California Debate

[chm2023]

I have been bed-ridden the last couple of days, which is my only excuse for watching the governor wannabees' debate last night--deperate for entertainment. What a pitiful display!! The only ones that didn't look like fools were Mc Clintock and that fella from the Green party. Whoever came up with this format should be immediately disenfranchised. And giving the questions to the debators before the debate--why not just wear a dunce cap and be done with it. Heaven help us if California does indeed foreshadow the path of the rest of the nation.

[Ray Parent]

Yeah, it was pretty bad. I was looking forward to the debate, but I was only able to sit through about half of it before it got too painful to watch.

California is once again faced with a really difficult choice, and unfortunately none of the options look good. McClintock is not in a position where he can have a reliable chance of winning, by staying in the race he is handing the win to Bustamante. Arnold has a slim chance of winning without the support of McClintock, but I wouldn't be willing to put money on it. Then there is Bustamante who is even worse than Davis.

If McClintock doesn't pull out, and give his support to Arnold, I am going to have to vote no on the recall.

If McClintock does pull out, he shouldn't have any problem getting Boxer's seat in the Senate.

[Pete Hanlin]

If McClintock does pull out, he shouldn't have any problem getting Boxer's seat in the Senate.
Actually, as a non-Californian I have only a passing interest in your gubenatorial crisis. Your Senators, however, cast votes that reach across the continent... Therefore, I would gladly accept a governor Davis (snicker) or Bustamante for California if it means the rest of us are spared from Barbara Boxer after your next Senate race.

Without a doubt, Boxer is the most... well, suffice it to say even Hillary causes me less anguish than Boxer. Liberal as she is, I don't even mind Feinstien (sp?) too awful much, but Boxer...

So, elect whomever you please to administrate your own state- California... Do all of us non-Californians a favor, however, and find a better Senator next time around. I mean, really... BTW, as I recall, we Floridians have two Democrats in the Senate right now- so no complaining... I understand if you feel the need to elect Democrats, I'm just asking for a little moderation!

:D Is it true you have a porn star running for the governor's office (only plank in the platform is to have bars stay open until 4am instead of the current 2am)? And you call FLORIDA elections messed-up!?!

[Ray Parent]

Yes, there is a porn star in among the 135 or so candidates.

The problem with McClintock is that, if he causes Arnold to lose to Bustamante, his politcal career is finished. He is playing the part of a spoiler, and all the major Republicans are supporting Arnold now.

McClintock has a sizable core of very "rabid" followers. They have lost sight of the big picture and really are no longer working in the best intrest of the state. They have been attacking Arnold on issues that have no relevance to this election.

I really like McClintocks views, however if his actions give the win to Bustamante, I will refuse to support him on any future endevor. So not only will we probably end up with Bustamante as governor, we will get another 6 years of Boxer.

[chm2023]

Random thought, why is it that when a liberal like Sean Penn or B Streisand make comments on the body politic, there is a lot of huffing and puffing about celebrities messing in stuff they know nothing about; Arnold runs and sensible people are going to vote for him? This a man who would not participate in a debate unless he got the questions first? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Jesse Ventura, now Arnold, do I perceive a pattern here? Perhaps this late in life interest in politics is a side affect of steroids??? What state is the Incredible Hulk from......

[Darris Chambless]

Here's a thought to your thought chm,

Arnold has been involved in politics for some time. His wife, Maria Shriver, is a Kennedy and he has been invovled with some aspects of Mass. politics if only as a biproduct of his relationship.

Arnold, despite his accent, is a very intelligent man in both politics and business and not because he's a Republican (which he isn't in any aspect other than running as one)

With all that said McClintock is the "real deal" so to speak. He knows what needs to be done and has good plans for each including implimetation of all his ideas. Arnold is primarily a face man. Sadly Arnold will be the front runner in the elction. Even though he is a smart man and has been involved in politics he is not experienced enough nor does he have any concise plans for fixing what ails California.

Would I vote for Arnold as a sensible person? Nope. I hear people say that voting for McClintock is to throw your vote away and McClintock should drop out and support Arnold, but I'm of the opinion that voting for Arnold is doing the same thing because if he wins you're not going to get much for your vote. The smart thing would be to have Arnold drop out and support McClintock but then politics has never been accused of being an intelligence race ;)

As to Sean Penn or BS? Well, Sean Penn's credentials will speak for themselves as will BS's. Although popular celebs, their politcal background consists of little more than fundraisers. They draw crowds for potential candidates.

Take care and good thought. Arnold's the wrong guy but he has at least gotten his feet wet in politics on more than one occasion.

Darris C.

[chip anderson]

There are a lot of folks who can't understand how we came to have an oil
> >
> > shortage here in America.
> >
> > Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil.
> >
> > We just didn't know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely
> > geographical.
> >
> > All our oil is in Alaska, Texas, California, and Oklahoma.
> >
> > All our dipsticks are in Washington, DC.
> >
> >

[chm2023]

McClintock is a man of strong ideas and principles--too conservative for me but a very respectable public servant. Re Arnold, I still think chief exec of what is the 7th largest "country" in the world is over-reaching for one's first political job!!!! (Actually the big difference between Sean Penn and Arnold: Sean Penn is a very talented actor!!!)

I suspect Arnold will live to regret this whole thing: once in office the conservative republicans who voted for him will forget the circumstances of the election and only remember they voted for him. California republicans appear to have a death wish (much like democrats in most of the rest of the country!!)

[LaurieC]

and as soon as I figure out how to compress and insert it I'll post. Maybe Pete can help me if I do it wrong. Anyhow, hubby voted for Gallager, since I'm more conservative, I went for Gary Coleman.:bbg: :bbg: :bbg: :hammer:

[Darris Chambless]

...and nothing but the truth. :)

chm,

I agree 100% about Sean being a better actor (although saying he's a "very talented actor might be stretching it a bit ;)

"Re Arnold, I still think chief exec of what is the 7th largest "country" in the world is over-reaching for one's first political job!!!!"

True but it hasn't stopped many other politicians past present or future I'm sure. Arnold is definitely the wrong guy for the job; however, if he gets just a few of the things straightened out that Gray Davis screwed up in California, the people will be better off in the respect. But, No, he is not the man for the job (IMO)

I don't think that Arnold will regret having done this and if things don't pan out he'll just switch to the Democratic party anyway with the backing of the Kennedys so he's in a win/win situation. As to Republicans forgetting the circumstances of the election? No, they will get some mileage out of it for political purposes BUT they will regret having voted for Arnold if he wins I can assure you of that.

The Democratic party is on a course for self destruction and aren't doing much to slow the decent. A party as strong as it once was heading in the direction it is is sad.

Laurie,

I think voting for Gary Coleman as a staunch Conservative is a fantastic idea. Now you just have to figure out a way to make him a staunch Conservative ;) Folding those ballots can be a tricky thing because after all, you Californians are morons according to the first three judges in the 9th Circuit Court. They should be voting for you. Just ask them :)

Darris C.

[chm2023]

Dr D: I am shocked, SHOCKED at your lack of historical persceptive. There is an ebb and flow, pendulum, whatever tired phrase you want to use, to politics. And we are now IMO at the zenith of the republican's power. Keep in mind that GWB did not win the popular vote, and if things keep going the way they are (lost jobs, number of folks without insurance escalating, states and municipalities in various forms of financial funk; increasing disaffection for the Iraq conflict) the election will be democrats' to lose. You will probably chuckle at this--but before you get too smug, think about how Bush's support has eroded since the aftermath of 9/11. And today I read in the paper that 70% of the public thinks this CIA thing merits a special prosecutor--how does that line up with the Bush WH's carefully crafted image of integrity?

Here's something that has been bothering me (so lucky you, I will share it!): Ted Kennedy was roundly chastised for making a statement that the rationale for the war was a "fraud"--hey Kennedy voted against giving Bush the ok to invade Iraq, so he is sticking to his guns. What irks me are all the democrats who sheep-like voted yes, and are now making torturous excuses for their votes: well we didn't know...Yeah you did, you let Bush intimidate you with his flag waving,

I feel better now.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello chm,

It's nice to see you tow the party line. When the opposition agree with you, hit them again ;)

Actually most of what you've said in your last post was wrong so let me indulge your depiction of my smug persona; even give you some ammunition to use against me in some of my coming assertions that will be specualtion only (although they will turn out to be true. I will also let you know when I'm making speculation so that there's no mistake ;)

"Dr D: I am shocked, SHOCKED at your lack of historical persceptive. There is an ebb and flow, pendulum, whatever tired phrase you want to use, to politics. And we are now IMO at the zenith of the republican's power."

I believe you're more shocked that I agreed with you in your previous post but if you are in fact shocked at my "lack of historical perspective" let me give you a perspective that you may be even more unaware of. Presently this so called "zenith" of Republican power is little more than party affiliation only. What needs to happen and what I want to see is a "zenith" of Conservative power. The majority of Republicans in office right now are either moderate or more Liberal than many Democrats, but Democrats always tow the party line so no fear of jumping ship there.

"Keep in mind that GWB did not win the popular vote, and if things keep going the way they are (lost jobs, number of folks without insurance escalating, states and municipalities in various forms of financial funk; increasing disaffection for the Iraq conflict) the election will be democrats' to lose."

Popular vote? Well, there's another board I go to these days and this subject has been brought up and there are several discrepencies even in tally numbers in print since the election (everything from 800,000 to 20,000), not to mention something that a gentleman by the name of Jim March has brought before the courts with some concerns about fraud and the handling of voting in districts. I won't go into detail simply because it will never make national news because that is not Mr. March's intent, but rather to make sure these particular instances do not happen again (hint it has to do with some systems put in by Diebold for voting and problems in 47 different precints in his state alone)

Anyway...Lost jobs? Due to recessionary troubles. The Recession started before Clinton left office, Bush simply got to inherit existing problems and he is working with them and things are and will continue to improve in spite of what many in the media would have you believe. (speculation, but still true)

Number of folks without insurrance? Since when did it become the governments job to provide insurrance? That's not their function and it never should be. If it comes to pass it will be due to bad legislation, not a triumph of the spirit.

States and municipalities in financial distress? Although this can and will be made an issue of Bush's doing, the federal government has nothing to do with this. The Federal Government is often asked to bail out states that can't handle the affairs of their state propperly, but other than that the state governments themselves are responsible.

"increasing disaffection for the Iraq conflict"? Where? This information comes from polls. Ever looked at several different polls on the same subject? One will be low while the other will be high, plus one must be able to read the questions being asked, to garner the numbers, to see what is being asked as well e.g. if I call and ask people "Would you like to see our troops being brought home in the near future and not be tied up in Iraq for a prolonged period of time?" Heck, I'd answer yes to that question, but is it realistic to do so? No, but that is irrelavent to the pollers and they got the results they were looking for. Since I would answer Yes to that question I would be one of the percentage points representing disaffection for the Iraq war.

"You will probably chuckle at this--but before you get too smug, think about how Bush's support has eroded since the aftermath of 9/11."

Smug? Me? Darris C.? Mr. Fun and games? I think not. Again think about polling numbers as well as history that you spoke of earlier. Historically speaking, in the aftermath of a war and this close to an election a presidents popularity numbers drop. I wonder why? Could it be because of all the smearing that goes on this close to an election because the opposing party wants to win? Perish the thought. :)

Here's some speculation (although it will be proven true)

"And today I read in the paper that 70% of the public thinks this CIA thing merits a special prosecutor--how does that line up with the Bush WH's carefully crafted image of integrity?"

This isn't a story. It's not a scandal. It is a moot point. the information wasn't leaked and as was stated by Robert Novak "If her identity was a secret it was the worst kept secret in Washington." Included in the people that let this information out would need to be her own husband since he lists her name in his bio http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html on the internet that's been out there for a while. The integrity is still there but once this is all over and done with the Democrats are gonna have even more to answer to. They are shooting themselves in the foot over and over again, but don't trust my specualtion; wait and see for yourself.

"Here's something that has been bothering me (so lucky you, I will share it!): Ted Kennedy was roundly chastised for making a statement that the rationale for the war was a "fraud"--hey Kennedy voted against giving Bush the ok to invade Iraq, so he is sticking to his guns."

Ah, Teddy. What can we say about the Tedmeister? Chappaquiddick maybe? Well, let's just say that, if I'm not badly mistaken I believe Mr. Kennedy voted for the bombing of Iraq during Clinton's administration due to...you got it, Saddams WMD and unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions. So is he sticking to his guns? Really? For honest and for true?

"What irks me are all the democrats who sheep-like voted yes, and are now making torturous excuses for their votes: well we didn't know...Yeah you did, you let Bush intimidate you with his flag waving,"

Are you sure you want to make a blanket statement like that? You want to assume you know why all these Democrats voted for the invasion? You saw all the information they had at their disposal to make their decisions? You can retroactively read the minds of the Democrats? That's truly amazing. You are to be commended on your indepth research and annalysis of this issue. Back pedaling by either side is not an uncommon occurance (back to 'history' again) so it shouldn't shock you, especially when loaded polling questions garner unfavorable numbers for something and the political winds do change and politicians right along with it.

I don't necessarily feel better as much as I just feel right. :D

Darris "All in fun" C.

[karen]

Considering that Davis' years of experience didn't keep him from making some absolutely horrible decisions I say Arnold couldn't do much worse (also at least initially he won't have all those "favors" to return to the labor unions etc that Davis keeps in his back pocket...) I think he can at least pull off the business aspect of the job, which is where alot of our problems currently stem from. What a novel idea to not spend more than we take in;) .

As much as I love McClintock I think he is truly too conservative for this state to elect him ( not too conservative for ME but I am the minority here) this seems to be evidenced by most of the Republican organizations is this state endorsing Arnold-who I don't think is a Republican in the true sense of the word anyway.

I am looking forward to Oct 8th. I am tired of all the stories, innundoes, polls and endless coverage (biased I might add). Who's running the state while Beige and BustaMECHA are running around campaigning???

P.S. Chip - You hit the nail on the head-as usual

[chm2023]

Dr D: I think I recognize deliberate obtuseness when I see it: one example, I did not say that insurance is the govt's responsibility, I said that people are losing insurance at an alarming rate and I make the leap that this as an economic indicator does not bode well for the party in power. Second example, I did not say that I feel there should be a special prosecutor re this CIA leak (I felt it was wrong in the last admin, think it's wrong now)--I SAID 70% of the people think there needs to be one--again using that God given critical thinking ability, I suggest this points to a lack of faith in the absolute integrity of the administration. We really can't have a discussion if you insist on reading what you think I am going to say instead of what I am saying.

And yeah, the Diebold thing did make the national news. Why are right wingers such chronic injustice collectors? Can you possibly talk about Ted K without mentioning Chap.? Do it add to the debate? Does it elucidate the issue? Good God man, get some new material.

Karen: if you didn't see it there is an article in the NYT Sunday magazine about Gray D that is truly hilarious. They focus on his next door neighbor, and then his neighborhood, and how they all intensely dislike him as he is such a cold fish. How/why did this guy get into politics? One of his political opponents--and they are legion!--makes the comment that "Davis has no friends. I don't mean he has no supporters politically, I mean he has NO FRIENDS!" Kinda creepy...My advice to you is to move!!!!

[Darris Chambless]

With all due respect you took the first shots not I so perhaps it's you that needs to get some new material. I will respond in query once again as it will prove the point I wish to make.

"Dr D: I think I recognize deliberate obtuseness when I see it: one example, I did not say that insurance is the govt's responsibility, I said that people are losing insurance at an alarming rate and I make the leap that this as an economic indicator does not bode well for the party in power."

Obviously you do not because it wasn't there. You said and I quote:

"Keep in mind that GWB did not win the popular vote, and if things keep going the way they are (lost jobs, number of folks without insurance escalating, states and municipalities in various forms of financial funk; increasing disaffection for the Iraq conflict) the election will be democrats' to lose."

Where in that did you ever say:

"I said that people are losing insurance at an alarming rate and I make the leap that this as an economic indicator does not bode well for the party in power."

I will answer that for you if I may...You didn't!

"Second example, I did not say that I feel there should be a special prosecutor re this CIA leak (I felt it was wrong in the last admin, think it's wrong now)--I SAID 70% of the people think there needs to be one."

You said and again I quote:

"And today I read in the paper that 70% of the public thinks this CIA thing merits a special prosecutor--how does that line up with the Bush WH's carefully crafted image of integrity?"

Where did you ever say anything about you disagreeing with this or that you were not a part of the "70%" crowd? I can answer that one as well...You didn't!

"again using that God given critical thinking ability, I suggest this points to a lack of faith in the absolute integrity of the administration."

Which was my point. There isn't anything to this allegation regarding the administration so it is a moot point and once it all comes out the Democrats are going to have to figure out a way to cover their tracks (which they do quite well I might add)

"We really can't have a discussion if you insist on reading what you think I am going to say instead of what I am saying."

Stop it! I'm laughing too hard. Wait...okay I'm (snicker) better now. What's so funny you ask? Well, I'll tell you I'm basing my assessments on what you did in fact say and you're basing your arguement on what you never said to begin with. Oh my that is the best one I've seen in a long time. Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it today. :)

"Why are right wingers such chronic injustice collectors?"

I will answer your question with a question and then the answer:

Why are left wingers such chronic injustice collectors?

The answer to both questions is because it's politics. You should know that using your "God given critical thinking ability." I will say that Mr. March was bringing up problems with the systems being hacked and that these precints voting units "phoned home" at 3:15 PM almost 4 hours before the polls closed. Again using that God given critical thinking ability figure out the ramafications of that happening in 47 precincts, in California no less, and get back to me. Thanks.

"Can you possibly talk about Ted K without mentioning Chap.?"

No. And why should I? It happened! He shouldn't even be a sitting Senator but Mass. seems to feel compelled to keep electing him although God only knows why.

"Do it add to the debate?"

I don't know. Do it? You brought him up and I told you he's not sticking to any guns because he voted for the bombing during the Clinton administration. So your arguement doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

"Does it elucidate the issue?"

Actually it does. Here's a man that drove his car off into a river with Mary Jo Kopechne in it, unable to get out and she drown. Ted manages to get out, make it to his house but he must have had amnesia because he was "dazed" from the crash and didn't report it until the following morning. But he found his way home??? And he doesn't want to invade another country that could be a threat to our nation and its people. Killing innocent people is fine and should be overlooked if he does it, but heaven forbid we should go after bad guys.

"Good God man, get some new material."

I don't follow you. This would imply that you would need to get some new material as well since I responded to your material. If you're referring to the Chappaquiddick statement only (which you did not say so I'm assuming that's what you meant...and I read your post twice to make sure you didn't say this and you didn't just to make sure you understand I'm having to assume this is what you're talking about. Wouldn't want any confusion here. ;) Then perhaps you're right. I guess I should start using his boozing problems and alcoholism then and not the death, caused by Ted, of an innocent person. I'm sorry and I will try harder next time. I'm so ashamed. I should be purged :D

Tah tah for now but be aware that I debunked every point you made...twice. Not bad for such a small mind fool such as myself wouldn't you say? ;)

Take care,

Darris C.

[chm2023]

So what is your first language? You appear to have trouble with complex sentences, and thought. And my fine friend, as for the cheap shot re "Do it..?" I strongly suggest you not go there with me. Let me re-work your first paragraph:

"With all due respect you took the first shots, not ME, so perhaps it's you WHO needs to get some new material. I respond in query (can only guess what this is supposed to mean--sequence perhaps?) once again as it will prove the point I WANT (wish is technically correct but affected; stick to plain English, this sort of flowery syntax works for only a few. You aren't one of them.) to make."

Talk about your knee jerk reactions: Ted K voted for Clinton bombing Iraq, therefore he is forever more bound by that vote? Circumstances don't change? What idiocy.

And take a long look at this exchange:

Me: "And today I read in the paper that 70% of the public thinks this CIA thing merits a special prosecutor--how does that line up with the Bush WH's carefully crafted image of integrity?"

You: "Where did you ever say anything about you disagreeing with this or that you were not a part of the "70%" crowd? I can answer that one as well... You didn't!"

I didn't say disagreed with it, nor did I say I agreed with it. You made an assumption. Are you suggesting I have to footnote every phrase as to my POV? The point here is not the legitimacy of the special prosecutor, but rather that numerous events are not going Bush's way and may well contribute to a struggle for re-election.

I speak passable French, shall we try that??

[Darris Chambless]

I don't speak your language...whatever it may be...dyslexia perhaps? Just kidding :)

Anyway,

To keep it real lets both understand that although we share a similar profession we are neither friends nor enemys, this understanding will keep us both from skewing the lines of reason and preventing us from utilizing our "God given critical thinking ability."

"...as for the cheap shot re "Do it..?" I strongly suggest you not go there with me. Let me re-work your first paragraph:"

Please don...Oh now, darnit! There you go feeding fuel to the fire again! Will you never learn? ;)

"Talk about your knee jerk reactions: Ted K voted for Clinton bombing Iraq, therefore he is forever more bound by that vote? Circumstances don't change? What idiocy."

I hate to point out the painfully obvious when the merely obvious would do but the situation as well as the circumstances HAVE NOT CHANGED. The only thing that has changed is who's in office. "What idiocy" is absolutely correct; however, you're saying that to the wrong person.

"I didn't say disagreed with it, nor did I say I agreed with it."

On the contrary:

"Second example, I did not say that I feel there should be a special prosecutor re this CIA leak ..."(I felt it was wrong in the last admin, think it's wrong now) --I SAID 70% of the people think there needs to be one..." (emphasis mine)

So what I'm gathering is that I was suppose to assume that you didn't agree with it in your first post which you confirmed in your second post but did not say in the first, but then am suppose to accept that you neither agreed nor disagreed with it even though you said you didn't agree with it??? How can this be? When someone says in their own words that they don't agree with something I tend to believe that they don't agree with something (which is ususaly a good rule of thumb to follow IMO)

"Are you suggesting I have to footnote every phrase as to my POV?"

No, but since you brought it up you might want to do so so that I don't have to attempt to read your mind from a distance. We could avoid all the unpleasantries if you would do so in the future and I would know what you were trying to say...or not...or whatever. Thanks in advance ;)

"The point here is not the legitimacy of the special prosecutor, but rather that numerous events are not going Bush's way and may well contribute to a struggle for re-election."

Yes, I agee 100%...that is unless you plan on changing your point of view for whatever purpose, as you've done already in this thread, in your next thread in which case I'll have to disagree 100% and we would be right back to square 1 and I'd have to figure out new ways of figuring out what your point was and we don't want that do we? :D

"I speak passable French, shall we try that??"

Omlette du fromage. Ouf. Chapou. Croissante. And then there's the phrase they made the song out of but it's a little risque` for the board. Hey! Risque`! That's a French word too. I'm on a roll (or croissante as it were). :D

Take care,

Darris C.

PS. Your reworking of what I said would have been more effective if it were actually what I said. Try that next time and maybe it will work better ;)

[LaurieC]

.....stay in your seats and visit nicely on the way home. :finger:
I'm really confused here but then I don't speak French other than I do speak the dialect of wine.:D I'll take one of your cheese omelettes though Darris.

I thought this thread was titled California Debate. This seems to have turned into a National two party referendum. And I can't even figure out if CHM2023 lives in CA or was an interested observer like that big hunk of Texas Man Candy Darris. Maybe this should be two seperate threads, 1) California and it's implication to the Nation as a huge economy. 2)Then the national Issues.

Course I already voted by absentee and actually I did vote for Arnold. I won't even enter the National Debate at hand here because I'm meaner than any of the other protagognists here and I love Optiboard too much to want to scare anyone off.

[chm2023]

Oh Dr D, this is a more deeply rooted problem than I initially believed. Your prose puts me in mind of that mulitple Peabody award winning Bill O'Reilly: when you are dead wrong, keep talking!! Obfuscation beats rationality when you back yourself into a corner. (Oh sorry, it was a Polk award, not Peabody. Oh, and it was awarded to Hard Copy after Bill left.....See, details are nothin' but trouble!!!)

Well my friend, we shall see.

Here's a question for you to work yourself into a lather about this weekend: if the economy was inherited from Clinton and hence its weakness is not Bush's fault but rather Clinton's, does it follow that the military inherited from Clinton that did such a superb job in the Iraq invasion, is not to Bush's credit, but Clinton's?

I should probably let up on you as I am sure you are having to use a lot of brain cells to come up with the rationale for why Rush Limbaugh is not a big, fat, hypocrite. I saw Bill "7 come 11" Bennett on the tube last night and it occured to me: what is it about grossly overweight addicts and the far right wing? Is this a trend????? Well it would make it easier to run them over.....hurt your car though I imagine....Nothing's perfect!!

[LaurieC]

chm2023 said:
I should probably let up on you as I am sure you are having to use a lot of brain cells to come up with the rationale for why Rush Limbaugh is not a big, fat, hypocrite. I saw Bill "7 come 11" Bennett on the tube last night and it occured to me: what is it about grossly overweight addicts and the far right wing? Is this a trend????? Well it would make it easier to run them over.....hurt your car though I imagine....Nothing's perfect!!

I am a grossly overweight addict and a right wing conservative and I've never damaged anyone's car! I need Optiboard Anonymous back!!!!! Haven't been to a meeting in forever! Please see new thread.

[Ray Parent]

Rush hasn't qualified as "fat" for awhile now.

typo for me, meant hasn't

[chip anderson]

Have you noticed that most of the "ladies" of Hollywood brag about having spent at least one night with Warren Beaty. And complain about Arnold's attention.

Could It be because one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat?

I'm sure they both have behaved badly at parties.


Chip

Actually Limbaugh has lost a lot of weight and is quite sylvette as compared to his earlier photos. And know I don't know if this is the result of pain killers.

[chm2023]

Or maybe there's a difference between wanted advances and unwanted advances?

I don't think painkillers necessarily make one lose weight. This oxycotin (sp?) is apparently a painkiller when used properly, when consumed in big quantities and injected or snorted etc, it's a plain old high (known as "hillbilly heroin" on the street). As much as I dislike RL, it's hard to believe that someone could function in what has to be a fairly demanding position with this kind of habit. The plot, as my kids would say, sickens.

[Darris Chambless]

"Or maybe there's a difference between wanted advances and unwanted advances?

I don't think painkillers necessarily make one lose weight. This oxycotin (sp?) is apparently a painkiller when used properly, when consumed in big quantities and injected or snorted etc, it's a plain old high (known as "hillbilly heroin" on the street). As much as I dislike RL, it's hard to believe that someone could function in what has to be a fairly demanding position with this kind of habit. The plot, as my kids would say, sickens."

Who are you and what did you do with chm??? :)

Darris C.

[chm2023]

So, who will Arnold bring in to his cabinet? Steven Seagal, Sylvester Stallone...oh the mind boggles. Do you remember the movie "Back to the Future"? At one point the young hero is answering the 1950s doctor's question about life in the 80s--he tells him that Ronald Reagen is president and the doc scoffs at the notion. Sorta reminds you of today's situation with Governor Schwarzeneggar. I still contend that some Californians are confusing Arnold with the action hero character he plays in the flix. We are living that Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."