuns carrying "Grope Free Zone" signs.
posted on October 8, 2003 09:24:05 PM new
LInda - I looked and I am a little confused. It clearly shows that San Diego voted 66% in favor of the recal as opposed to the statewide average of of 55%. Isn't that what I said? Sure OC did go 73% but do they have a 6 foot rule in their strip clubs
I used to live in OC and while it is a conservative voting town after a couples years down in here in San Diego I am shocked at how conservative this town can be. I guess a lot of that stems from it beling a miltary town both in terms of contractors and bases but I was still very surprised. Of course maybe it allso has something to do with the fact that the cost of living is so high only republicans can afford to live here
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 8, 2003 10:33:42 PM new
Now fenix if so many of these large CA counties are filled with so many conservatives, I can't imagine how in the world CA ever became a democratically controlled state. One who's electorial votes when to Gore.
We lived in Huntington Beach too.
Don't be confused....I probably wasn't clear. I'm saying that just because SD voted, in this election, to oust Davis, does not prove it is either liberal or conservative. And I would agree that SD being a military town, it would lean towards the right. But one can't assume that democrats who live in SD don't also support the military.
24% of CA dems voted for Arnold. Maybe some of them lived in SD county.
posted on October 8, 2003 10:44:56 PM new
Linda - if you lived in Newport you know that OC is a repulican county. San Diego is definately moving in that direction. I don't doubt that there are a great deal of Democrats here but I think they've been chased into the closet by all of these crazy conservatives
My point though was that the press here is not all liberal. NBC affiliate last night was pretty middle of the road. ABC - I'll give you that one, screaming democratic coverage, but I don't really watch them, I was just flipping around out of curiosity. WB was middle of the road to conservative.. when their uplinks worked that is
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Another telling exit-poll result: California voters were evenly split in their views of Bush's job performance (49% approve, 48% disapprove), while they overwhelmingly disapproved of Davis (27% approve, 71% disapprove)
posted on October 8, 2003 10:56:04 PM new
[big grin on my face here]
if you lived in Newport....not Newport nor Newport Beach, Huntington Beach....
I don't doubt that there are a great deal of Democrats here but I think they've been chased into the closet by all of these crazy conservatives.....LOL Yes, those crazy conservatives.
My point though was that the press here is not all liberal. Okay...there's our problem. I never meant to imply they were *all* liberal.
I,,,,,,can change Nothing,,,,The PEOPLE.......Vietnam,,,,,,,,,The PEOPLE......WE can only take sooooooooo much and then,,,,,,TIME for Change........
