The best thing about Arnold's victory

[ThisOleMiss]

If Arnie hasn't gotten over his groping problem, I will personally volunteer to be his designated groppee

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by dave


Back it up. Where's your proof? Or was it an attempt to make me look uncultured and ignorant, too busy watching sweaty grown men rub each other to pay attention to what's going on in the world?

You're a really valuable user here. Really. What amazing contributions you've made. Probably better to go out on a high note and quit while you're ahead.

I thought the your a fucking retard comment did that.

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by Undertoad

No, that's me, and I can tell you for absolute certain than CNN was blatantly and annoyingly anti-Arnie from day one.

I refuse to watch that rubbish. Good thing the weekly world sun is still available for all my news sources.

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
I thought the your a fucking retard comment did that.

As opposed to you, the obviously well spoken and educated user who, despite his awesome qualifications, cannot properly use quotation marks or contract two words? Wow, you really told me. Rent a brain before you post again.

(If you didn't understand that, I'll write it how you will: "Your an idiot JeepNGeorge you cant even use punctuation good.")

[Radar]

Right, and A G A I N, that Constitutionality ought to be determined by the body that the Constitution says should determine it. I.e., not you.

Wrong A-G-A-I-N. The President is a public servant. He answers to ME. I and every other American determine the Constitutionality of his actions. 90% of Americans can barely read the Constitution let alone comprehend its meaning well enough to make this determination accurately (Like those who think that only the Supreme Court can have a valid opinion about the Constitution or those who think any decision the Supreme Court makes is automatically Constitutional)

There doesn't need to be a court case to determine whether or not his actions were Constitutional and the Supreme Court doesn't define the Constitution or "interpret" it. George Bush's actions were unconstitutional in their face. If I were to take a platoon of soldiers into a town and force people at gunpoint to allow soldiers to stay in their homes it would be unconstitutional. It wouldn't magically become unconstitutional when the Supreme Court's determination said it was. It would be unconstitutional the moment I did it. It would be unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. It would be unconstitutional even if it never went to any court anywhere and it wouldn't take a judge to determine it.

The best way to describe the job of the Supreme Court for someone like you is to describe it like a factory job. Imagine someone had a job where differently shaped blocks came down a conveyer belt toward them all day. And that person would pick up a block, look at the shape and see if there were a hole in a board where it would fit. If there were a round block, it would go into a round hole, a star shaped block would go into the star shaped hole, and so on. This is the job of the Supreme Court justices.

They get a law, hold it up to the Constitution and see whether or not it will fit. They don't figure out if they can make a new hole for the block to fit in. They don't make a new block to fit into a hole that hasn't been used. They don't try to grease up a block and hammer it into a hole where it doesn't fit. And they don't dictate which holes or blocks will be used or come down the conveyer belt. They are also not the only people with a conveyer belt or blocks so they aren't the only ones who get to compare the blocks and the holes.

I hope I've broken it down to shapes and blocks (an elementary level even you should be able to understand)

[juju]

Sorry, that's wrong.

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by dave


As opposed to you, the obviously well spoken and educated user who, despite his awesome qualifications, cannot properly use quotation marks or contract two words? Wow, you really told me. Rent a brain before you post again.

(If you didn't understand that, I'll write it how you will: "Your an idiot JeepNGeorge you cant even use punctuation good.")

Didn't you forget the nanynanybooboo stick your head in doodoo? I wish I had the ability to turn a phrase liek contract two words. I'm tarded enough to use contraction instead. Do you feel better when you attack random people on boards? Does it make you lil wee-wee get all warm?

You are by far the superior intellect. I'll concede the victory to you. I hope you have a good wank for a doing such a good job.

"Arguing on the message board is like the Special Olympics.....Even if you win, you are still a retard."

[warch]

If you're so unpopular that you can be recalled so easily, perhaps it actually is time for a change.

Its interesting that the idea of Bush's impeachment comes up, or you can flashback on Clinton if you prefer. If his "popularity" drops to the lowest of low, but he's not been convicted of an impeachable act , is it time for a change before the next scheduled election? Should we make that possible? Would that really make elected officials more responsible to the people? - they might be more concerned with making cases for action. Or would it make them even more driven by polls and pandering to interest groups? We could get rid of bums but we could also boot out bold leaders. The idea of set terms, I think, can help perspective.

[Radar]

Sorry, that's wrong.

No, it isn't wrong. The Supreme Court doesn't define the Constitution. They don't "alter" the Constitution through their rulings. They aren't above the Constitution and they don't "interpret" the Constitution. Their job is to hold laws up to the Constitution to see if they fit. They have no legal authority to make "exceptions" to the Constitution because it is in the best interest of the government (something they routinely do). They still answer to the Constitution and are subordinate to it because the Constitution is THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND. It's higher than case law including the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it's higher than acts of Congress, and it's higher than the President. It can't be altered by anything other than an amendment which means an act of Congress (like a war powers act) does NOT alter the Constitution and if that act of Congress is contradictory to any part of the Constitution that act is automatically unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dave
I'm just giving you a hard time, ugly. I know that you personally are, for the most part, above such things. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most.

And that's the crux of the problem. Rho and I were just talking about this...people seem afraid to think outside the two-party box. Way too much blind loyalty, IMO.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Beestie
At the conclusion of Jackson's diatribe, Sean asked the esteemed reverend if he would proceed with the lawsuit if the recall was defeated.

Jackson, who seemed stunned by the question, paused before replying "No."

Well, Jesse does like a good photo op, but he could still get away with that comment. From what I understand, most of the punch card ballots were in areas that have large minority populations...populations that (in most cases) would go to a Democrat. And with the Democrats' stance of "vote no on the recall", it could have screwed the recall vote.

I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily...just making it plausible.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
*the Andrew Sullivan quote*

But remember, even if you voted no on the recall, you could still choose a replacement. I wonder how many "no" voters picked Arnie.

*watching The Running Man*

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Well, I've heard that reasoning used numerous times, and I remembered you using it before, so I incorrectly assumed it was you I heard numerous times.

Yep...you're a jackass.

Once again, an arbitrary line drawn. More than a year would be OK then? You'd be happy if it were 13 months, or maybe 16?

Understand Tob that I'm not really looking at it in terms of numbers. My main contention is that the recall should have never occurred.

Folks have been relatively unhappy with Davis for some time now--I believe it started around the time of the power problems. If there was so much discontent with Davis before the '02 election (and there seemed to be a lot of it), why would you even bother putting him back in office for (presumably) another 4 years? I understand what Radar said about the choices, and I understand the whole "party unity" concept too. But as I see it, if Californians really wanted to stick it to Davis, they should have done so prior to last year.

You might have some basis in calling the voters silly or fickle or ignorant, but to dub the recall a crock of shit because of the length of time since the previous election is pretty baseless.

See above.

As far as I'm concerned, this was democracy in action. Everything was done according to the laws of the state.

I don't argue that...it was done by the book.

Huh? Please explain. How is an accessible election bad?

This election was as close as Americans will get to true democracy, IMO. It didn't take a lot of signatures to get this thing rolling, and even I could have gotten on the ballot--seriously.

Maybe this is a one-time thing that won't happen again for many years. But I see way too many people hanging on to Florida (dems) and Clinton (GOP), and now that Californians really know what it takes to remove their governor, I sense it will happen again sooner rather than later. I know I'm playing pessimist here, but if this sort of thing were to happen more frequently (more states and/or more often), I don't think anything would ever get done...not to mention it would cost a lot.

And is Davis taking too much of the fall here? Sorta like the way the president gets credit/blame for the economy. I don't know how much power the governor has out there, but that's still only one branch of government. And the Dems control the state legislature. Maybe they'll get thrown out later on...*shrugs*

At the very least, both parties should keep these concerns in mind. But like Steve said, if this is what California wants, so be it. That's the beauty of having 50 different states and a handful of territories.

Maybe good will come of this. Schwarzenegger will lead California back to true prosperity. People will do more outside-of-the-box thinking. A third party or independent candidate will have a real chance. Israel and the Palestinians will achieve peace. Life will be good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hello, Secret Service? Yes, it's Cellar.org, thread "The best thing about Arnold's victory" and the name is Radar, that's R_A_D_A_R. Yes, threatened the President's life. Yes. Very unstable.

I fear this recall thing could become so regular, the incumbent would have to pander to those that could afford to recall him. Bad business to not have a definate term to implement plans.

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
No, it isn't wrong. [<i>blah blah blah</i>]

Yes it is. It says in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret it. Welcome to reality. Fantasy... reality... fantasy... reality. Work on that... then get back to me.