3 Nov 2010, Shitty day in California

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Realized that depending on one's perspective, yesterday could be thought of as a pretty shitty day for California...

1) Jerry Brown is governor... again...

2) Barbra Boxer is STILL in office...

3) Pot isn't legal.

I'm not upset about Brown. Honestly, I think he was a better alternative than Whitman, primarily because I don't think Whitman knows how to make nice with those that disagree with her. I think she'd have barged into office with all the grace of a stampeding rhinoceros, offended damn near everyone and made compromise virtually impossible.

Now, Boxer, Newsome (/facepalm), and Prop 19 I'm a bit pissed off about.

in many ways, that is what california needs, Stop kissing special interest ass, and run a state!

The problem with that is that the governor can't do anything at all without the support of the legislature. Piss them off too much, and they won't work with you, and may actively work against you. We absolutely need someone who will stop kissing special interest ass, but we need someone with the diplomacy to tell them to go to hell, but convince them it was their idea and to buy a first class ticket. That isn't Whitman.

[skyrider 0]

BUT...brown has been there before, and ran his own game, saying fuck what the voters say, (much like Obama) I know what is best for them!

[billvon 2,396]

>BUT...brown has been there before, and ran his own game . . .

Yep. So the voters know exactly what they will get. And per the results, that's what they want.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>BUT...brown has been there before, and ran his own game . . .

Yep. So the voters know exactly what they will get. And per the results, that's what they want.

Most are new here, and haven;t got a clue...but nice try...His "smear ccampaign" was impressive!

[billvon 2,396]

>Most are new here

Most Californians are "new?" That's quite a novel approach to demographics! Maybe they're all terror babies, or illegal immigrants.

>but nice try...His "smear ccampaign" was impressive!

=================
Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman wrangle over negative ads

By SCOTT WONG | 10/26/10 6:54 PM EDT Updated: 10/27/10 11:24 AM EDT

NBC “Today” show host Matt Lauer challenged California’s two gubernatorial candidates on Tuesday to pull their negative ads in the final week of their campaigns, saying recession-ravaged Californians deserved better.

During a discussion hosted by Lauer at a women’s conference, Democrat Jerry Brown agreed to take down his attack ads if Republican Meg Whitman did the same. But Whitman wasn’t as enthusiastic about the idea, at one point pausing awkwardly for several seconds when Lauer pressed her.
================

I guess her decision to push forward with her attack ads backfired on her.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>BUT...brown has been there before, and ran his own game . . .

Yep. So the voters know exactly what they will get. And per the results, that's what they want.

So you must think the same for Obama

Oh wait

He lied through his ass to us

Never mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

I guess her decision to push forward with her attack ads backfired on her.

Most likely. Politicians who run smear campaigns against opponents who don't respond in kind, usually end up the losers. Not always, but usually.

One of the most egregious examples of mud-slinging in a campaign was the Alabama democratic gubernatorial primary back in the mid 80's. Charles Graddick and Bill Baxely went at each other's throats in the months leading up to the primary. It was so bad, that voters elected a Republican governor for the first time in 115 years!

And guess what? THAT republican governor is the worst one we have ever had that I can remember! Guy Hunt....

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[billvon 2,396]

>>Yep. So the voters know exactly what they will get.

>So you must think the same for Obama

Uh, no. Obama has never been president before.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>Yep. So the voters know exactly what they will get.

>So you must think the same for Obama

Uh, no. Obama has never been president before.

Oh

Two years have been enough to see him for what he is

The election just past seems to show that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,396]

>The election just past seems to show that

You mean the one where Jerry Brown won California, and the Senate Tea Party candidates lost, leaving it under Democratic control?

To quote a Republican senator: "If you think what happened in Delaware is ‘a win’ for the Republican Party then we don’t have a snowball’s chance to win the White House."

The GOP definitely has a chance to demonstrate what they are capable of now. If they do a good job, they have a shot at getting the presidency in 2012. If the best they can do is continue with obstructionism and their tired "we really fucking HATE Obama" agenda, then I'd expect them to get the boot again in 2012.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The election just past seems to show that

You mean the one where Jerry Brown won California, and the Senate Tea Party candidates lost, leaving it under Democratic control?

To quote a Republican senator: "If you think what happened in Delaware is ‘a win’ for the Republican Party then we don’t have a snowball’s chance to win the White House."

The GOP definitely has a chance to demonstrate what they are capable of now. If they do a good job, they have a shot at getting the presidency in 2012. If the best they can do is continue with obstructionism and their tired "we really fucking HATE Obama" agenda, then I'd expect them to get the boot again in 2012.

Ahhh the hate angle again

Nice

And the Dems needed no one to pass their agenda sir

They had majorities in both houses for most of time

Sad to see you go that route



as for your examples?

You take yours

I will take the rest of the country

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>Most are new here

Most Californians are "new?" That's quite a novel approach to demographics! Maybe they're all terror babies, or illegal immigrants.

>but nice try...His "smear ccampaign" was impressive!

=================
Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman wrangle over negative ads

By SCOTT WONG | 10/26/10 6:54 PM EDT Updated: 10/27/10 11:24 AM EDT

NBC “Today” show host Matt Lauer challenged California’s two gubernatorial candidates on Tuesday to pull their negative ads in the final week of their campaigns, saying recession-ravaged Californians deserved better.

During a discussion hosted by Lauer at a women’s conference, Democrat Jerry Brown agreed to take down his attack ads if Republican Meg Whitman did the same. But Whitman wasn’t as enthusiastic about the idea, at one point pausing awkwardly for several seconds when Lauer pressed her.
================

I guess her decision to push forward with her attack ads backfired on her.

Maybe because she wasnt; directly attacking "him" like he was her, she only stated facts about when he was govenor before.(clean politcis) ..that is simplky his watch, he went after her personal life! (dirtypolitics) incase anyone is so fuckin stupid as to not see the difference!

[billvon 2,396]

>Maybe because she wasnt; directly attacking "him"

==========
Meg Whitman booed for refusing to stop attack ads against Brown

By David Siders | The Sacramento Bee

LONG BEACH – Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was shaken Tuesday in a high-stakes appearance with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic rival Jerry Brown, drawing jeers from an audience of women when she refused to stop airing negative TV ads.

Prodded by "Today" show host Matt Lauer, Brown said he would stop airing attack ads if Whitman would, too. When she refused, a crowd gathered to attend an annual women's conference booed the candidate seeking to become California's first female governor. The event drew an estimated 14,000 people.
==========

Looks like a lot of those 14,000 people disagree with you.

>incase anyone is so fuckin stupid as to not see the difference!

And sadly, there are some people who will defend their own side no matter what the facts are. Just look for that R after their name, and they'll defend them no matter what.

In this case, there were two candidates who aired lots of negative ads. I saw a bunch of them. Brown attacked Whitman's business record, Whitman attacked Brown's political record. Over and over again. If you really think one was a virtuous and courageous display of intelligent non-partisan criticism, and the other was a vile, seedy string of calumnious personal attacks - you might be a little more partisan than you are admitting to yourself.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe because she wasnt; directly attacking "him" like he was her, she only stated facts about when he was govenor before.(clean politcis) ..that is simplky his watch, he went after her personal life! (dirtypolitics) incase anyone is so fuckin stupid as to not see the difference!

How delusional can you be about this?

She ran 161M$ in attack ads. She lied non stop, yet he's the one running the smear campaign?

And if you really wanted a governor that could get things done, it's Brown, not Whitman. When it comes to an understanding of how Sacramento works - Brown lectures at Berkeley; Whitman could lecture at a junior high.

Now whether or not he'll accomplish what you want is a different thing. But in keeping in line with the OP's key points, he did sign the legislation that make dope possession an infraction when he was governor before.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

The problem with that is that the governor can't do anything at all without the support of the legislature. Piss them off too much, and they won't work with you, and may actively work against you. We absolutely need someone who will stop kissing special interest ass, but we need someone with the diplomacy to tell them to go to hell, but convince them it was their idea and to buy a first class ticket. That isn't Whitman.

You are one hundred percent right. But that's not Brown either. He will rubber stamp all special interests spending bills that come out of the California congress. He, like the rest of the California Legislature, haven't met a handout they didn't like.

At least with Meg Whitman, the congress would have been locked up a little more until a good candidate came along. I honestly likes Arnold. He tried, but you can't soar with the eagles when your tied to turkeys.

I will never forget this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/did-schwarzenegger-say-fk-you-to-legislature/

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[juanesky 0]

You know that I can actually picture Billvon taking Olbermann's seat on any given election night. He will do a very good job taking his place

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[stayhigh 2]

I feel that 20 percent of the adult pot smoker also grows pot in their closet.
If they all voted yes. It would've passed the prop 19..

Their fear about big company taking over the mom and pop grower is pure speculation.
No one will smoke mass produced weed that is pre- rolled like cigarettes.
People complain about 1000 watt hydro indoor weed now days.
Not enough smell, flavor, or it is too dry, too moist.........eeeerr

And how about meg wittman was just too ugly????

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I feel that 20 percent of the adult pot smoker also grows pot in their closet.
If they all voted yes. It would've passed the prop 19..

I think they are felons and not allowed to vote anymore.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[stayhigh 2]

what makes you think that all growers are felons???

most of the growers that i've seen are most normal looking people with regular jobs, they grow as their hobby/extra income source.

there is hydroponic store everywhere in CA.
there is biggest one in riverside right next to the dz.

31877 Corydon St # 150
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530-8515

and you can find your pot by going to weedmaps.com

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

what makes you think that all growers are felons???

most of the growers that i've seen are most normal looking people with regular jobs, they grow as their hobby/extra income source.

there is hydroponic store everywhere in CA.
there is biggest one in riverside right next to the dz.

31877 Corydon St # 150
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530-8515

and you can find your pot by going to weedmaps.com

You mentioned 20% of all adult pot smokers . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun