Re: Arnold- Hey Calfornians

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

>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.

I really find this baffling. I can't get close to NTs at all because of who and

what they are. The only way I can be friends with them is if I lie through my

teeth and keep my mouth shut most of the time. I don't understand all this

attachment to NTs, and really find it puzzling that anyone on the spectrum could

get along with them. I find them to be totally judgmental to the point where if

I say " hi " wrong, that's it. Anything and Everything I say is " wrong " to them,

and I'm just flat out rejected or abused. My " friend " NT, and I'm really not

friends with her anymore, cannot tolerate any dose of reality, so I lie as best

I can. If I talk about anything honestly, she gets very upset. So why try to

connect really with someone like that?

>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.

Yes, that's what I mean. I guess I have to put qualifiers before my statements.

I'd say anywhere from 75 to 90% of NTs fit in my qualification of them. Some do

not, but that is rather rare, and I've never seen a single case of it in my own

life. (those who would be non-judgmental with me)

And does NT exclude " smart " ? Most of the time. Not all of the time, but most.

I've hardly met an NT that didn't have conforming to social norms so far up on

the top of the priority list that it didn't interfere with their thinking.

Although, maybe when I was I high school I met some smart NTs, but they are the

exception, not the rule.

Jeanette

[Guest guest]

O.K., so where does it say that being an upstanding citizen is a

prerequisite for politics? It generally appears to *preclude* a person's

entry.

" I groped her " , but

" I did not have sex with her "

" I was DUI on my own time "

" I did not inhale "

" The cheque's in the mail "

I threw that last one in, since I was on a roll, but it fits with what

politicians puke up for everyone to swallow.

Re: Arnold- Hey Calfornians

> 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]

>You are a conspiracy nut.

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

one who

thinks that.

********

Hi jeannette

*waves and chuckles; i couldnt resist that.

[Guest guest]

> >You are a conspiracy nut.

>

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

> one who

> thinks that.

>

> ********

>

> Hi jeannette

>

> *waves and chuckles; i couldnt resist that.

*********

Sorry sorry, i do feel guilty now, im trying to turn over a new leaf

and start again, and not continue old differences, and i really wish

i hadnt sent that just then.

Opps....... Ive got a develish sense of humour, dont mind me.

Gareth.

[Guest guest]

>

<< 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.>>

I disagree with this -- I can understand him fully.

<<He doesn't have a full grasp on the English language. >>

I'm an Aspie hyperlexic; I know grammar and spelling intimately, and I even

write poetry and fiction. Occasionally I run across an English word of which I

don't know the definition. So even *I* don't have a full grasp of the English

language. English is so rich and diverse that I doubt if anyone does.

<< 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.>>

Again, I don't see the logic of this. Data: he speaks English with an accent.

Your conclusion: he's not serious about the duties of the governor's office. I

don't see the connection.

I think it's ludicrous that Arnold has been elected governor of our most

populous state, too -- but for better reasons than that he speaks English with

an accent.

Doug

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> > 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.

Oh please. Clinton was handed bin Laden on a silver platter, by Sudan,

and he turned the opportunity down. If US intelligence did nothing to

let Clinton know that bin Laden was a problem (and we now know that

there were many, many reports warning of the possibility of an al Qaeda

attack on the US mainland), surely the USS Cole bombing, and the bombing

of the embassies in Africa, should have been a clue. The al Qaeda jihad

against America was well under way during Clinton's presidency; it did

not suddenly start when Bush was elected.

Clinton's reponse to bin Laden's attacks was to bomb an aspirin factory,

and lob cruise missiles at an abandoned terrorist training camp. We

know that the 9-11 attacks were in the planning stage for years; most of

those years occurred in the same time period in which Clinton was being

fellated by one of his young interns. We saw on 9-11 that these

measures Clinton took did nothing to slow al Qaeda down. You can

certainly find a lot to complain about with Bush, but he has done more

to cripple al Qaeda than Clinton ever dreamed about. Clinton pissed

them off by lobbing bombs at them from afar, but did little or nothing

to cut off their funding, the regime that supported them (Afghanistan's

Taliban), their terrorist training program, or anything else. Bush has

attacked them on all of these fronts.

The 9-11 attacks were a massive failure on the part of the US

counterterrorism and intelligence efforts, and Clinton was a massive

failure in controlling the growing and obvious al Qaeda threat during

his presidency. The best time to stop 9-11 would have been while the

attacks were being planned. That would have been the time that the

President of the US could have taken decisive action to prevent the

attacks... to so disrupt the funding and the infrastructure of al Qaeda

that they were incapable of planning anything on a massive scale (as

Bush did after 9-11).

Once the attacks went beyond the planning and logistics stage, and

everyone was in position (ie all of the terrorists were already in the

US, being trained as pilots, with funding channels established), it

became a failure of the intelligence community to detect that this was

taking place. Again, that intelligence community, in the forms of the

FBI and the CIA, were in the branch of the US government that had been

headed up by Bill Clinton for most of a decade, certainly most of the

time the attacks were in the works.

Bush took office only nine months before the 9-11 attacks. The CIA and

the FBI that failed to detect the attack plan were under his command,

certainly, when the attacks took place. But even as late as September

2001, the CIA and FBI were still largely as Clinton had left them.

Clinton had eight years to mold the FBI and CIA to his liking, as leader

of the executive branch; Bush had less than one year at that point. Now

it is entirely possible that even if the attack had been planned for

2003, after Bush had a few years to shape the CIA and the FBI, those

agencies would still be in the state of complacency that Clinton left

them in. Maybe Bush would have been as inept in this way as Clinton

was; we will never know. After 9-11, it was pretty obvious that al

Qaeda was a big threat. Regardless, the attacks did not take place in

2003; they took place less than a year after Clinton left office, and

the law enforcement and intelligence people that could have detected and

stopped the attacks were still as Clinton had left them.

More than likely, the 9-11 attacks would have taken place no matter who

took office after Clinton, or if the Constitution had been amended to

allow Clinton a third term. If Gore had been in office on 9-11-2001, I

am sure they still would have taken place, and it would not have been

his fault. The majority of the failures that allowed al Qaeda to plan

this attack were already in the past in January 2001.

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> > You are a conspiracy nut.

>

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

> one who thinks that.

You keep talking about all of the conspiracies here and there, and once

when I said " you see a lot of conspiracies around, " you said " There are

a lot of them. " Maybe the others you confirmed this with are other

conspiracy nuts. You want to see everything as a conspiracy. My friend

got denied Social Security Disability; you said it was a conspiracy

against females. The veterinary industry conspires to make our cats

sick so they can make more money. Corporations conspire to make their

employees unhappy so they buy more products. Sheesh, everything is a

conspiracy with you.

> 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.

I am a moderate.

> 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,

No, they have not. You should learn a little about economics before you

go spouting off. The economy is boosted by low taxes, low barriers to

business entry, low regulations, et cetera. Those things are the

opposite of what liberals want. Excessive environmental regulations,

high tax rates, things like that hurt the economy. The things the libs

want to do are the things that hurt the economy. That's fact, not

political ideology. Even honest liberals admit that the things they

like hurt the economy-- they just say that it is worthwhile and must be

done anyway.

> 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.

Yes, I see them working to revoke the rights of women and minorities to

vote. Please.

> 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,

Yes, he certainly handled al Qaeda well.

> and never would have gotten us into

> this stupid war with Iraq,

No, he just did the same damn thing is Bosnia.

> or spread our troops all over the world.

What-- have you not been paying attention? The military was on constant

deployment under Clinton. There were articles in the media about the

low morale that constant deployment (Somalia, Bosnia, etc) was having on

the troops. Ask any military person that was in the service in the mid

to late 90s!

> The economy was booming, and he knew how to keep it that way.

Yeah-- by having Republicans in the majority of both houses of

Congress! That was the best thing Clinton did. Without the anger

Clinton's election caused, the 1994 Republican revolution never would

have taken place.

Keep in mind that the things Clinton wanted when he first got into

office, like the " Economic stimulus package, " and nationalizing health

care, are things that even the Democrats in Congress could not stomach.

The economy was good despite Clinton, not because of him.

> He got

> rid of the national deficit

Presidents don't have that power. Congress has that power. Presidents

can only propose legislation, as Clinton did with the Economic Stimulus

Package and health care nationalization plans of 1992; it is up to

Congress to enact them. Congress gets the nod for getting rid of the

deficit.

> (your friend Bush has in nothing flat

> created the highest deficit ever,

The bursting of the dot-com bubble (which had nothing to do with

Clinton, but he is given credit for the economic book it caused) and the

9-11 attacks created the deficit, not only by requiring more spending,

but casting a big pall over the economy. If Gore was in office, he

would have had the deficit to contend with as well. Look, the President

has less power over the economy than you think. Alan Greenspan has more

power in that way than the President has. Reagan boosted the economy in

the 80s because he got Congress to pass his huge tax cuts, and his

supply-side ethos worked, just as it worked for JFK. Cutting taxes

(which sometimes requires cutting spending) boosts the economy; it is

the only real thing a President can propose to boost the economy.

Most of the economy's health is dictated by the people... that's you and

I. It's about the people, not the government. Liberals miss that when

they talk of the economy. If people are confident, if they go out and

spend money, the businesses that they give their money to have more

money... more money to hire people, reduce unemployment, and give those

people money so THEY can go spend it. It is a cycle... the more people

spend, the more money there is in the economy, the more jobs there are,

and the higher is the average salary. It is called the multiplier

effect... every dollar someone puts into the economy (spends), rather

than sitting on it, benefits the economy more than once. It benefits

the economy each time that extra dollar is spent.

The dot-com bubble was a bomb waiting to go off through much of

Clinton's presidency. Analysts were warning the whole time that stocks

for companies that had never posted a profit, like Yahoo.com, were

grossly overvalued. P-E ratios were off the chart. Any economist could

see that the overexuberance was unrealistic, and it was headed for a BIG

" correction. " If you had listened to economic news during the 1990s,

you would know that there were warnings all along that this booming " new

economy " as they were calling it was headed for a crash. They expected

it, really, to come sooner than it did, but it was certain that it was

going to come. When a stock is selling for $75, and it has never

returned a dividend once, that is something that is just not

sustainable. That was the new economy; that was the foundation for the

economic boom of the 1990s.

As you can see, the economic boom of the 1990s had nothing to do with

Clinton. The dot-com boom was a function of computer technology going

mainstream, which was something that computer technologists had been

anticipating for years. And it all came to a crashing halt toward the

end of Clinton's term, as economists had also been anticipating for

years, at that point. Just as the genesis of the boom had nothing to do

with Clinton, neither did the end of the boom have anything to do with

him, or any other politician. This may surprise some people, but things

actually happen independent of the government. The economic downturn

that followed the dot-com crash started in Clinton's term. The economy

was already sinking when 9-11 hit. If consumer confidence was poor

before, it became positively abyssmal after 9-11. It was the 1-2 punch

of the dot-com bubble bursting and 9-11 that killed the economy. And it

was the poor economy that followed 9-11 that shrunk the tax base to the

point that we got the deficit back. This had nothing to do with Clinton

OR Bush.

The only real way to reduce deficits is to get spending under control,

and to grow the tax base so that you have more money coming in with

lower tax rates. That means boosting the economy, which in turn means

lower taxes (which, in the short run, may mean less spending). Bush has

done the only thing that can boost the economy, from a presidential

standpoint-- he cut taxes. Nothing else is going to restore consumer

confidence and make people spend money, hire more employees, and the like.

> 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)

You just complained about the deficit that has happened in Bush's term.

Deficits are caused when spending exceeds revenue. Cutting social

programs cuts spending. Cutting spending cuts the deficit. Now, I am

in favor of a good deal of social spending... but I realize that it does

not help the economy. It hurts the economy, just like environmental

regulations do, but they are necessary measures, so we have to put up

with the damage they do to the economy. The economic damage is the

lesser of the evils.

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

Bull. 9-11 was mostly Clinton's fault, as I detailed in my other

letter. The 9-11 attacks took years to plan... Bush had only been in

office for 9 months when they took place. Most of the planning took

place under Clinton.

> 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 like some things about conservatives. Socially, I am a liberal,

except that I am very conservative as far as gun control goes.

Economically, I am a conservative. I think the way I do because it

makes sense... it works.

> I have my theory

> about that, but it's just a theory.

I'm sure you do

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

>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.

Actually we *all* " have an accent. " It's just that we recognize

only our own accent as being " un-accented. "

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

>Secretary of State?

YES!!!!!!!! But not because of his accent.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

>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 meet them every day. Where I work. My friend , My

sisters. My mother (though she's dead now).

>>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?

We're all closed minds to each other. When we disagree

and can't persuade someone else, that person " has a

closed mind " from our POV.

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>... You should learn a little about economics before you

>go spouting off. The economy is boosted by low taxes, low barriers to

>business entry, low regulations, et cetera. Those things are the

>opposite of what liberals want. Excessive environmental regulations,

>high tax rates, things like that hurt the economy. The things the libs

>want to do are the things that hurt the economy.

Economic theories change almost as much as medical theories.

What is " obviously true " today will prove to be false next

year (or next decade), as has happened many times in the

past.

Just because I happened to be reading it recently, here's

a quotation that applies to the subject:

-------begin quotation (from p. 134-35 of " Gangs of America "

by Ted Nace):

As for President [F.D.] Roosevelt's impact on American society,

historians have differing perspectives. One angle is that he

was the champion of the working man, the leader whose expansion

of big government lifted the country out of the grinding

poverty of the Great Depression. Another perspective is that

Roosevelt ws in innovative patrician in rocky times who

preserved the capitalist system by knowing just how much ground

to give up.

Both outlooks are essentially correct. But one thing is

indisputable. Just as Justice 's decision in 'West Coast

Hotel Company v. Parrish' extinguished the doctrine of laissez-

faire on the Supreme Court, Roosevelt banished from the public

discourse the social Darwinist vision. His genius was in

devising the win-win solution: the idea that a well-paid,

socially secure workforce was entirely compatibe with a huge

expansion in corporate activity and profits. Under the

approach created by Roosevelt and adhered to by both

Democratic and Republican admnistrations for the next three

decades, corporate growth remained brisk and expansion

continued at the same time that the distribution of wealth

in the United States became far more evenly distrubuted than

before the Great Depression. Thus, while the share of wealth

owned by the top 1 percent of the population ws nearly 45

percent in 1929, it had fallen to 20 percent by 1971.

---------end quote

Unfortunately, those decades were followed (1971-2002) by

what Nace calls " The Revolt of the Bosses " (the title of

the 12th chapter of his book), which has led us to our

current sorry state of affairs.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Well, Doug I don't understand him. And his " accent " - whatever- is not the main

reason I don't want him in office. It's because he has no idea what he is

doing, and is a puppet/ propaganda machine of the conservatives.

Jeanette

Re: Re: Arnold- Hey Calfornians

>

<< 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.>>

I disagree with this -- I can understand him fully.

<<He doesn't have a full grasp on the English language. >>

I'm an Aspie hyperlexic; I know grammar and spelling intimately, and I even

write poetry and fiction. Occasionally I run across an English word of which I

don't know the definition. So even *I* don't have a full grasp of the English

language. English is so rich and diverse that I doubt if anyone does.

<< 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.>>

Again, I don't see the logic of this. Data: he speaks English with an accent.

Your conclusion: he's not serious about the duties of the governor's office. I

don't see the connection.

I think it's ludicrous that Arnold has been elected governor of our most

populous state, too -- but for better reasons than that he speaks English with

an accent.

Doug

[Guest guest]

At 02:07 AM 10/8/03, you wrote:

A lot of mean NT's say that 90% of all people are idiots. What they don't

know is that the other 10% are AC's.

This proves it.

Hudson

>Well,

>

>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.

>

>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.

>

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

>

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

>

>Jeanette

[Guest guest]

>

>

>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.

Why? He's a social liberal.

[Guest guest]

> >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.

>

>

> Why? He's a social liberal.

True...and he's a good businessman. I'm looking forward to seeing how this

experiment works...social liberalism by someone who actually understands how

money works.

[Guest guest]

Rakus wrote:

> > Why? He's a social liberal. [Referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger]

>

>

> True...and he's a good businessman. I'm looking forward to seeing

> how this experiment works...social liberalism by someone who actually

> understands how money works.

That's my ideology, mostly-- fiscal conservative and social liberal,

except for gun control, where I agree with the conservatives.