The best thing about Arnold's victory
 

Endless <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-columnist-slopez,1,5531875.columnist">Steve Lopez</a> column fodder.

If Steve thought that the Boom-Boom Sisters were commentary gold...

Boom-Boom Sisters? I'm afraid to ask.

My biggest disappointments with the election are that Ned Roscoe was beaten by Gary Coleman and Angelyne. Come on people!

Also I was very disappointed with the outcome of the Prop 54 election. Anyone who is interested in actual equality among the races would have voted to pass this. The fact that the minorities voted against this means they don't want equality, they want handouts.

I'm not registered to read the LA Times and had to settle for second had accounts of their Hitler lovin', woman gropin', please for the love of GOD don't vote for the recall and especially not for Arnold" eve-of-the-election "hey-we-just-found-out-about-it" Blitzkrieg (pun intended).

I reckon they must be choking on their own spleens over there. Think I'll settle for a second hand account of that, too. :D

Use username "laexaminer", password "laexaminer".

The best thing about Arnold's victory is that now Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnold is the governor of California.

I'm not going to judge him before he does his job, and I don't think anyone else should either. Say what you will about the man, but he's shown over the pasty twenty five years that he's got the drive to get things done (be it another movie or an 800lb bench press). Who knows how it will turn out?

Politics really are a funny thing with people. Does no one even attempt to look at them rationally anymore?

Wait and see what happens? What are you, nuts? I want to judge him now!

First act
 

Arnold was interviewed by the LA Times about his victory. When asked what his first acts in office would be, he replied "I am fuust going to grab the aaass of every female on my staff. Den I am going to hang my picture of Hitler over the Governmor's desk"

The best was The Daily Show's Stephen Colbert, reporting that it had been learned that Schwarzenegger had groped Hitler.

(spit take)

If I ever break down and get a TiVo, it will be to record the Daily Show. It's one of those shows that I _should_ be watching voraciously, but don't because I'm usually doing other things when it's on.

The Daily Show is pretty easily the best thing on TV these days, though Spike TV's The Joe Schmo Show and Comedy Central's Tough Crowd (on right after The Daily Show) are pretty spectacular as well.

The best thing about the victory ...

was that I had an excuse to wear my "Terminator Governor" tee shirt to work today. :)

(yah, the one from newsmax.com -- the back says "Hasta la Vista, Davis." The nuts liked it.)

What scares me is that people are so disillusioned about politics that we can elect a nazi groping bad actor and a ex fake wrassler to hold the highest elected position in state gubment. Is it just me or are politics reverting to a class officer type popularity election contest?

I know we've always had ex-football stars actors turned politicians, but to have one who showed little or no interest in politics to be elected to a position of stature is a little frightening. I wonder if the rock is going to run for prez?

You're a fucking retard.

I may be wrong, but I think Swartzenegger has had a big interest in politics for quite some time.

I think this recall was a crock of shit, given that they just re-elected Davis 11 months ago. However, the people have spoken, and hopefully Arnold will rise up to the challenge.

I hadn't seen such excitement over a candidate since Clinton in '92. And that's part of the problem for Arnold...can he live up to the hype?

Whoa, Dave. What's that about? Jeep certainly isn't alone in that opinion as I've met a number of people who have expressed the same thing in mostly the same words.:confused:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Actually Bruce, while I don't approve of his approach Dave is pretty accurate here. Juju is right in that Arnold has been pretty active and outspoken about his political position for a long time. What's more, elections have been grade school-like popularity contests for a very long time. Long time as is that's why the founding fathers made the Electoral College long time. I'm pretty sure elections in the Roman Empire had the same problem long time.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is pretty much common knowledge. Also the Rock comment at the end just came off as bitchy. So while I wouldn't call Jeep a retard, I'd say he came off as very uninformed, in a group where you are pretty well expected to know your shtuff.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plus, Jeep is still new, and you have to know about Dave and newbie's. He's pretty much our unofficial 'Trial by Fire.' I think Jeep got off easy.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By the by, did you bother to educate the people you met as to the reality of Arnold's politics?

You're not, but that doesn't keep our mental giant from mouthing off about things he has no knowledge of.

Calling him a Nazi? Hey, let's punish everyone for things their parents did! Yeah, that's a good idea! All Germans are Nazis! What do you say about that, you child molestor?

The groping allegations... what's easier to believe? Arnold, who has always been reported as a gentleman on the set and extremely respectful of women, is a groping maniac... or women are throwing themselves all over this beefcake millionaire actor? None of it has been proven, but that's no matter for our hero. Guilty until proven innocent - what this great country is all about!

Politics reverting to a class officer type popularity election contest... as if they've ever been anything else! You hear this from Democrats and Republicans after their guy loses to someone with better name recognition (such as the recall or Lazio & Clinton 2000). Let me ask you something, Democrats - when was the last time you went and voted for a Republican for Senate or President? Let me ask you something, Republicans - when was the last time you went and voted for a Democrat for Senate or President? You're mostly party line voters anyway, so shut your fucking mouth when it comes to this. As if you were going to vote for anyone but your party anyway. Republicans voted Republican, Democrats, by and large, voted Democrat, and swing voters flocked to Schwarzenegger for any number of reasons. BFD. Give him a chance, or get elected yourself, you whiny fucking cunt. Unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know how he's going to do. By opening your mouth now, you show yourself for who you really are - an ugly partisan voter.

Little or no interest in politics, such as campaigning for various reforms the last few years? Little or no interest in politics, such as being an outspoken Republican for the last, what, two decades?

Oh yeah, his argument just stands right up to scrutiny - in the same way that LUVBUGZ is actually a biologist, and tw is completely unbiased in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I'm sure most people here already know this, but I was pretty surprised to find out he had a business degree. I guess that gives him at least a marginal sort of qualification?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sigh, I saw the shadow of Dave looming and tried to divert that. Didn't figure it would work. Maybe I shouldn't have let the nazi thing go? It did bug me... 'Sides, seems silly to call Arnie a nazi when we've still got Ashcroft giving orders...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Juju, Arnie has shown quite a bit of inteligence in a number of ways. Even if he did do that Batman movie, he made some serious cash for it. He's done really well for himself. The degree is just icing. People love the image of some guy rising to the top in every field he enters. Arnie has pretty well done so. Now we get to see how he does in a new field.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just to get back on topic. The best thing about Arnie winning, no End of Days 2 OR Return of Mr. Freeze Batman movie.

Sorry the Nazi jab was a feeble attempt to show my distaste for media. I guess not everybody knows that I'm not the sheep that follows CNN.

I know now not to make comments about wrasslin to Dave...He seemed to not like the rock comment. Sorry to talk ill of you favorite pasttime.

Let me follow Dave's logic on ahhhhnalds political experience, besides getting in with the kennedy clan, for a moment.

As you can tell from my name I do enjoy Jeeps. I've wrote numerous letters trying to keep PUBLIC lands PUBLIC for everybody. I work on my jeep daily, (harley owners would understand) and have became a semi-expert in all things jeep. Now where do I sign up for the CEO position for Chrysler????

Democrats voting for Democrates? Who gives a crap. The difference between party lines are blurring more and more everyday. Canidates are afraid to be too radical for fear of alienating voters. True welfare reform. Yeah right. I'm sure crackwhore mothers everywhere would register to vote to make sure they don't get elected. If you want to get elected, say what they want to hear, throw lots of money out, Woo ted turner and other media moguls so you are painted in a more favorable light and sit back and enjoy the ride.

The whole election was a farce, but in America you can have anything you want if you have enough money. Just ask O.J. and Arnold.

I just saw Arnie being interviewed on CBS this morning. He said he had no interest in *participating* in politics until this year.
He's been in the celebrity spotlight a long time and never one to shy away from giving his opinion. He's also been privy to the behind the scenes view of the process of getting elected and hopefully how to get things done.

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.

Why do you keep saying this Syc? What does that have to do with anything?

So people changed their minds since then. Or Davis didn't live up to his promises. Or they just realized they don't like a guy.

So why do you keep drawing this arbitrary 11-month line? U.S. Representatives are up for election every 24 months. Sometimes, people don't vote the same way twice! Sometimes, people vote for one person one term, and then for their opponent the next term!

What's your point?

I said this one other time--on August 8 in the "Schwarzenegger" thread.

Californians had a chance to vote Gray Davis out last year. They could have made their voices/dissention known during the primaries or during the general election. Now granted, I don't live in California. But based on what I've seen, the problems out there have not drastically changed since he was re-elected last November. Therefore, I contend that there was no real reason to oust Davis.

Perhaps...but there was a fairly strong backlash against Davis leading up to the '02 election from what I remember. I remember the pundits noting that voter turnout for that election was rather low (just under 50%) and that the election was rather close, given that it was a Democrat incumbent facing re-election in California.

Did Californians have the right to change their mind? Absolutely, with the laws of the state behind them. But less than a year after re-electing him? To me, it sounds retarded...why did they even bothering re-electing him then? $60-someodd million more dollars were just wasted. And from what I understand of California's fiscal affairs, it seems to me that what Schwarzenegger can do is limited.

I do think it's kinda cool how accessible this election was. However, I wonder if that will be a good thing in the end...

Huh? See above...you must have me confused with someone else.

sycamore thinks the recall is a crock of shit because he's a liberal, and a liberal governor is being deposed. Welcome to politics.

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

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.
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?

You sum it up well when you say "I don't live in California", and neither do I. 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.

As far as I'm concerned, this was democracy in action. Everything was done according to the laws of the state.
Huh? Please explain. How is an accessible election bad?

Andrew Sullivan says Makes sense to me

if ($conservatives_voting == 1 || $democrat_lost == 1) {
$election_accessible = "bad";
} else {
$election_accessible = "good";
}
print("The fact that the election was accessible was $election_accessible.\n");

To think he could have made amazingly intelligent and witty contributions such as these...

• You're mostly party line voters anyway, so shut your fucking mouth when it comes to this.
  
• Give him a chance, or get elected yourself, you whiny fucking cunt.
  
• Unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know how he's going to do. By opening your mouth now, you show yourself for who you really are - an ugly partisan voter.
  
• You're not, but that doesn't keep our mental giant from mouthing off about things he has no knowledge of.

While Arnold isn't a "Nazi" and the allegations of "groping" are highly suspect, he's still not even remotely qualified for this position. And it doesn't take a "clairvoyant" to know how he's going to do. He will most likely do as all Republicans and Democrats do. He will shuffle things around, and when he leaves, government will be larger, more expensive, and more intrusive on our personal lives. It doesn't matter who you vote for unless its for a Libertarian. If you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you have wasted your vote.


Californians were given a choice between a scumbag incumbant or an evil scumbag replacement. Californians didn't have much of a choice at all. If you ask a man on death row whether he'd prefer to be given the lethel injection or the electric chair, he doesn't really have a choice. Either way he is dead. And the fact that Davis was re-elected isn't a mandate from the people; especially with such a low voter turnout. It only proves how horrible Simon was.

Why? Because they were given a choice between burning at the stake (Simon), or taking a bottle full of sleeping pills (Davis).

Spoken like a true doo-doo.....err....ditto head. Are you one of Limbaugh's minions who have already swallowed the cool-aid and avert all independent thought? One who throws the word "liberal" around as though it were an insult? One who mistakenly thinks the role of government includes forcing an arbitrary Christian morality down the throats of Americans while telling them America is a Christian nation? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from. It's clearly an angry and bitter place. I just want to know why.

Personally I think this recall was a good thing. It got voters off their asses and into the polls. It got many people interested in politics again. Sadly it didn't work out too well for the Libertarian party and I'm sure voter turnout will be scarce for my election next month. (Yes I'm on the ballot in November) I like the idea of voters being able to fire people who aren't doing a good job. Perhaps it will make public servants think twice about screwing over their constituents and help them to remember we are their boss and they answer to us.



Paul T. Ireland
Chairman
Libertarian Party of San Bernardino County

Arnold's not dumb. and he did head the President's Council on Physical Fitness. I wish him well.

Having caught some of the televised display, I am a liberal who would have picked Arnold over Davis or Bustamante.

The recall is troubling because of the way it occured. Werent people paid to go out and collect petition signatures? And Davis was not legally charged with incompetance or mismanagement. Sounds like a case could have been built, and should have been. It's a bit wild west. The petitions could be circulating for Arnold right now...I'm sure some are. So the question is how important is the term in office. I dont know all of the history and legalities here, one might correctly note that I am retarded in this regard, but how did it deteriorate to the point that the voters had no choice at the last election Simon/Davis?- or was it that not as many were engaged until the petition campaign whipped up? Will California be doing this next year too? Given he's able to stay in office his entire term, I'm curious how Arnold will work with his lieutennant Gov.

The recall is simply the latest manifestation of a principle of direct democracy that has been part of the California government far more than in any other state (and possible anywhere else period). I go back and forth on whether this is a good thing or not. Call me elitist, but I think the average person doesn't have good enough judgement to be trusted with a driver's license, much less decisions about government. I also don't think that gives me or anybody else any particular right to dictate to them. Good or bad, the people of California want it this way. If they don't like the theoretical prospect of a new gubernatorial election every 90 days, they can change their rules. Who are we non-Californians to second-guess? You can't stand Teddy Kennedy? Jesse Helms? Tough shit. Nobody held guns to the voters of Massachusetts and North Carolina all those years. Etc.

So what? All this proves is that people with a lot of money can run better campaigns. Not news.

Well again, that's the way they want it in California.

Well I don't know what happened in California at the last election, but I've felt for a long time that the best candidates usually get canned in the primaries, which is why we so often end up with a choice between two putzes in the general election. (Exhibit A: Bush vs. Gore, 2000) And once Davis was elected, I don't know what level of incompetence/criminality it would take for his party not to nominate him for a second term. So the only way for Democrats who didn't like Davis to get rid of him was to a) vote against him in the primary (that probably wasn't contested, but I admit I haven't looked it up), b) vote for a Republican, or c) have a recall.

In a certain way it makes perfect logical sense if you think about the extent to which the R's and D's choose candidates. The recall was an end-run around the party process as much as anything. I'm very skeptical of Arnold, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I generally support anything that reduces the influence of political parties.

And call elections when desired.

1) No. 2) No. 3) Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ah. No.

It's an "angry and bitter place" because people like JeepNGeorge have far too much influence over this country, and it's become one where the mindset is much like you describe in your questions. I am against precisely that - the elimination of independent thought, the overwhelming Christian majority in government, etc. I understand that you haven't devoted your time to reading my each and every post here, but if you had, you'd know this.

The democrats that are against the recall aren't against it on principle. You can bet that if a Republican were being recalled, they'd be all for it. It's simply the nature of the current major political parties. Liberals align with other liberals, conservatives align with other conservatives. This is hardly news.

Ha. You're one to talk. Dig through your previous posts and count up how many times you resort to namecalling. You can stop when you reach 1,700.

Arnold alone got more votes than were cast against the recall. If you're so unpopular that you can be recalled so easily, perhaps it actually <b>is</b> time for a change.

He's married to a Kennedy - I think that by default you have to go into politics.

Just as a side note - being in insurance and I have handled claims in the State of California - as much as I don't like AARRRNNNOHHHLD - he's got some really really good ideas for the insurance regulations in the State of California. They are out of control down there right now - I mean everyone and their dog has an attorney and pretty much everything is paid for with no questions asked. Now - I know in my job I can be considered "the man" but I'm sure the (good?) people of Cali don't want to be paying out the ass for some dumb-ass fradulent lying injured worker to be sitting at home eating bon bons.

Sean Hannity was interviewing Jesse Jackson the night of the election before the results were known. He let Jackson blab on and on about how Jackson was going to file a lawsuit as soon as the polls closed on the grounds of voter disenfranchisment (i.e., the Florida argument). Jackson argued passionately for those "whose voices would not be heard!"

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."

1,700 in 250 posts. That's got to be a record. I need someone to submit my name to Ripley's!

:3eye:

Not true. For example, I disagree with the small but apparently growing number of people that think Bush should be impeached. I don't think he's done anything that merits that action.

Anything like this or impeachment just depends on the situation. The party doesn't matter.

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.

You don't think lying to the American people to gain support for an unconstitutional use of our military in a war against a sovereign nation that has never attacked America, poses no threat to America, and has no connections with anyone who has attacked America doesn't merit impeachment? I think it merits execution for treason.

How about violating the Constitution more than all previous presidents combined including Lincoln? Championing the single most unconstitutional piece of legislation in America's history? Violating his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Military Desertion? Endangering America and the entire world through his imperialistic military interventionism? Sending American soldiers to murder and be killed instead of doing thier job of defending America? Mass Murder? Wrecking the economy?

What exactly do you consider an impeachable offense if not lying to the American people, committing mass murder, violating his oath and the highest law of the land, endangering America and the rest of the world, etc...? What does someone have to do in your eyes; start WW3?

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.

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

I thought the your a fucking retard comment did that.

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

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.")

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)

Sorry, that's wrong.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

Yep...you're a jackass. :)

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.

See above.

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

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. :)

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. :D

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.

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.