The W
Views: 100234766
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.14 1147
The W - Current Events & Politics - Presenting California's next governor... (Page 4)
This thread has 61 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1893 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (96 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
And now: Issa Abandons Gubernatorial Bid...



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3755 days
Last activity: 3225 days
AIM:  
#62 Posted on
On a slight tangent... did any of the folks here ever play the pen-n-paper game Shadowrun?

Remember the backstory? More specifically, remember "President Schwarzenegger"?

Who woulda thunk it. If, in a few years, people start turning into trolls and orcs and shit, remind me to give all my money to Steve Jackson Games.





Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#63 Posted on
    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    On a slight tangent... did any of the folks here ever play the pen-n-paper game Shadowrun?

    Remember the backstory? More specifically, remember "President Schwarzenegger"?

    Who woulda thunk it. If, in a few years, people start turning into trolls and orcs and shit, remind me to give all my money to Steve Jackson Games.




Yeah, well whoever thought the words Governor Gary "Watcha talking 'bout Willis" Coleman would ever enter into the realm of slight possibility. Not that I am giving him a chance in hell of winning, but this whole thing has become such a circus, who knows... hell, I'm tempted to vote for Larry Flynt just because...

I was seriously contemplating a move to Chicago or New York next year, and now I am wondering if I made a mistake in delaying that decision. Hell, maybe I should run for Governor - cause the world don't move to the beat of just one drum....

EDIT: Basic grammer corrections... man, I am losing it.

(edited by Leroy on 7.8.03 1708)


"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees

"Finally, a candidate who can explain the current administration's position on civil liberties in the original German."
- Bill Maher on Arnold Schwarzenneger
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 4067 days
Last activity: 3911 days
#64 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by socalgail
      A one size fits all economic policy is what gets us into trouble.
    Which is what you're proposing we do becasue you go on to say...


      Originally posted by socalgail
      Whereas making commercially traded companies accountable prevents investors from investing in companies that are not making money.
    This is so ludicrous that it's hard to start anywhere. If this were the case in business no startup company would ever be succesful because there would be no investors for anything since no startups make and realy money for at least five years. Of course, this also means major existing companies(Ford Motor, etc) would fold due to your proposed government restriction of investment.



I see you are reading carefully but not understanding my argument. People invest their money in a company with the expectation of getting a fair return on their investment. They must of course understand the risk they take since there are generally no guarantees of a return or even of preservation of capital in an equity investment. But the whole system breaks down if you can't trust the information on which you are basing your investment.

When, after the Great Depression, the markets failed to recover, it was due in large part to the fact that people had lost confidence in the market system. They were correct in assuming that amonst some honest companies there were many dishonest ones and there was no way for an outsider to tell the difference. Roosevelt, who is reviled among libertarians and conservatives for imposing government regulation on free markets, actually saved the capitalist system, since investors felt they could trust businesses not to cook their books when government auditors were overseeing their claims.

I am not proposing government restriction of investment, only government oversight of the reports and claims that a business makes when it intends to offer to the public shares of its stock. The real breakdown came when the auditors who are charged with overseeing that a business is not lying in its annual reports started collaborating with the companies they were supposed to be monitoring. Essentially, the system is now broken. Investors lost over one trillion dollars in the bubble and are not the least bit anxious to get ripped off again. People are no more greedy now than they were before. They are no more dishonest either. These human traits are always with us. What we need to do as a species is figure out how to filter the honest people from the liars. Unfortunately, the Republicans, started with Reagan's deregualtion of the S&Ls, have dismantled many of the checks that the arch capitalist Roosevelt put in place that makes markets work. The super rich are better off. But the average investor is not.
Finally, a company, new or old, makes money by making a product and selling it. It may need initial capital to build the factories and pay the workers to make that product, and so it may sell shares or issue bonds to generate that capital, promising to use that money for good purpose and to return a premium on the investment. However, when the owners of the company take the investors money, and spend it on personal luxuries like big homes and swimming pools, and gala parties, they hurt everyone but themselves. Blind trust in the market system is not only foolish, it is dangerous.



socalgail
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 486 days
Last activity: 486 days
#65 Posted on

    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by Nate The Snake
      On a slight tangent... did any of the folks here ever play the pen-n-paper game Shadowrun?

      Remember the backstory? More specifically, remember "President Schwarzenegger"?

      Who woulda thunk it. If, in a few years, people start turning into trolls and orcs and shit, remind me to give all my money to Steve Jackson Games.




    Yeah, well whoever thought the words Governor Gary "Watcha talking 'bout Willis" Coleman would ever enter into the realm of slight possibility. Not that I am giving him a chance in hell of winning, but this whole thing has become such a circus, who knows... hell, I'm tempted to vote for Larry Flynt just because...

    I was seriously contemplating a move to Chicago or New York next year, and now I am wondering if I made a mistake in delaying that decision. Hell, maybe I should run for Governor - cause the world don't move to the beat of just one drum....

    EDIT: Basic grammer corrections... man, I am losing it.

    (edited by Leroy on 7.8.03 1708)







Bloomberg in New York is a bigger clown than anyone involved in the California Governor's race.



Cubs, White Sox and Red Sox fans unite. Its time to overthrow the German Government and re-install our beloved Kaiser. Remember, Kaiser ='s World Series victories.
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 4067 days
Last activity: 3911 days
#66 Posted on

    Originally posted by Michrome


      Wake up and figure out that if the Republican continue to rule, there will be no decent paying jobs in the US in the next 20 years. Lettuce picking anyone?


    I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly believe this nonsense. Were you alive when we gained 20 million new jobs in the U.S. from 1980-1988 under Ronald Reagan? And no, the jobs weren't lettuce picking, real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the years following until the internet bubble came around. Basically, what I've gained from your posts about government price controls and such is that you believe that the free market does not work, and outside of Paul Krugman, you'll have a hard time finding an economist that would agree with this.


Whoa, there are two famous quotations that apply to your arguments. The first is from Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The second is from Artemus Ward: "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things that we know that ain't so."
Your claims about what Reagan's policies achieved are overstated. In the period from 1980 to 1990 job growth was 2.0% per year, less than the national average of 2.1% from 1948 to 2001. After tax income growth was exactly the same as the entire post war period, 2.3%. This seemed high compared to the poor showing in the 70s of 1.5% but was still not as great as during the 90s (2.4%) when taxes were higher. Worse still, Reagan only achieved these mediocre gains at the cost of running up a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit, a deficit that was reduced during the 90s, meaning that the economic gains during that period of higher overall taxation came from the private sector, not government spending.
The job loss we have had in the 3 years of the Bush administration is surpassed only by the job loss during the Great Depression. It is hard to know how Bush could have done worse again given the huge defense jobs program started in 2002 and massive deficit spending he has embarked on.
Apparently you have done better under the current administration than you did under the previous one. If so, your allegiance is logical. Most people that I know are not so fortunate.



socalgail
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2906 days
#67 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    Your claims about what Reagan's policies achieved are overstated. In the period from 1980 to 1990 job growth was 2.0% per year, less than the national average of 2.1% from 1948 to 2001. After tax income growth was exactly the same as the entire post war period, 2.3%. This seemed high compared to the poor showing in the 70s of 1.5% but was still not as great as during the 90s (2.4%) when taxes were higher. Worse still, Reagan only achieved these mediocre gains at the cost of running up a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit, a deficit that was reduced during the 90s, meaning that the economic gains during that period of higher overall taxation came from the private sector, not government spending.


The idea that it was the higher taxes of the 90s that lead to growth is laughable, please explain to me how Bill Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with the internet bubble and tech boom? Many of the "jobs created" under Clinton disappeared when the bubble died, but I guess it was Bush's tax cuts that killed the internet boom.

Furthermore, for the trillionth time, deficits are a function of spending more than comes in. By the time Reagan left office, he more than DOUBLED revenue to the federal government in taxes, while cutting taxes massively. Therefore, blaming the cuts for the deficit is completely illogical. The deficits were a result of a combination of two things: A democratic controlled congress that would not stop spending, and a huge increase in defense spending. I'm sure you remember the era, when every New York Times editorial mocked Reagan for thinking the Soviet Union could be defeated, and called him "Ray-gun". But in the end, it did fall, and you yourself can choose to weigh whether that buildup in defense was worth paying off the deficit. However, when faced with the choice of living under the Soviet threat or paying off a deficit, most Americans would rather pay off the deficit. Wait, let me guess, the Soviet collapse was "inevitable", and Reagan had nothing to do with it.

Now, here are more Reagan figures from the Cato Institute:

1)Economic Growth: The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began.

2)Median Household Incomes: Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989. This was opposed to the horrible median income growth under Carter.

3)Employment: From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year.

4)Unemployment Rate: When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program.

5)Total Revenue Growth: Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent.


Many of these are taken directly from Cato's analysis of the Reagan years. I tried to omit any references to graphs and such, but if you want to see the analysis in full with graphs and such, go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html.

Note: The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 4067 days
Last activity: 3911 days
#68 Posted on

    Originally posted by Michrome


      ...Worse still, Reagan only achieved these mediocre gains at the cost of running up a 1.7 trillion dollar deficit, a deficit that was reduced during the 90s, meaning that the economic gains during that period of higher overall taxation came from the private sector, not government spending.



    The idea that it was the higher taxes of the 90s that lead to growth is laughable, please explain to me how Bill Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with the internet bubble and tech boom? Many of the "jobs created" under Clinton disappeared when the bubble died, but I guess it was Bush's tax cuts that killed the internet boom.



    Since you ask: The higher taxes meant the government did not have to borrow money to cover its expenses. This meant that the government was not competing with private entities seeking loans to grow. This kept the cost of capital down and allowed economic expansion. The deficits are just now beginning. The major concern is that as they grow, they will choke off the tepid recovery before it even gets luke warm. Under Clinton, once money was no longer being funneled to defense, the private sector took off. Sadly, all good things must come to an end...

    Furthermore, for the trillionth time, deficits are a function of spending more than comes in....


    True but there are 2 ways to control this-tax more OR spend less. Reagan's targeted tax cuts shifted the tax burden from the wealthiest individuals to the middleclass. Bush's cuts continue in that way.


    I'm sure you remember the era, when every New York Times editorial mocked Reagan for thinking the Soviet Union could be defeated, and called him "Ray-gun". But in the end, it did fall, and you yourself can choose to weigh whether that buildup in defense was worth paying off the deficit. However, when faced with the choice of living under the Soviet threat or paying off a deficit, most Americans would rather pay off the deficit. Wait, let me guess, the Soviet collapse was "inevitable", and Reagan had nothing to do with it.


    The reasons for the Soviet collapse are many. However, I think an argument can be made that we would have been better off with the Soviets controlling Afghanistan than al Queda. The so-called economic reforms promised the old USSR have yet to improve their standard of living. Meanwhile, China really has us on the run. They maintain their one party system but open their doors to American capital and American jobs, not just low tech manufacturing jobs, but high tech, high pays jobs too.

    Now, here are more Reagan figures from the Cato Institute:

    But those statistics that they quote are nothing especially great and only match the overall averages of the post war period.
    Note: The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.


    The Cato institute is run by American corporate interests for American corporate interests and is funded as well by very wealthy individuals and their foundations. Here is a list of their corporate sponsors: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corp- oration, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

    If you are very, very rich, then I understand your position; everyone is entitled to act in their own self-interest. If not, then I don't.





socalgail
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2906 days
#69 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    If you are very, very rich, then I understand your position; everyone is entitled to act in their own self-interest. If not, then I don't.


I am not very rich, but I work hard enough that I hope to be rich someday. But yes, you have categorized my views correctly, I do believe everyone is entitled to act in their own self interest, because that is the key to freedom. The day self-interest as a motive is destroyed in this country is the day that we really can throw the constitution in the trash.
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#70 Posted on
You know, I don't have a problem with Schwartzenegger running for office. Hey, if Ronald Reagan has showed us anything, it's that actors CAN be successful in office. And Jesse Ventura's win in '98 has shown us that stranger things have happened. Arnold has actual stances and the backing of a large political party to help his cause.

But the subsequent announcements of Gary Coleman, Gallagher, and PORN STARS running for CA governor just makes my jaw drop. Yes, this is a democracy and any American citizen is entitled to run for office. However, you can't tell me that this isn't turning the recall election into one big late nite monologue waiting to happen. Jay Leno has material to last him for years and California's about to become a major laughing stock. I sincerely worry for my state when porn stars launch a political campaign. (However, Larry Flynt is an exception. He wrote a guest editorial for my campus newspaper and his words were surprisingly well-spoken and intelligent. Believe it or not, he knows what he's talking about.)

EDIT: Need an example of this mess getting out of hand?


    Originally posted by Gallagher
    Because you act the way you dress and wearing pants too low allows the pooper part to show, expand the indecent exposure statute to include this stupid trend.


Two words: Oy and vey.

(edited by It's False on 10.8.03 0208)



LS: Can you make me exciting?
GD: I don't know. Can you get me back on TV?
socalgail
Weisswurst








Since: 4.8.03
From: San Diego

Since last post: 4067 days
Last activity: 3911 days
#71 Posted on

    Originally posted by It's False
    You know, I don't have a problem with Schwartzenegger running for office. Hey, if Ronald Reagan has showed us anything, it's that actors CAN be successful in office.




Depends on what you consider successful. If you think that substituting al Queda for the Soviets as our arch enemies, sponsoring and signing legislation that deregulated the S&L industry and led to tax payers picking up the $1.5 trillion total cost, including interest, and funding coups with drug money in Iran contra is successful, then I guess Ronnie's political career was splendiferous. We can only hope that, should Arnold get a role as Governator, he will not be able to beat the Reagan track record.



socalgail
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2906 days
#72 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    If you think that substituting al Queda for the Soviets as our arch enemies


Al Qaeda spawned after the Gulf War, as a result of the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. How can you possibly blame this on Reagan?



    funding coups with drug money in Iran contra is successful


Yes, Reagan was very anti-communist. However, there remains no proof to this day that Ronald Reagan knew anything at all about Iran Contra. It's a good thing that others did though, because as it turns out, those revolutions weren't "inevitable" after all, despite the New York Times telling us so daily in the 80's.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 20 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#73 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65

    Originally posted by socalgail
    Depends on what you consider successful. If you think that substituting al Queda for the Soviets as our arch enemies, sponsoring and signing legislation that deregulated the S&L industry and led to tax payers picking up the $1.5 trillion total cost, including interest, and funding coups with drug money in Iran contra is successful, then I guess Ronnie's political career was splendiferous. We can only hope that, should Arnold get a role as Governator, he will not be able to beat the Reagan track record.
Wow, Reagan did all THAT while he was governor of California?

(Hey wait. Did you just try to blame al Qaeda on REAGAN?)



©CRZ™
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#74 Posted on

    Originally posted by Michrome with my emphasis added
    The deficits were a result of a combination of two things: A democratic controlled congress that would not stop spending, and a huge increase in defense spending.

So what's the excuse this time? Dubya has Congress and we're running a half-trillion in deficit this year alone.




She was worth 800 miles driving to see her play - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2242 days
Last activity: 1108 days
#75 Posted on
Defecit spending obviously runs in his family. Economy be damned.



And Marking Out
Slashwrestling.com
Wienerville
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 89 days
Last activity: 89 days
#76 Posted on
Here's an audio clip of Arnold supporting George Bush in 1992. His comments about the Dems are dead-on.

Click Here (celebrityrants.com)



'But if one is struck by me only a little, that is far different, the stroke is a sharp thing and suddenly lays him lifeless, and that man's wife goes with cheeks torn in lamentation, and his children are fatherless, while he, staining the soil with his red blood, rots away, and there are more birds than women swarming about him.' Diomedes, The Iliad of Homer

Maiden RULES!!!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#77 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Incidentally, Arnold reasonably well ahead



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3040 days
Last activity: 254 days
#78 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00



For now -- mainly because he has massive name recognition. Everyone knows who Arnold is; if you asked me two months ago who Cruz Bustamante was, I'd probably have confused him with a noted mixed martial-arts fighter.

In a short race like this, name recognition alone may be enough to pull it off. There's not much time for Rush Limbaugh to instruct Californians that Arnold's not a real conservative, or for immigrants to find out that Arnold (himself an immigrant) supported Proposition 187, or for Arnold to have to answer the question "If you're elected, what will you DO?" with more than quick sound bites.

This game is far from over, but only if the opposition is sufficiently motivated.




"I'm a little dyslexic......earlier, I freed my ass, and I'm hoping that my mind will follow." -- Moon Zappa
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1276 days
Last activity: 1073 days
#79 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Game Show Network to Hold California Recall Debate
Mon August 11, 2003 05:48 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Forget being a "Millionaire." The newest TV craze just may be "Who Wants to Be Governor of California?"

The Game Show Network on Monday jumped in to the media frenzy surrounding the unprecedented recall of California Governor Gray Davis, saying it would host a one-hour debate among the lesser and odder candidates in the Oct. 7 election.

The winner of the Oct. 1 show, "Who Wants to Be Governor of California? The Debating Game," will get a "campaign contribution prize" of $21,200.

Democrat Governor Gray Davis, driven to record-low popularity ratings by a budget crisis and high energy costs, is set to face off against the likes of Republican actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger and Davis' own lieutenant governor, Democrat Cruz Bustamante.

The recall ballot, which had a low threshold to qualify, will also feature on the ballot lesser-known candidates like former child star Gary Coleman, porn star Mary Carey and Hollywood billboard queen Angelyne.

As of Monday afternoon, more than 80 candidates were certified by the California Secretary of State's office as having completed the requirements to be on the ballot.

The network said it will announce later this week the five "candidate/contestants" who will appear on the debate, which will also feature bonus question and buzz-in answers.

The show's title is a play on words on the popular game show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"

Game Show Network is a joint venture of Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures Entertainment unit and Liberty Media Corp.




"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.”
-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 486 days
Last activity: 486 days
#80 Posted on
Latest NBC News poll is out +/- 4.3%: www.msnbc.com
Also, 59% would vote in favor of recalling 'Mr Personality' Gray Davis.

Arnold: 31%
Bustamante: 18%
Simon: 6%
Ueberroth: 6%
Huffington: 4%
Undecided: 26%

A few thoughts on that poll:

Hopefully, the negative 4.3 of the plus/minus takes all of Huffington's supports away.
Should be a huge concern for Simon that after getting 42% in the 2002 Lesser of Two Evils Election he is only polling at 6%.
Ueberroth might be very dangerous. I still hold him responsible for the mess baseball is in (collusion in the late 80's was his brainchild), but he could fly in under the radar screen.
Bustamante should be concerned that he is under 20% at this point.
Arnold at 31% means he needs the vote to really split, because once the initial bounce dissipates, he probably will settle in the mid 20's.
I'll call the upset now. Peter Ueberroth will be the next Governor of California.



Cubs, White Sox and Red Sox fans unite. Its time to overthrow the German Government and re-install our beloved Kaiser. Remember, Kaiser ='s World Series victories.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Republicans and Democrats Can't Avoid Homosexual Politics--But Where are the Votes?
Next thread: The Petroleum Age
Previous thread: Denver to vote on Anti-Stress Initiative
(1893 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well.... I'm not going to jump on the "What did Clinton Know and When Did He Know it?" train, but I have to wonder about a lot of things here. 1. Is this guy credible? 2. If this guy is credible, who fell asleep at the switch? Tenet?
Related threads: CRZ for Governor - Semi-interesting headline writing - Hope For Californians, Entertainment for the Rest of Us - More...
The W - Current Events & Politics - Presenting California's next governor... (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.163 seconds.