BUWAHAHAHAHAH @ Ahnold!!!!

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

BUWAHAHAHAHAH @ Ahnold!!!!

Post by Mikey »

It appears that he'd be better off campaigning against his own initiatives. The more he campaigns, the less likely they are to pass.

:lol: :lol:

What a fuckin' dork. I guess this picture is pretty apropriate.
RIP, Governator. You're DOA.

Image
Poll shows governor's 4 initiatives losing Nov. 8

Campaigning by leader said to be hurting agenda

By John Marelius
STAFF WRITER

November 1, 2005

All four of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives appear headed for defeat in next Tuesday's special election, a new Field Poll shows.

The nonpartisan statewide survey released today also shows that Schwarzenegger is harming his agenda by campaigning for it because a plurality of likely voters said they were less inclined to vote for a Schwarzenegger-backed initiative.
Only 24 percent said his support of a proposition would make them more inclined to vote for it, while 43 percent said it would make them less inclined to support it.


:lol:

"The thing that's most striking to me is the impact that Schwarzenegger himself is having on his own initiatives," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "It's got to be disastrous from the governor's standpoint."

Schwarzenegger won the 2003 recall election with solid support from Democrats and independents. Much of that support has eroded as his governing style has become more partisan.

Among Democrats, 69 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a Schwarzenegger-endorsed proposition as did 46 percent of independents and others. Among Republicans, 51 percent said they would be inclined to follow the governor's lead.

"For Schwarzenegger himself, his ability to reach across the aisle has been taken away from him," DiCamillo said.
Proposition 76, Schwarzenegger's initiative to limit state spending, appears hopelessly behind and a majority opposes Proposition 77, which would take away legislators' power to draw political districts.

Proposition 75, which is designed to weaken the political influence of public employee unions, is trailing after running well ahead in August.

Proposition 74, which would lengthen the probationary period for new teachers, is within striking distance of passing, but it has lost ground since August.

"It's the direction of change that's more important in a final poll than the actual numbers," DiCamillo said. "Unfortunately for the governor, the direction of change is moving against him."

Todd Harris, spokesman for Schwarzenegger's ballot measure campaign, said the campaign's internal polls show the four measures are doing better.

"We are going to have a very aggressive final week, both on television and with events featuring the governor and I'm going to wait until November 8 and let the voters decide, not the pollsters," he said.

Gale Kaufman, campaign manager for the Alliance for a Better California, the umbrella organization of labor unions opposing Schwarzenegger's agenda, predicted the governor would be shut out next Tuesday.

"We are engaged in a very serious campaign over all of these initiatives and they are all failing," Kaufman said. "And the more people get to know about them, they do worse, not better."

Another measure on the ballot, Proposition 80, has been largely overlooked compared to the other initiatives.

Proposition 80 would subject electric utilities to greater regulation and was qualified for the ballot by the labor unions and consumer groups opposing Schwarzenegger's agenda.

The Field Poll showed only 24 percent of the likely voters favored Proposition 80, compared to 48 percent who were opposed and 28 percent undecided.

The Field Poll conducted two week-long surveys this month. It interviewed 506 likely voters Oct. 18-24 and an additional 581 Tuesday through Sunday. The margin of error is +/-4 percentage points.

Opposition hardened against three of the four Schwarzenegger initiatives in the second week of polling.

Some of the findings:

Proposition 74: This initiative, which would lengthen the time it would take teachers to receive tenure from two to five years, has lost ground since a Field Poll in August, when it appeared to have a good chance of passing.

In August, 46 percent favored the measure and 37 percent did not.

Since then, support has declined to 44 percent but opposition has swelled to 50 percent.

Like all of the Schwarzenegger-backed measures, Proposition 74 has become highly partisan with 74 percent of Republicans favoring it, but only 19 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of independents backing it.

There is also a pronounced gender gap, with 50 percent of male voters supporting it compared to 38 percent of female voters.

Proposition 75: The measure requiring public employee unions to obtain written permission before using members' dues in political campaigns is following a similar pattern that a comparable initiative, Proposition 226, did in 1998.

Proposition 226 started out with commanding voter support, was statistically tied the week before the election and lost on Election Day by 6 percentage points.

Likewise, Proposition 75 enjoyed the support of 55 percent to 32 percent in August. That has eroded to 40 percent in favor to 50 percent opposed.

Proposition 75 is also highly partisan, with 71 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats in favor.

Voters in union households oppose the proposition 70 percent to 23 percent. Voters in non-union households are nearly evenly split.

Proposition 76: The complicated proposal to cap state spending and change the education funding formula has gained a little ground in the Field Poll, but continues to run far behind.

Three in five likely voters, 60 percent, said they would vote "no" compared to 32 percent who would vote "yes." That represents a modest improvement since August when the proposition was trailing 65 percent to 19 percent.

Among Republicans, 64 percent favor the spending limit, but among Democrats, only 8 percent are in support.

Proposition 77: This measure, to take the power to redraw political district boundaries away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of three retired judges, is opposed by a majority of likely voters.

In August, 46 percent were opposed and 32 percent were in favor. Since then, opposition has grown to 51 percent compared to 35 percent in favor.

Legislators redrew the lines in 2001 to protect incumbents of both parties from serious re-election challenges.

While Proposition 77 has drawn support and opposition across the political spectrum, it is seen in a partisan light by voters.

Only 18 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents favor Proposition 77, compared to 64 percent of Republicans.

"It wasn't meant to be a partisan reform initiative, but it is clearly perceived that way and I think that has to do with the governor," DiCamillo said.
Last edited by Mikey on Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

The fact that any fucking group with money can pay for TV ads and lie to the public is appalling and is the real reason why most initiative won't pass. People vote no on things they can't understand because of all of the contradictory buillshit allowed to be spewed over the airwaves.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

It's kind of a silly question, too. If you asked a few thousand Republicans if they would be in favor of a particular measure simply because it was backed by Bush, you probably wouldn't get much more than 50% either.

BTW, normally the polls are pretty telling with Propostions, but with this being a special election, no one really knows how many voters will turn out. Most political hacks are saying that in an election of this type, most voters only turn out to vote for a propostion, not against one.

BTW #2... I don't really see why you're getting so much amusement out of all of this, since 75 and 77 could really help the state out a lot. You do still live here.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

mvscal wrote:Bullshit polls. That's all you fucking morons have to offer.

Then you sit around crying and complaining when you get your asses kicked in the vooting booth.
So, are you going to voot?
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

I guess you guys didn't bother to read the whole piece...


Proposition 74:
In August, 46 percent favored the measure and 37 percent did not.

Since then, support has declined to 44 percent but opposition has swelled to 50 percent.

Proposition 75:
Likewise, Proposition 75 enjoyed the support of 55 percent to 32 percent in August. That has eroded to 40 percent in favor to 50 percent opposed.

Proposition 76:
Three in five likely voters, 60 percent, said they would vote "no" compared to 32 percent who would vote "yes." That represents a modest improvement since August when the proposition was trailing 65 percent to 19 percent.

Proposition 77:
In August, 46 percent were opposed and 32 percent were in favor. Since then, opposition has grown to 51 percent compared to 35 percent in favor.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

mvscal wrote:I will also be rocking the voot cause I'm hep.
Canadian?
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Mikey wrote:Proposition 77:
In August, 46 percent were opposed and 32 percent were in favor. Since then, opposition has grown to 51 percent compared to 35 percent in favor.
Must be the Judge Wapner commercial that did it. :lol:
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

Mikey wrote:I guess you guys didn't bother to read the whole piece...


Proposition 74:
In August, 46 percent favored the measure and 37 percent did not.

Since then, support has declined to 44 percent but opposition has swelled to 50 percent.

Proposition 75:
Likewise, Proposition 75 enjoyed the support of 55 percent to 32 percent in August. That has eroded to 40 percent in favor to 50 percent opposed.

Proposition 76:
Three in five likely voters, 60 percent, said they would vote "no" compared to 32 percent who would vote "yes." That represents a modest improvement since August when the proposition was trailing 65 percent to 19 percent.

Proposition 77:
In August, 46 percent were opposed and 32 percent were in favor. Since then, opposition has grown to 51 percent compared to 35 percent in favor.

Wonder if $100,000,000.00 zops spent by the unions to keep this state in their clutches had anything to do with the swing. If you listen to their attack adds and the spin they put on them, you'd think you were listening to Schumer, Kennedy, or Crazedville. I guess the people have spoken...step down Arnold the people of Mexifornia don't want no stinkin balanced budget. We want open borders, and we want the mafia err Unions to run our state.

Arnold knew he was in for a Pearl Harbor attack when he announced he was going to FIX the mess left by Grayed Davis. Yeah, just try and curb out of control spending in this state...

By the way, I've read the voter information guide....I'll be glad to scan and send the unbelievable rebuttals to these prop's to anyone. It's freeking scary how shallow and pointless they are...of course this IS Mexifornia. :oops:
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

ChargerMike wrote:

Wonder if $100,000,000.00 zops spent by the unions to keep this state in their clutches had anything to do with the swing.
I wonder how many zops have been spent by the giant real estate developers and other big business interests to try and push this one through. Personally, I've seen a lot more "pro" ads than "con".

The misleading advertising and voters' guide argument applies just as strongly both ways. One reason I'm inclined to vote "NO" on any intiative that comes along unless I can see a clear and unarguable reason to vote for it, along with the $80 million zops flushed down the terlet just to have this abortion of an election. IMO that hasn't happened this time
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

You got it, CM. :oops: <----just about covers it.
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

Mikey wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:

Wonder if $100,000,000.00 zops spent by the unions to keep this state in their clutches had anything to do with the swing.
I wonder how many zops have been spent by the giant real estate developers and other big business interests to try and push this one through. Personally, I've seen a lot more "pro" ads than "con".

The misleading advertising and voters' guide argument applies just as strongly both ways. One reason I'm inclined to vote "NO" on any intiative that comes along unless I can see a clear and unarguable reason to vote for it, along with the $80 million zops flushed down the terlet just to have this abortion of an election. IMO that hasn't happened this time

Concur..I also vote NO on most initiatives...but when the Union's fight this hard for my tax dollar, I'm gonna find out why.

Here's an excerpt from a rebuttal on 74...

"Rather than punish teachers (which the initiative does not) we should give them thanks for making a HUGE difference in the lives of our children..and for speaking up for what California and the students need to be successful"

OK..HUGE difference..LMAO..L.A. unified is one of the most pathetic school systems in the freekin country...AND throwing billions at it over the past 20 years has not helped one single bit.

I'm all for our teachers, they are under paid and under appreciated! I'm not for continuing to waste $$$$$$$$$ on a FAILED system.
Public school spending increased by $3 BILLION this year and represents almost 50% of our overall state budget.50%

This initiative simply requires a teacher to perform well for 5 years instead of just 2 before they become eligible for permanent "guaranteed" employment. Now that's really devastating right :roll:
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Public school spending increased by $3 BILLION this year
Word. Yet the opposition runs ads claiming that Arnold cut education spending. I honestly don't get why it's legal to blatantly lie in political ads, especially when the impact can be so huge.
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

When it comes to propositions they should outlaw TV and radio ads by either side, and have the money go to an independent firm to produce truthful ads that reflect what they actually do, the potential positive and negative affects, and nothing more. None of these lying ass teachers and nurses being paid to say whatever they want them to say.

Deception isn't allowed in product advertising, it shouldn't be allowed in political ads.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

CM, I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it's definitely not from the real world.

The total state expenditures for 2004-2005 were almost $82 billion zops. In my world $3 billion is not quite 50% of that total. As well, the $3 billion "increase" for 2005-2006 represents a restoration of the $3 billion that was taken away from K-12 education the year before with the agreement that it would be restored the next year. If you consider it over a two year time period, it's still a $3 billion decrease from the original funding. The proposition would allow him to cut it again, at his own whim. And you know he would.

I don't know why you hate education so much. California ranked 25th in annual expenditure per student in average daily attendance in 2003-2004, before the $3 billion cut. We were 28th in school revenue per $1,000 of personal income.

If you think that the LA system is FAILED then work to change the fucking LA system. Don't punish the rest of the state because your own district has a bloated and ineffective bureaucratic administration. That's YOUR failure, not mine. Our small district (3 elementary schools, 1 middle school and one HS) does very well considering the challenges it faces...ie high percentage of transient and non-English speaking students, old facilities, high growth. But as it is they depend on parents to raise money for all activities and teachers often have to buy their own classroom supplies.

I just don't get the logic that if a system isn't working you starve it to death so it will work better. :roll:
If it's not working then fucking CHANGE it, don't kill it.

http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

If you consider it over a two year time period, it's still a $3 billion decrease from the original funding.
Bullshit. The money Schwarzeneggar borrowed and didn't repay was from the scheduled increase. If you don't increase something, it doesn't magically become less than what it originally was.

Sorry, but CM is right regarding California education. Just because our education system is STILL broken, that doesn't mean you continue to piss money away, just because that's what we've always done. And a big part of the problem is, even if areas are identified where it's clear we're overspending and can save money on education, lefties like you would be all-fucking-over Schwarzeneggar the millisecond he tried to shave a penny of the education budget.
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

Mikey wrote:CM, I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it's definitely not from the real world.

The total state expenditures for 2004-2005 were almost $82 billion zops. In my world $3 billion is not quite 50% of that total. As well, the $3 billion "increase" for 2005-2006 represents a restoration of the $3 billion that was taken away from K-12 education the year before with the agreement that it would be restored the next year. If you consider it over a two year time period, it's still a $3 billion decrease from the original funding. The proposition would allow him to cut it again, at his own whim. And you know he would.

I don't know why you hate education so much. California ranked 25th in annual expenditure per student in average daily attendance in 2003-2004, before the $3 billion cut. We were 28th in school revenue per $1,000 of personal income.

If you think that the LA system is FAILED then work to change the fucking LA system. Don't punish the rest of the state because your own district has a bloated and ineffective bureaucratic administration. That's YOUR failure, not mine. Our small district (3 elementary schools, 1 middle school and one HS) does very well considering the challenges it faces...ie high percentage of transient and non-English speaking students, old facilities, high growth. But as it is they depend on parents to raise money for all activities and teachers often have to buy their own classroom supplies.

I just don't get the logic that if a system isn't working you starve it to death so it will work better. :roll:
If it's not working then fucking CHANGE it, don't kill it.

http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf

I got my figures straight from the expenditure pie chart for the State budget (see page 4 of 5) BTW..that 129 page link you served up is par for the course from the Left.....much like the upcoming hearings for judge Alito I imagine...either filibuster or overwhelm the opponent with 129 pages of fine print and minutia. They were not talking about the $3 mill. but the entire education budget being almost 50%.

Like Variable said..I think you're using "fuzzy math" there Mikey.

The question here is throwing more of your tax dollars at a broken system worthwile. Sitting in Fallbrook it might be, sitting in the San Fernando Valley..it ain't.

I hate education??? :roll: cause I'm for teachers putting in 5 good years instead of 2?? we were talking about 74 right?

We're hardly starving a system when 50% of our budget is earmarked for a system that turns out freekin illiterates by the train load every year.

How much do YOU think we should throw at the current system??
insert percentage here.. ____%
ftp://ftpgovbud.dof.ca.gov/pub/BudgetSu ... Charts.pdf
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

Variable wrote:
If you consider it over a two year time period, it's still a $3 billion decrease from the original funding.
Bullshit. The money Schwarzeneggar borrowed and didn't repay was from the scheduled increase. If you don't increase something, it doesn't magically become less than what it originally was.
It was in the budget. It was removed from the budget.
How does that not equal a cut?
User avatar
Mister Bushice
Drinking all the beer Luther left behind
Posts: 9490
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by Mister Bushice »

Does anyone remember Arnold and EVERY economist/money launderer/accountant/financial advisor saying that WE HAVE TO MAKE CUTS AND SACRIFICES?

WTF? Is this the "Not in my backyard" mentality taken to a statewide fiscal level?

NO ONE, NO group wants to experience a cut or a lack of an increase in funding/salary, but the reality is that it HAS to happen somewhere to someone.

So Mikey, you are now Governor. What do YOU Cut to balance the budget that won't piss off someone?


I'll take your answer off the air.
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —GWB Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Martyred wrote: Hang in there, Whitey. Smart people are on their way with dictionaries.
War Wagon wrote:being as how I've got "stupid" draped all over, I'm not really sure.
Gunslinger
Sir Slappy Tits
Posts: 2830
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:06 pm

Post by Gunslinger »

Hey! You dumbfucks, while you dumbfucks are arguing about funding education the rest of the world is funding them 10 fold and laughing there assess off as they take our jobs. Just wanted to let you know.

Sin,
Someone who knows where India is on a fucking map.
Gunslinger
Sir Slappy Tits
Posts: 2830
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:06 pm

Post by Gunslinger »

PS: My post was funded by the American tax dollar and check out my piss poor grammar. Actually I'd like to blame Busch, but one thing at a time here.
User avatar
tough love
Agondonter
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Prison Urantia

Post by tough love »

Who else gets to see shit like this?
Deception isn't allowed in product advertising, it shouldn't be allowed in political ads.
I laughed.
Am I wrong...God, I hope so.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Mister Bushice wrote:The fact that any fucking group with money can pay for TV ads and lie to the public is appalling and is the real reason why most initiative won't pass. People vote no on things they can't understand because of all of the contradictory buillshit allowed to be spewed over the airwaves.
WTF kind of thinking is this??

People who do not vote your way are just ignorant voters?

Why do you hate free speech?
User avatar
trev
New Sheriff in Town
Posts: 5032
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: semi retirement

Post by trev »

ChargerMike wrote:
I hate education??? :roll: cause I'm for teachers putting in 5 good years instead of 2?? we were talking about 74 right?
No answer from Mikey on this.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

This pretty much sums up the political divide Ahnold is facing.
Proposition 74: 74 percent of Republicans favoring it, but only 19 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of independents backing it.

Proposition 75: 71 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats in favor.

Proposition 76: Among Republicans, 64 percent favor the spending limit, but among Democrats, only 8 percent are in support.

Proposition 77: Only 18 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents favor Proposition 77, compared to 64 percent of Republicans.
He couldn't have thought that jamming all this down the throats of his political enemies would be a good thing?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Mikey wrote:CM, I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it's definitely not from the real world.

The total state expenditures for 2004-2005 were almost $82 billion zops. In my world $3 billion is not quite 50% of that total.
You misread, he was indicating that the education budget accounts for half of the total state budget.
As well, the $3 billion "increase" for 2005-2006 represents a restoration of the $3 billion that was taken away from K-12 education the year before with the agreement that it would be restored the next year. If you consider it over a two year time period, it's still a $3 billion decrease from the original funding. The proposition would allow him to cut it again, at his own whim. And you know he would.
This knee-jerk reaction against the Governor possessing the ability to reduce state education funding is interesting. Do you believe that he would exercise that authority arbitrarily? Or are you just generally opposed to any cuts of any kind?
I just don't get the logic that if a system isn't working you starve it to death so it will work better. :roll:
If it's not working then fucking CHANGE it, don't kill it.
"Starving it?" Come on.
User avatar
Sirfindafold
Shit Thread Alert
Posts: 2939
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:08 pm

Post by Sirfindafold »

trev wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
I hate education??? :roll: cause I'm for teachers putting in 5 good years instead of 2?? we were talking about 74 right?
No answer from Mikey on this.


He's looking for talking points on the NEA website.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

trev wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
I hate education??? :roll: cause I'm for teachers putting in 5 good years instead of 2?? we were talking about 74 right?
No answer from Mikey on this.
Why don't you STFU, cunt, unless you have something to add besides sniping from the sideline. I'll reply to CM's post when I have the time to compose a well thought out response (something you obviously have no experience with) -- some people have to work for a living, you know.

Now, isn't it time for you to get back to your bottle of Generic Label vodka and soap operas?

Edit: yeah I did misread his comment about the budget percentages, so I was off base there.
Last edited by Mikey on Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Kettle...errr...Pot, uh:
Why don't you STFU, cunt, unless you have something to add besides sniping from the sideline
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

Sirfindafold wrote:
trev wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
I hate education??? :roll: cause I'm for teachers putting in 5 good years instead of 2?? we were talking about 74 right?
No answer from Mikey on this.
He's looking for talking points on the NEA website.
Nice job. You can't argue the statistics, so you criticize the source. Do you know of another place to get state rankings of education spending? Can you refute any of the stats in that report? I didnt' think so.

My suggestion to trev applies to you too, bitch.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

DrDetroit wrote:
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

BSmack wrote:This pretty much sums up the political divide Ahnold is facing.
Proposition 74: 74 percent of Republicans favoring it, but only 19 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of independents backing it.

Proposition 75: 71 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats in favor.

Proposition 76: Among Republicans, 64 percent favor the spending limit, but among Democrats, only 8 percent are in support.

Proposition 77: Only 18 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents favor Proposition 77, compared to 64 percent of Republicans.
He couldn't have thought that jamming all this down the throats of his political enemies would be a good thing?

&*(&&)(**%&$%#$%& what ever happened to voting party lines? :wink: :wink:
User avatar
trev
New Sheriff in Town
Posts: 5032
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: semi retirement

Post by trev »

You avoided the question Mikey. I was interested in your answer. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

:lol:
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 29908
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Post by Mikey »

trev wrote:You avoided the question Mikey. I was interested in your answer. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

:lol:
Go ahead and hold it.

I'll be sure to take a few hours longer...

:wink:
User avatar
trev
New Sheriff in Town
Posts: 5032
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: semi retirement

Post by trev »

Mikey wrote:
trev wrote:You avoided the question Mikey. I was interested in your answer. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

:lol:
Go ahead and hold it.

I'll be sure to take a few hours longer...

:wink:
Just continue your melt. It's all good.

:wink: :wink:
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

ChargerMike wrote:&*(&&)(**%&$%#$%& what ever happened to voting party lines? :wink: :wink:
It might be comming back into vogue.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

BSmack wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:&*(&&)(**%&$%#$%& what ever happened to voting party lines? :wink: :wink:
It might be comming back into vogue.
You must be referring to this....


Democrats Force Secret Senate Session
By LIZ SIDOTI
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

1101dv-senate-spat Unable to win their way with votes, :lol: outnumbered Democrats used a rarely invoked Senate rule to force a secret session as a way to dramatize their assertions that the Bush administration misused intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq.

"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said Tuesday in demanding that the Senate chamber be emptied of everyone but members and a few staffers.

Republicans angrily derided the use of Rule 21 - which dates back to 1795 - as a political stunt but agreed two hours later to have a bipartisan group check on how the Senate Intelligence Committee is coming along in its investigation of prewar intelligence.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. :shock:

He suggested President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court had "set the Democrats back on their heels. :wink: ... This may just be a reaction to that."

Democrats sought assurances that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas would complete the second phase of an investigation of the administration's prewar intelligence - as he said he was doing anyway.

A six-member task force - three members from each party - was appointed to review the Intelligence Committee's work and report to their respective leaders by Nov. 14.

Roberts' committee produced a 511-page report in 2004 on flaws in an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country's top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn't be finished in the first year of work.

The committee worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to complete the second phase next week.

"Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," :shock: a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."

When Reid made his move at mid-afternoon, the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed.

Under Senate rules, no vote is required when a member demands a secret session.

Some Democrats have accused the White House of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday for lying during an investigation that touched on the war - the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of CIA officer Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson's publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Roberts. Reid claimed that Republicans have repeatedly rebuffed Democratic pleas for a thorough investigation.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader, said a closed session was appropriate for overarching matters like impeachment and chemical weapons - the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions. Moreover, he said Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent.

But there was nothing available in the Senate rules Republicans could use to thwart Reid's maneuver. The Senate is authorized to have secret sessions by the Constitution.

But it was the first time in more than two decades the chamber has been forced into a closed session without bipartisian agreement. The last closed session was in 1999 to consider the impeachment of President Clinton.

The Senate had been considering a budget bill when it went into closed session.

--
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

ChargerMike wrote:
BSmack wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:&*(&&)(**%&$%#$%& what ever happened to voting party lines? :wink: :wink:
It might be comming back into vogue.
You must be referring to this....

Democrats Force Secret Senate Session --
No, that's what happens when you have one party rule. As if the GOP wouldn't have done the same thing as the opposition?
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
ChargerMike
2007/2011 JFFL champ
Posts: 5647
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Location: So.Cal.

Post by ChargerMike »

BSmack wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:
BSmack wrote: It might be comming back into vogue.
You must be referring to this....

Democrats Force Secret Senate Session --
No, that's what happens when you have one party rule. As if the GOP wouldn't have done the same thing as the opposition?

No the GOP would NOT pull a stunt like that. As Trent Lott said, a closed session was appropriate for overarching matters like impeachment and chemical weapons - the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions. Moreover, he said Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent.

The committee worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to complete the second phase next week.

"Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."



This after being told the report would be completed next week!!!! Oh yeah, the meeting was surely warranted.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29342
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

ChargerMike wrote:
BSmack wrote:
ChargerMike wrote: You must be referring to this....

Democrats Force Secret Senate Session --
No, that's what happens when you have one party rule. As if the GOP wouldn't have done the same thing as the opposition?

No the GOP would NOT pull a stunt like that. As Trent Lott said, a closed session was appropriate for overarching matters like impeachment and chemical weapons - the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions. Moreover, he said Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent.

The committee worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to complete the second phase next week.

"Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."


This after being told the report would be completed next week!!!! Oh yeah, the meeting was surely warranted.
How many years is this late already?

Fuck that. No more excuses. Just get it done.
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

The was no issue over the progress of the report. This stunt was a canard to revive the debate of going to war in Iraq. PlameGate has failed to that...hence...
Post Reply