Re: Arnold- Hey Calfornians

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> The NTs have done it again. Voting with their social shit instead of

> reality. Total fucking morons- if they would THINK for one minute,

> things would work out- but they don't- it would hurt their heads.

You're pretty sure of that, huh? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but as

someone who might be moving to California, I am pleased with the

results. I would have voted for Shwarzenegger if I lived there.

> I am really pissed at the fact that this woman-groping, lugheaded

> moron is going to be governor of my state. It's embarrassing to be

> Californian when this stuff happens.

Gray apparently racked up a record of physically abusing and

intimidating his female staff, during his term that ended a year ago.

The Los Angeles Times was aware of this for a few years; one reporter

wrote a piece about it for the Times a few years ago, but the story was

spiked, as " they don't like to publish hit pieces on political

figures. " Apparently, they didn't consider Shwarzenegger to be a

political figure, because they hit him with everything they had

recently. I wish I had the link to the piece about this, by the same

reporter that wrote the piece about years ago.

One woman, who was tired of ' fits of rage, and of being pushed to

the ground and otherwise attacked by him, had to arrange to work for the

governor's office from home, telecommuting, so that the governor she

worked for would not be able to attack her. When she did come in to

work, she made sure he would not be in her vicinity, so she would not

see him.

These allegations are just as plausible as those of Shwarzenegger, but

they happened while this governor was governor, not twenty or thirty

years ago, when it was a different time, and it wasn't as socially " bad "

to do the things that Shwarzenegger is accused of doing (and please note

that I am of the opinion that it should be held as highly inappropriate

to touch someone without permission). The media have been silent about

this, while they have been playing up every allegation against

Shwarzenegger, without giving him any chance to respond before they went

to press. The L.A. Times has been showing its liberal bias too much to

be trusted on this.

The timing of the allegations against Shwarzenegger is suspect... just

enough to get people angry, but not enough to investigate them and find

out if they are true or not before the election. Arnold was making

noises about running for governor months ago; that would have been the

time to come forward with allegations. Doing it late in the game does

not do much for your credibility.

> Isn't it awful? " The terminator is our governor " how silly is that?

I would rather have seen McClintock win, but he really did not have a

chance.

> If you feel the same way I do, let me know.

Shwarzenegger has two huge things going for him:

1. He's not Gray .

2. He's not Cruz Bustamante.

is a slimy politician, who would sell out the state and start

giving driver's licenses to ILLEGAL aliens who have no right to even BE

in the state to try to buy votes from the Latino community. He is

almost solely responsible for the high electricity prices you guys have

to pay. I would have voted for any of the clowns that were running,

like , etc., to get out.

One good thing about , though, is that he does not like Bustamante.

Cruz Bustamante used to belong to a group of Mexicans who want to return

California to Mexico (reconquista). He does not any longer belong to

that group, but he refused to denounce the group or their agenda when

prompted by the media. Should a California governor really be

ideologically supporting a group that wants to make the state he governs

into a part of Mexico? I don't think so.

One good thing about Bustamante, though, is that he does not like

. Of the two, I would rather have seen Bustamante be the governor.

So, essentially, I would support just about anyone who is not or

Bustamante. There are some disturbing allegations about Shwarzenegger,

but most of it was supposed to have taken place decades ago... people

can and do change, and IMO, the time to bring forth these allegations

was not the week before the election. I don't think Shwarzenegger has

much of a clue about running a state, but maybe he will surprise me.

There certainly is precedent for an actor becoming California governor.

I doubt Shwarzenegger is going to be able to do as much as had.

He is only going to be the governor; the state legislature is still made

of career politicians, and they're not Republicans. That's better than

having one same-party governor that has carte blanche to mess things

up. I'm not in favor of either party having enough power to have its

agenda sail through unimpeded. " Gridlock " is a good thing; it prevents

politicians from messing things up (which is what they do the best).

Arnold will provide a check and balance for the goofy California

legislature, and they will similarly oppose him.

[Guest guest]

Here is the piece I wrote about:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~1676763,00.html#

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> Was that back when Arnold was groping women? Being part of a group

> (with a group " culture " ) is part of growing up for most NTs, I think.

Perhaps it is. I'm not upset with Bustamente for supporing reconquista;

a lot of people from Mexico (whether they are US citizens or not)

support that. I am upset with him for wanting to be governor of the

state of California, in the US, on the behalf of US citizens, and not

ever stating that he had changed his mind about supporting the takeover

of that state by a foreign country. If he has not changed his mind,

that is his prerogative; he can have any opinions he wants, but that,

IMO, makes him unfit for office in California.

> > He does not any longer belong to that group, but he refused to

> > denounce the group or their agenda when prompted by the media.

>

> I'd rather people continue to own their pasts than to renounce them

> for short-term gain.

And Arnold Shwarzenegger has done that. He has admitted that he did

grope some women, and he apologized for it. Like Bustamante in your

example above, that may have been part of the group culture in which he

grew up. And also like Bustamante, that part of his past makes him an

unacceptable governor if he has not grown up since then. Shwarzenegger

admitted that he did some bad things (owning his past), and that he has

moved beyond that. He has not been accused of groping anyone recently,

as far as I know. That is in his past. But if Bustamante won't say he

has changed his mind, his skeleton in the closet is not in his past;

it's still here, while he ignores it and pretends it is not there.

> as for this paragraph:

> > is a slimy politician, who would sell out the state and start

> > giving driver's licenses to ILLEGAL aliens who have no right to

> > even BE in the state to try to buy votes from the Latino community.

> > He is almost solely responsible for the high electricity prices you

> > guys have to pay. I would have voted for any of the clowns that

> > were running, like , etc., to get out.

>

> , with respect to both those issues, you seem to be

> over-simplifying radically.

Not with the thing about attempting to buy the vote of the Latino

community (who may otherwise have voted yes on recall and gone for

Bustamante). vetoed the bill twice before, I think; he was quite

clear in his opposition before he was facing a Latino in the recall

race... and right when Bustamante started to campaign more " Yes on

Bustamante " than " No on recall, " signed the bill. I find that to

be appalling; he obviously thought that this was a bad bill, and I

strongly agree. But he would happily sell out the people he governs to

stay in power-- that much he has shown with this little fiasco. That is

the kind of politician has always been. He is a good politician,

for sure; he threw his support behind Bill Simon in the Republican

primary, so that he would face the more conservative and less electable

Simon in the general election. That worked for him... he was elected,

not because people liked him (he was very unpopular when he won the

general election a year ago), but because they liked Simon even less.

That shallow level of support for showed in the recall. If

had been anything but a terrible governor, Shwarzenegger would not have

had a chance. If he was running now in Arizona, against our Democratic

governor Janet Napolitano, I would not support him-- and this is despite

my Republican leanings. Napolitano, I think, is doing a good job, and

she is doing better than Jane Hull (Republican) did. I'm no big

supporter of Shwarzenegger as a politician; this one came down to the

lesser of evils for me, as is often the case.

There is more to the electricity issue than , of course; I am

simplfying some (I don't think radically), but it was ' efforts

that ended up having the state contract to buy electricity at inflated

prices for years to come, and now that electricity costs have come back

down, Californians are stuck paying the bill.

> There is much more to both issues than is

> apparent from your short-hand. Perhaps you know that?

What do you mean specifically? Perhaps I am not communicating

effectively. I am trying to simplify, which means to cut to the

essence, not be simplistic, which is to cut out the essence. Few things

can be distilled effectively into a sentence or two without missing out

on a lot... that is why I write long articles about autism, rather than

quickie " soundbites. " However, I thought that, in expressing my

opposition to and Bustamante, I managed to do at least as well as

Jeanette, whose support for her opposition to Shwarzenegger was limited

to her calling him a " woman-groping, lugheaded moron. " It was her

message I was attempting to rebut.

> If so, it seems

> somewhat....sleazy? is that the word I want? to leave out all but the

> rhetoric.

I haven't got the inclination to go into a huge discourse over this, so

I was trying to be brief. Jeanette seemed to be saying that only an NT

idiot would vote for Shwarzenegger, and I am illustrating to her that

this is not the case. Just because we are all spectrumites does not

mean we have the same opinions or political leanings. She apparently

makes the common ASD mistake of assuming that all people on the spectrum

think exactly alike. I certainly have done this... I imagine that most

of us do at some point. We get so used to having people on the spectrum

agree with our often unusual ways of thinking that we think it extends

farther than it does.

If you want to make it about issues and positions, and fitness to

govern, I would be closer to supporting McClintock than anyone else in

this election (although I like Shwarzenegger's support for some social

spending). When it comes to politics, though, I am a pragmatist; I

would rather vote for someone I like less than vote for someone that

does not have a chance to win. If I were a liberal, I would have

supported Gore in the 2000 presidential election, not Nader, even if

Nader was closer to my ideology. In the California election yesterday,

the leading candidates were (who would win if the up/down recall

vote went his way, of course), Bustamante, and Shwarzenegger (who would

each need two votes to go their way to win... first yes on the recall,

then for that person as a replacement). Either of the last two would

have been an improvement over , I think, and of the two, I was more

in agreement with Shwarzenegger. He's a moderate Republican, which is

pretty much where I am too.

[Guest guest]

> If you feel the same way I do, let me know.

I definitely do.

Got all the more irritated (somewhat irrationally) when I got to his

website to see what agenda he's pushing on us, only to find that

despite just recently upgrading Acrobat Reader, whatever PDF version

he uses is apparently *newer* and can't be read on mine. So I can't

even find out what his " 10-step plan to improve California in 100

Days " or whatever is.

, who, despite not liking Gray at all, voted against the

recall in an attempt to avoid this kind of nonsense

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Cruz Bustamante used to belong to a group of Mexicans who want to return

>California to Mexico (reconquista).

Was that back when Arnold was groping women? Being part of a

group (with a group " culture " ) is part of growing up for most

NTs, I think.

> He does not any longer belong to

>that group, but he refused to denounce the group or their agenda when

>prompted by the media.

I'd rather people continue to own their pasts than to

renounce them for short-term gain.

as for this paragraph:

> is a slimy politician, who would sell out the state and start

>giving driver's licenses to ILLEGAL aliens who have no right to even BE

>in the state to try to buy votes from the Latino community. He is

>almost solely responsible for the high electricity prices you guys have

>to pay. I would have voted for any of the clowns that were running,

>like , etc., to get out.

, with respect to both those issues, you seem to be

over-simplifying radically. There is much more to both

issues than is apparent from your short-hand. Perhaps you

know that? If so, it seems somewhat....sleazy? is that the

word I want? to leave out all but the rhetoric.

Jane

[Guest guest]

,

Arnie is a neuro-smarmy con artist par excellence. He clearly has no

principles, other than to rely on his physique to earn millions, contribute

significantly to the intellectual dumbing down of Americans and Europeans

and incidentally swalling the PNAC (Project for a New American Century)

cabal's propaganda hook, line and sinker. True most other politicos are not

angels either and Arnie may be an easy scape goat for the liberal left, but

I'd ratther see him run a fitness centre than California. I mean why not

elect the Incredible Hulk or the protagonists of the Matrix Reloaded?

Neil

Re: Arnold- Hey Calfornians

[Guest guest]

Neil Gardner wrote:

> True most other politicos are not angels either and Arnie may be an

> easy scape goat for the liberal left, but I'd ratther see him run a

> fitness centre than California. I mean why not elect the Incredible

> Hulk or the protagonists of the Matrix Reloaded?

They have the same things going for them that Arnold did... that they

are not or Bustamante, so if they were capable of winning like

Arnold did, I may have supported them too, for that reason only.

As I see it, the primary thing governments do is mess things up, and

that has not been more true since Pete left office in

California. Gray has proven his ability to do terrible things in

California-- that much is a known. Schwarzenegger (I was spelling it

wrong before) may not know the first thing about governing... he may be

completely impotent as governor, and he may find that the hostile

Democratic legislature totally hamstrings him no matter how much he

flexes his ample muscles. That, in my estimation, is a big improvement

over (or Bustamante) having carte blanche to damage the state,

with a permissive legislature of the same party not getting in his way.

If the options are a government that makes things worse, or a government

that does not make things worse OR better, I will take the latter. As I

said, my support for Arnold is not out of confidence that being in many

hit movies makes him a good candidate... it is out of dislike for the

other choices.

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> It's embarrassing to be Californian when this stuff happens.

> Isn't it awful? " The terminator is our governor " how silly

> is that? If you feel the same way I do, let me know.

Oh, I feel the same way about Ahhhnold as Gubernator.

It's about as asinine as when I lived there in 1978,

and they had the so-called, " Taxpayer's Revolution " .

I saw through the deal the *first* time I heard about it.

It was led by Jarvis, who was President of some

Property Owner's Association, (apartment owners). The

deal was to " roll back property taxes to 1976 levels " ,

and that rollback would be effective until the property

was resold.

The underlying fact was that back then, individual homes

were being resold at an average of once every 3 years.

The economy was good, and Californians are nothing if not

mobile. They sold their homes and relocated at a whim,

and usually for a profit, as the value of their homes was

increasing at an average of 3% *per month*!!!

So, as individual homes were sold, they would be taxed at

the new level, while ALL apartments, commercial property,

industrial property taxes remained at the old level. In

fact, commercial properties ceased to be sold, although

they did change hands, but were leased instead so as to

retain the old tax rate. So the overall tax burden was

shifted onto individual home owners, and away from

businesses. " Taxpayer's Revolution " , hah!!! But the

gullible citizens of California bought it. Cities were

left without their tax base to support schools and services,

and many tickets were written to make up for the shortfall.

Clay

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>... I am upset with him for wanting to be governor of the

>state of California, in the US, on the behalf of US citizens, and not

>ever stating that he had changed his mind about supporting the takeover

>of that state by a foreign country.

You don't *really* think Bustamante wants to give

California back to Mexico, do you? If so, you need

to find someone to do a " reality check " with you.

Or maybe all you want is for him to perform a ritual

renunciation of his past? Perhaps this is a matter of

your need for sharp dichotomies and unrealistic

certainties.

I tend to admire those who, although they left the

Communist Part USA out of disgust with Stalin, refuse

to deny the validity of the spirit and beliefs that

induced them (and their friends) to join the Party in

the first place. (I'm talking about the 1920s and '30s.)

Unlike those who tried to deny having been passionate

about justice and finding an outlet for that passion in

the only group that seemed to be doing a damn thing,

they live with the reality of a life that includes

the all-or-nothing passion of youth as well as the

more judicious choices of maturity.

We are going to continue to disagree about this, so I

will let you have the last word (in your next post on

this subject).

>Not with the thing about attempting to buy the vote of the Latino

>community (who may otherwise have voted yes on recall and gone for

>Bustamante).

Maybe he decided he better listen to the people of the

state (the voters)? Being a political leader in a

democracy is a matter of balancing between working for

one's own ideas and being open to persuasion by the

populace. Even if he did " sell out " for votes, though,

that's something every politician does. The lucky ones

don't have to do it in public (because they are selling

out to corporations or political parties rather than to

the public).

RE: the immigration issue, I as sending a post that gives

some references for another POV on the subject. Again, we

will not agree, so I won't beat the topic into the ground.

>I haven't got the inclination to go into a huge discourse over this, so

>I was trying to be brief. Jeanette seemed to be saying that only an NT

>idiot would vote for Shwarzenegger, and I am illustrating to her that

>this is not the case.

Jeanette seems to say that all NTs are idiots about

everything. It's necessary to take that bias into

consideration when reading her posts.

As Elaine May, in the guise of a telephone operator,

used to say in one of her skits with Mike Nichols:

" AT & T cannot argue with a closed mind. "

;-)

Jane

[Guest guest]

Wrote:

>You're pretty sure of that, huh? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but as

>someone who might be moving to California, I am pleased with the

>results. I would have voted for Schwarzenegger if I lived there.

How you would have voted is irrelevant to my statement because I was taking

about:

1. Residents of California, and you are not.

2. People who voted in this election, and you did not.

That's unsettling that is an asshole. He should have been arrested and

jailed at least.

I didn't know that- and you're right- I should have. But if you want to

complain about bias, try the right wing wacko TV networks, who tell lies just to

make the damn Bush administration look good, and mind- numb the NT public with

their agenda.

I get so mad when I see that mofo (Bush) on TV I have to leave the area or I'll

scream and yell and bust the TV.

Most politicians are slimy, whatever (Except Hillary Clinton- GO HILLARY!!!-

HILLARY 2004 & 2008!!!). It's just choosing between the lesser of 2 evils.

Most of ' issues really have nothing to do with him- most governors are in

a crunch, thanks to the fucked up economy that the Bush administration willfully

created, and the electrical bullshit was caused by greedy conservative energy

corporations faking a shortage- no surprise there. And since Bush is in office,

they know they have a better chance of getting away with it. had nothing

to do with it and is fighting those companies to get California a refund. He

may have done that already.

He had some stupid ideas, but we could have signed a petition and gotten that

stupid triple car tax done away with.

And I agree with you on the illegal alien DL. But conservatives have done

similarly ridiculous things to boost their ratings with corporations and

what-not.

>it wasn't as socially " bad " to do the things that Schwarzenegger is accused >of

doing (and please note that I am of the opinion that it should be held >as

highly inappropriate to touch someone without permission).

Give me a break- not " bad " ? If you are saying in THIS society it's not

considered " bad " then why would they bring it up? A society that is OK with

groping is a woman-hating society, patriarchal all the way.

Groping and attacking a woman are ONE AND THE SAME. Groping is headed towards

rape, and the person who does that is worthless. They do not see women as

people, they see them as objects- without any rights- not even able to say " no "

if they don't want to be touched. It is a classic assault on a woman's psyche

as much as a physical attack.

>Schwarzenegger has two huge things going for him:

>1. He's not Gray .

>2. He's not Cruz Bustamante.

Arnold is a moron. The SOB can't even speak English properly. He has no idea

what he's doing. He will become a puppet of the damned conservatives with their

Christian Right-winged, to hell with the little guy agenda. And to top it off,

he's a republican, which means I'll never get a job once that jerk gets in

office. So as far as I'm concerned, he has nothing going for him. And his

father was a Nazi- did you know that?!

>Cruz Bustamante used to belong to a group of Mexicans who want to return

>California to Mexico (reconquista). He does not any longer belong to

>that group, but he refused to denounce the group or their agenda when

>prompted by the media. Should a California governor really be

>ideologically supporting a group that wants to make the state he governs

>into a part of Mexico? I don't think so.

LOL!! and YOU call ME a conspiracy nut? Have you lost your mind? Have the

conservatives finished brainwashing you, finally?

Snap out of it ! No one is going to get California to be a part of Mexico,

and your ideas are based in hearsay. Where is your evidence? He hasn't done one

thing to move us in that direction, and if he tried, he'd be shot, and you know

it.

I can barely put up with this bullshit, and if Bush is re-elected in 2004 I'm

headed to another country- Canada, before this place blows.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> what-not.

>

> > it wasn't as socially " bad " to do the things that Schwarzenegger is

> > accused >of doing (and please note that I am of the opinion that it

> > should be held >as highly inappropriate to touch someone without

> > permission).

>

> Give me a break- not " bad " ? If you are saying in THIS society it's

> not considered " bad " then why would they bring it up? A society that

> is OK with groping is a woman-hating society, patriarchal all the

> way.

He didn't do those things in " this " society... he did it in the society

of thirty years ago. It's not the same society we live in now.

> Groping and attacking a woman are ONE AND THE SAME.

That would come as quite a shock to the women I know that were raped. I

am sure that each of them would rather have had her ass pinched if she

had a choice.

> Groping is

> headed towards rape, and the person who does that is worthless. They

> do not see women as people, they see them as objects- without any

> rights- not even able to say " no " if they don't want to be touched.

> It is a classic assault on a woman's psyche as much as a physical

> attack.

I've been groped. It was irritating. It was not an assault on my

psyche, and it was not the same as an attack.

> Arnold is a moron. The SOB can't even speak English properly.

I bet his English is better than your German.

> He

> has no idea what he's doing. He will become a puppet of the damned

> conservatives with their Christian Right-winged, to hell with the

> little guy agenda. And to top it off, he's a republican, which means

> I'll never get a job once that jerk gets in office. So as far as I'm

> concerned, he has nothing going for him. And his father was a Nazi-

> did you know that?!

Guilt by association now? Come on... you have insulted him because he

has a foreign accent and found him guilty by association of what his

father was... not terribly liberal of you, now is it?

> > Cruz Bustamante used to belong to a group of Mexicans who want to

> > return California to Mexico (reconquista). He does not any longer

> > belong to that group, but he refused to denounce the group or their

> > agenda when prompted by the media. Should a California governor

> > really be ideologically supporting a group that wants to make the

> > state he governs into a part of Mexico? I don't think so.

>

> LOL!! and YOU call ME a conspiracy nut?

You are a conspiracy nut.

> Have you lost your mind?

> Have the conservatives finished brainwashing you, finally?

>

> Snap out of it ! No one is going to get California to be a part

> of Mexico, and your ideas are based in hearsay. Where is your

> evidence? He hasn't done one thing to move us in that direction, and

> if he tried, he'd be shot, and you know it.

I never said he would do it. I said that I question his fitness to

represent California, a US state, when he apparently still supports an

agenda that involves returning the southwest to Mexico. Read more

carefully-- Jane got what I was saying with that, so it's not as if I

didn't write it clearly enough.

> I can barely put up with this bullshit, and if Bush is re-elected in

> 2004 I'm headed to another country- Canada, before this place blows.

LOL, now you know how I felt when Clinton was in office... I didn't

leave, though.

[Guest guest]

<< Arnold is a moron. The SOB can't even speak English properly.>>

Any way to insult the guy in *relevant* ways that don't insult

disabled people as well?

, who gets fed up with the " Bush can't talk right " stuff for the

same reason -- it's *policies* that should be criticized, and there's

plenty to criticize without criticizing either being foreign, having a

speech impediment, or whatever

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> wrote:

> > ... I am upset with him for wanting to be governor of the state of

> > California, in the US, on the behalf of US citizens, and not ever

> > stating that he had changed his mind about supporting the takeover

> > of that state by a foreign country.

>

> You don't *really* think Bustamante wants to give California back to

> Mexico, do you?

I think a lot of Mexicans do, and whether or not he personally supports

that (my guess is that he does not-- he would probably not be lieutenant

governor of California if it were a Mexican state), it irritates me to

no end that he won't commit to keeping the state he wants to govern as a

state. I must admit that reconquista is somrthing that really pisses me

off, and living as I do in a neighborhood where the locals (Mexicans) do

all they can to drive out non-Mexicans, and where reconquista is already

taking place, it is something that I have little tolerance for.

> If so, you need to find someone to do a " reality

> check " with you.

LOL... Anyone who supports something as inane as anarchism has

absolutely zero room to talk about others needing reality checks.

> Or maybe all you want is for him to perform a ritual

> renunciation of his past?

No, it's a matter of wanting those who represent me not to belong to

organizations that support foreign conquest of where I live, whether or

not that is ever going to happen (and it pretty obviously is not, at

least not through revolution). Is that really so hard to understand?

It would be like autistics.org posting articles in favor of CAN. You

could ask if I really think that autistics.org wants to cure autism, and

you can make a pointed remark about how I need a reality check if I

think they do... but it's not really about what they really want to do

so as much as it is about giving moral support to them.

> Perhaps this is a matter of your need for sharp dichotomies and

> unrealistic certainties.

I have no need for _unrealistic_ certainties. I like as much certainty

as is needed to draw a conclusion with minimal chance for error.

Everything can be reduced to a certainty if you have enough facts and

variables. For any uncertainty, the solution is more data. Even shades

of gray can be expressed as a series of black/white, sharpest of sharp

dichotomies. Eight yes/no, on/off states can define 256 shades of gray;

sixteen yes/no states bring this to 65,536 shades of gray. That is what

I seek... not unrealistic certainty, but maximal certainty. Preferring

precision over imprecision, knowledge over guesswork, truth over

supposition... that's not a bad thing. The alternative is making

decisions based on insufficient information, and I do not support that.

My desire for this level of information is not the problem; the problem

is that it is often so difficult to obtain this level of information,

and how badly I tolerate it when I cannot get this information.

> I tend to admire those who, although they left the Communist Part USA

> out of disgust with Stalin, refuse to deny the validity of the spirit

> and beliefs that induced them (and their friends) to join the Party

> in the first place. (I'm talking about the 1920s and '30s.) Unlike

> those who tried to deny having been passionate about justice and

> finding an outlet for that passion in the only group that seemed to

> be doing a damn thing, they live with the reality of a life that

> includes the all-or-nothing passion of youth as well as the more

> judicious choices of maturity.

As I see it, what happened in the past of a candidate is not terribly

relevant, except as a possible indicator of how that person thinks at

present. What matters at present is how someone thinks at present. If

a person is running for office, and has things in his past that would be

negatives in the eyes of the voters, he owes it to them to explain

himself. If he still thinks as he did when younger, he should say so,

and let the people decide. If he has changed his mind, he should say

so, and let the people decide. Refuse to say, and people will have to

assume that the candidate disagrees with their personal view, since that

is a possibility. Who knows-- maybe Bustamante's refusal to say one way

or another hurt his election campaign. Maybe saying what he thinks now

would have helped him, or maybe not. The one thing we do know is that

the view of Cruz Bustamante that the people of California were offered

was not something they wanted, as evidenced by the election results.

I have no admiration for Bustamante for sticking with the validity of

the spirit of his former beliefs. That is totally irrelevant. What I

care about is what he thinks at the time he is campaigning (and

governing, if he wins... which we know he did not); nothing more and

nothing less. The voters of California were offered Bustamante as he is

now; whether he retains the spirit of his youth is not relevant.

> > Not with the thing about attempting to buy the vote of the Latino

> > community (who may otherwise have voted yes on recall and gone for

> > Bustamante).

>

> Maybe he decided he better listen to the people of the state (the

> voters)?

I cannot imagine that the voters of the state supported that. If I had

polling data, I would certainly cite it.

> RE: the immigration issue, I as sending a post that gives some

> references for another POV on the subject. Again, we will not agree,

> so I won't beat the topic into the ground.

I am aware that our economy relies upon the influx of immigrants to

sustain it, and that employment is not a zero sum game. Anyone who was

awake during college macroeconomics probably knows that. I enjoy the

lower prices for things like produce that immigrants provide. I just

don't like euphemizing people that are, in fact, criminals into

" undocumented workers. " They're undocumented because they're illegal,

and they are also breaking the law if they work. They're not the same

as " immigrants. " " Immigrants " are people that come here lawfully; those

that come here illicitly are illegals. No, I don't think that they

should get a driver's license here, not when they have no legal right to

be here in the first place. How can you be licensed to drive in

California when you are not licensed to even BE in California?

You want to give them driver's licenses? Make it legal for them to be

here. Problem solved, as far as I am concerned. There may be something

to be said for that, and there has been a lot of talk around here in

Northern Mexico. Maybe that is a good idea; maybe we ought to open up

the border to let in the cheap labor we need. I don't know about that,

but I see some benefit in that. I am not a protectionist by any means.

> Jeanette seems to say that all NTs are idiots about everything. It's

> necessary to take that bias into consideration when reading her

> posts.

Not just that, but that anyone that holds a different view IS one of

those NT idiots.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>That would come as quite a shock to the women I know that were raped. I

>am sure that each of them would rather have had her ass pinched if she

>had a choice.

It is heading in that direction- both things do the same thing, and say the same

thing. It's intent is to do the same thing to a woman.

>I've been groped. It was irritating. It was not an assault on my

>psyche, and it was not the same as an attack.

I don't think most women would call it just " irritating " , I certainly would not.

I have felt violated and it affected me for months.

>I bet his English is better than your German.

Who cares? I'm not running for any office in Germany or Austria, am I?

>Guilt by association now? Come on... you have insulted him because he

>has a foreign accent and found him guilty by association of what his

>father was... not terribly liberal of you, now is it?

I have insulted him because he has no idea what he is doing, and that is

reflected in his inability to speak the native language of the state in which he

would be governor. The entire recall idea was funded and pushed by REPUBLICANS,

so they can replace a democrat and continue the conservative's rotten agenda.

And clearly the fact that he is republican may be related to the fact that his

father was a Nazi. Something that sinister and that powerful has to have an

effect on people. Nazis are right-winged, and Republicans are right winged too-

but on a much, much more dilute scale.

>You are a conspiracy nut.

No, I'm not- and I've confirmed this with others. You are the only one who

thinks that.

The only reason you call me that is because you are right-winged, and liberal

hating. I think I know why, but that's just speculation.

You refuse to see anything wrong with what Bush or these right wing nuts are

doing even when it is plainly in your face. They have driven the economy into

the ground, screwed-over the little guy, are trying to take away worker's rights

and women's rights, minorities rights, and will continue this sick, evil trend

until the US is run the way medieval England was. The corporations will have

absolute power, all the wealth, and the little guy will have nothing. We will

all be surfs, slaves ruled by corporations. I tell you that's what they want-

only 50 to 100 years and it'll all be like big brother if nobody stops it- and

it's obvious.

>LOL, now you know how I felt when Clinton was in office... I didn't

>leave, though.

Clinton was the best president we've ever had! He had a BRAIN! I don't give a

shit about , at LEAST it was consensual! He knew how to handle foreign

policy, and never would have gotten us into this stupid war with Iraq, or spread

our troops all over the world. The economy was booming, and he knew how to keep

it that way. He got rid of the national deficit (your friend Bush has in

nothing flat created the highest deficit ever, and at the same time seriously

cut back on social programs, I.E. fuck over the little guy and bleed the little

people dry, just like kings used to do in medieval times)

If Clinton was in office, 9-11 NEVER would have happened.

I cannot fathom how you like these conservatives when all they do is take money

from the poor and give it to the rich. I have my theory about that, but it's

just a theory.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

> > If so, you need to find someone to do a " reality

> > check " with you.

> LOL... Anyone who supports something as inane as anarchism has

> absolutely zero room to talk about others needing reality checks.

So basically, if a person has a view you find unrealistic in *one*

area, then they have no right to talk about realism in a possibly

*different* area?

That strikes me as making about as much sense as saying, " Since you

have views about marine biology that I consider inane and unrealistic,

then you have no right to talk about what's realistic in astronomy. "

Rather absolutist and, dare I say, unrealistic.

[Guest guest]

alfamanda wrote:

>

>

>

> << Arnold is a moron. The SOB can't even speak English properly.>>

>

> Any way to insult the guy in *relevant* ways that don't insult

> disabled people as well?

My take on this -- the day I learn to speak German that well, then I'll

criticize his English.

> , who gets fed up with the " Bush can't talk right " stuff for the

> same reason -- it's *policies* that should be criticized, and there's

> plenty to criticize without criticizing either being foreign, having a

> speech impediment, or whatever

Although an allegedly educated native English speaker should not be

saying " nukular " .

Doug

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

>Jeanette seems to say that all NTs are idiots about

>everything. It's necessary to take that bias into

>consideration when reading her posts.

If " the shoe fits " , why not? (IE, NTs ARE stupid- overwhelmingly so.) When

have you met a smart NT? Smart people don't act like lemmings and herds of

cows. They actually think, which is not an NT strong point. And you guys are

talking about me in the third person, I hate that- like I'm not here, or

something.

>As Elaine May, in the guise of a telephone operator,

>used to say in one of her skits with Mike Nichols:

> " AT & T cannot argue with a closed mind. "

What are you saying? Who is " AT & T " in this scenario and who has the closed

mind?

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

<< I have insulted him because he has no idea what he is doing, and that

is reflected in his inability to speak the native language of the state

in which he would be governor. >>

He speaks English fine -- I would say fluently. He has an accent, which

anyone will retain all his/her life after learning a language as an

adult.

Would you question Henry Kissinger's qualifications to have been our

Secretary of State? Or for that matter, Jimmy 's or Bill

Clinton's ability to be an effective president for New England or the

Midwest, because they have southern accents?

<< And clearly the fact that he is republican may be related to the

fact that his father was a Nazi.>>

" Sins of the father " is never a valid argument for vilifying a person.

> If Clinton was in office, 9-11 NEVER would have happened.

I fail to see the logic behind this statement. He left office eight

months before that, as required by the US Constitution, which (in

amended form) says that no one can be elected to the office of the

President more than twice. To still be in office on 9/11/01, he would

have to have staged a coup against the legitimate government of the US.

Doug

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

> Although an allegedly educated native English

> speaker should not be saying " nukular " .

Dubya must have gotten that pronunciation

from Homer Simpson.

8<{)

[Guest guest]

> >Jeanette seems to say that all NTs are idiots about

> >everything. It's necessary to take that bias into

> >consideration when reading her posts.

<< If " the shoe fits " , why not? (IE, NTs ARE stupid- overwhelmingly

so.) When have you met a smart NT? Smart people don't act like

lemmings and herds of cows. They actually think, which is not an NT

strong point.>>

I've met plenty of smart NTs.

I've met a *lot* of NTs who were considered " smart " in the traditional

sense, mainly because of having been thrown in among them in classes

at certain times in my life. I don't give a lot of credence to that

kind of " smart " in itself, but a lot of people seem to.

I've also met a fair amount of NTs who actually thought about things

whether or not they were considered " smart " in the traditional sense

(likewise have met a fair amount of 'intellectually disabled' people

who really used their brains *more* than most 'non-disabled' people

I'd met).

My current aide is *very* NT in terms of having good social skills,

basically few autistic-like traits at all, and she's also extremely

non-conformist, thinks for herself, and *also* communicates very well

with me (which she admits can be quite difficult because my way of

communicating is very foreign to her).

There are all kinds of reasons people can think for themselves, be

social outcasts, not act like lemmings, etc. Autism is only one of

them, and autism doesn't even *guarantee* that stuff. (My brother is

autistic and quite conformist in nature, as are many autistic people

who adopt the status quo as their own goal in life. I noticed he was

very conformity-prone before I noticed he was socially awkward.)

Sure, there are some cognitive and social deficits that seem fairly

common in NTs as opposed to autistic people (and seem to go unstudied

because it is " normal " to have those deficits), but this in no way

makes every single NT on the planet a mindless herd-following sheep.

Nor is intellect everything.

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> When have you met a smart NT?

I could name quite a few of them -- some of them are great friends of

mine, and wonderful people. So try not to make categorical insults

against groups of people that include my friends.

>Smart people don't act like lemmings and herds of cows.

This sounds like it's approaching the " no true Scotsman " logical

fallacy. That is, you make up a statement " no true member of group X

would be like Y " , then observe that a certain person is like Y. But the

question comes in at your original premise. In this case, is " smart "

mutually exclusive with " NT " ? What are you using " NT " to mean, anyway?

If it just means " not on the autistic spectrum " , which I believe is the

common usage on this and similar discussion lists, then you're quite

obviously wrong in what you say.

Doug

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Jeanette seems to say that all NTs are idiots about everything. It's

> necessary to take that bias into consideration when reading her

> posts.

>Not just that, but that anyone that holds a different view IS one of

>those NT idiots.

NO, I didn't call you and NT and I didn't say you were an idiot. You and I

chaff eachother because we are polar opposites, and you see things 180 degrees

different than I do, and we both stick to our guns.

And persons who have disagreed with me, and made points I thought were valid,

changed my mind.

On a previous debate I asked you for references to certain things you said

liberals did. You did not send me those links.

I thought about some of the feedback you gave me, found some of it valid and a

lot of it not. I will discuss that in a future post, but if I was that rigid in

my thinking as you state, I would have told you to #$%!! off, and ignored your

ideas completely.

And as for our last debate, I am looking up information and found some of it,

while other parts are there, I just can't find them- I will be back with what I

can find.

I don't believe in certainty- I believe in the law of thermodynamics, and

's law. One part of the law of thermodynamics states that things tend

toward random caios. They most certainly do, and that's what I expect.

>I have no need for _unrealistic_ certainties. I like as much certainty

>as is needed to draw a conclusion with minimal chance for error.

>Everything can be reduced to a certainty if you have enough facts and

>variables. For any uncertainty, the solution is more data.

I tend to agree with Jane. SOME uncertainties can be solved with more

information, others, many cannot. That information is unobtainable not only

because no one has formally collected it, but it has changed, and changes all

the time.

Do you remember in science " to measure is to purturb? " Many things are not

static. What was true at one point will be false at another, especially if you

are talking about human opinions, thoughts, behavior and the natural world.

Some things about human nature never change, but other things clearly do. And

they cannot be predicted.

The laws of physics and what-not do not change (yet) but other things do all the

time.

The whole world and the earth itself are about perpetual change. This planet

recycles herself constantly, changeing slowly all the time, never being what she

was a minute ago, EXACTLY. And in 10,000 years, she will be totally foreign to

us.

Heck, just look at how much has changed on this planet in 100 years for humans!

As an AS, that's one thing I'm not too uncomfortable with- changes. Unless they

are big, like moving. At times I rush through a change, telling myself it's

nothing, and then feeling a little overwhelmed later.

>LOL... Anyone who supports something as inane as anarchism has

>absolutely zero room to talk about others needing reality checks.

That's your opinion, . BTW, when did she say she was for anarchy, and why

is ALL anarchy a bad thing?

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

> >I have no need for _unrealistic_ certainties. I like as much

certainty

> >as is needed to draw a conclusion with minimal chance for error.

> >Everything can be reduced to a certainty if you have enough facts and

> >variables. For any uncertainty, the solution is more data.

<< I tend to agree with Jane. SOME uncertainties can be solved with

more information, others, many cannot. That information is

unobtainable not only because no one has formally collected it, but it

has changed, and changes all the time. >>

Plus there is a point past which the certainty of thought breaks down,

always in the same way. (Not to say that rational thought is useless

and that it should all be abandoned or something -- it's way more

useful than some of the weird substitutes people use -- but carried to

its logical conclusions one starts seeing really clearly the exact

places where its limits and holes lie.)

> >LOL... Anyone who supports something as inane as anarchism has

> >absolutely zero room to talk about others needing reality checks.

<< That's your opinion, . BTW, when did she say she was for

anarchy,>>

http://staff.washington.edu/mjane/diff.html

I think that mentions it.

, word-overloaded

[Guest guest]

>I fail to see the logic behind this statement. He left office eight

>months before that, as required by the US Constitution, which (in

>amended form) says that no one can be elected to the office of the

>President more than twice. To still be in office on 9/11/01, he would

>have to have staged a coup against the legitimate government of the US.

That was a theoretical comparison. I say that because Clinton was far more on

top of things, and would have seen it coming. He would have stopped it, or at

least acted in a rational, balanced manner and would not have used the tragedy

to profit, as Bush and his cronies and corporations have.

>Would you question Henry Kissinger's qualifications to have been our

>Secretary of State? Or for that matter, Jimmy 's or Bill

>Clinton's ability to be an effective president for New England or the

>Midwest, because they have southern accents?

No, it's not the mere fact that Arnold has an " accent " that bothers me. He

doesn't know what he is saying, and at times his pronunciation is SO off, that I

can't understand a word he is saying. He doesn't have a full grasp on the

English language. That in and of itself is not a problem- couple this with the

fact that he is governor of a state who's major language is English. That is

the problem, and it reflects on how serious he really is about this office.

If I were to run in Germany for something, I had better know the language like

the back of my hand, and speak it well enough so that it could be understood by

most.

Another example of this is Dubya. He supposedly knows the language, but he

can't speak in complete sentences unless someone has written it for him and he

has rehearsed it- and even then he STILL can't get it right, because his IQ is

about the same as silly puddy and his vocabulary is about 50 words or less.

He's a full born American, but he doesn't know what he's talking about and it's

annoying as hell.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> , word-overloaded

And that's it for me. I'm in New York,

and can't hang with the West Coast crowd

all night. Later.

8<{)