Arnie Tells It Like It Is

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

This is brilliant.

Schwarzenegger Flips Off Lawmakers in Hidden Message
By Kim Zetter October 27, 2009 | 8:11 pm | Categories: Miscellaneous

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is ticked off.

Heâ??s tired of signing bills that donâ??t address the pet causes he deems important. So when another unworthy bill crossed his desk recently for signing â?? addressing funding issues for the Port of San Francisco â?? the guv vetoed it and sent lawmakers a little note saying why. Only the note said a little more than lawmakers were expecting.

Buried in the text was a hidden message directed at State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, author of the bill, according to the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

Ammiano had strongly criticized the governor in early October and reportedly told Schwarzenegger at the time to â??kiss my gay ass.â?? Schwarzeneggerâ??s veto letter, issued a couple of days later, reads:

Missed the hidden code, check the first letter of each line!

2

Brilliant!

3

I think this is pretty awesome.

4

I fucking love this man.

5

Makes me want to come from California and vote for him :slight_smile:

6

i love it. at least someones actually fighting back. and even better with the hidden message.

7

Nice!

V

8

[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Makes me want to come from California and vote for him :)[/quote]

Don’t. You look like a fucking barnacle for one thing. Secondly, Arnie’s been one of the worst Governors in recent memory here.

He’s basically a tax and spend Democrat, yet he’s shown such little political acumen and an overwhelming inability to work with a mostly Democratic legislature that the state’s legislature has become even more dysfunctional than it was without him. While the state is going through a major recession worse than the rest of the country, Arnie has been passing cap and trade emissions laws that harm businesses even further in order to pander to the Sierra Club crowd.

At the same time, he’s also about to let the California Air Resources Board ban diesel engines on big rigs, which would drive another industry to its death here. He’s also done absolutely nothing to provide anything but meager amounts of funding to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory which is working on a Laser Inertial Fusion Engine nuclear reactor (LIFE). LIFE would meet all of our electricity needs with zero nuclear waste and can actually use existing nuclear waste to power it as well. But Arnie’s been pandering to the eco-terrorist crowd and won’t provide any additional funding.

He’s done nothing about the fact that Californians pay much higher gas prices than the rest of the state for some bullshit “California blend” of gas. The real polluters out here are farmers. Farmers are the biggest source of environmental damage in the state, yet Schwarzenegger’s fiscal and environmental policies do nothing to curb their polluting and make ordinary citizens like myself (whose taxes are footing the bill for all the farmers, especially rice farmers, who are doing the real environmental harm) pay through the nose for everything in order to stay “green”.

He claims to be environmentally friendly, yet he flies his private fucking jet from Orange County to Sacramento and back every week.

On top of everything else, every time the state needs to make budget cuts, the first thing he looks toward are teachers’ salaries/jobs and education funding. His last great idea was to let a shitload of “non-violent” prisoners like drug dealers out of prison early.

Yeah, fuck Arnold Schwarzenegger. I can’t wait until his term is over. Maybe this state will get a real Governor instead of some jerk who thinks the political world is some fucking jungle you hunt Predators in.

9

[quote]artw wrote:
Maybe this state will get a real Governor instead of some jerk who thinks the political world is some fucking jungle you hunt Predators in. [/quote]

Californian voters are the reason California sucks. You aren’t going to change that by voting for some other Californian that is “different” from Arnie.

You need to replace all the CA voters. Good luck.

10

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
Maybe this state will get a real Governor instead of some jerk who thinks the political world is some fucking jungle you hunt Predators in.

Californians voters are the reason California sucks. You aren’t going to change that by voting for some other Californian that is “different” from Arnie.

You need to replace all the CA voters. Good luck.[/quote]

Actually, we need to re-dsitrict. Or blow up the bridges and force San Fran to secede from the union. There are plenty of conservatives in CA, but we are overwhelmed by the mass uber-left voting blocks in SF and LA. Artw is spot-on about the enviro-nonsense. The GHG rule (AB32) is going to crush what is left of industry in the state. The rest of the country can look at CA as a window to the future. This is what you have to look forward to with an across-the-board leftist government. Massive unemployment, unfettered illegal immigration, business and job crushing regulation, huge taxes, all resulting in giant budget shortfalls. And what does the state assembly do? They continue passing spending measures and pet projects. Arnols is no Republican, and definitely no conservative. He married a Kennedy, and he basically became one. I’m an Arnold fan for his movies, but he blows nuts as governor.

11

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
Maybe this state will get a real Governor instead of some jerk who thinks the political world is some fucking jungle you hunt Predators in.

Californians voters are the reason California sucks. You aren’t going to change that by voting for some other Californian that is “different” from Arnie.

You need to replace all the CA voters. Good luck.

Actually, we need to re-dsitrict. Or blow up the bridges and force San Fran to secede from the union. There are plenty of conservatives in CA, but we are overwhelmed by the mass uber-left voting blocks in SF and LA. Artw is spot-on about the enviro-nonsense. The GHG rule (AB32) is going to crush what is left of industry in the state. The rest of the country can look at CA as a window to the future. This is what you have to look forward to with an across-the-board leftist government. Massive unemployment, unfettered illegal immigration, business and job crushing regulation, huge taxes, all resulting in giant budget shortfalls. And what does the state assembly do? They continue passing spending measures and pet projects. Arnols is no Republican, and definitely no conservative. He married a Kennedy, and he basically became one. I’m an Arnold fan for his movies, but he blows nuts as governor. [/quote]

So then you are going to forcefully send all the CA voters you disagree with to Oregon?

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

With democracy you get what dumb (at best, marginally average) people think is best for you.

12

The California voters aren’t the problem here. Most people in the state are entirely fed up with the entire political system here, and are especially fed up with Arnold. But the California legislature is such a huge juggernaut with such deep ties to every lobbyist group imaginable that it isn’t a problem that can be solved by the Governor alone.

Ironically, the gubernatorial candidate that is the furthest removal from everything that is wrong with the Cal. political system is Gavin Newsom. This is a guy who won two City Supervisor elections in a landslide and unopposed in a district with a huge Republican majority. In a very liberal city, he was by far the most conservative of all the candidates he ran against for mayor and won big because he’s shown true pragmatism and an ability to reach across partisan lines to get done what’s good for SF, not what’s good for Democrats in SF or what’s good for his political career.

He’s also managed to create a positive environment for businesses in the city while also helping to strengthen workers’ rights at the same time. Currently, he’s about to take on the entire City Council by opposing this asinine Sanctuary Law that gives sanctuary to illegal minors if arrested.

But he won’t win the governorship because he had the courage to take a stand against the constitutionalized discrimination of gays. (look up the Supreme Court ruling about equal protection laws if you think banning gay marriage isn’t unconstitutional). We’re probably going to be stuck with a total retread in Jerry Brown who comes from the same system that has driven this state into the ground. Newsom is exactly the type of political outsider that the state needs, but the entrenched system is such that he can barely get any money for his campaign from Democrats since they know he’s not likely to play ball with them. The only reason Bill Clinton is behind Newsom is because Clinton’s had a long feud with Brown. The problem isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican one; it’s a Democrat AND Republican one.

13

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy. [/quote]

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.

14

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.
[/quote]

Now the obvious question:

How do you know who the parasites are and where they live?

Your example is nice but impractical because you have to rely on a democracy full of marginally average people to achieve it.

Statistics tells me, no matter what, where ever you are there will only be a majority of marginally average people. What’s more, free entry into political leadership ensures that your leader will be one of those marginally average people – who craves political power.

Political expediency, being what it is, also means principles must be thrown away to remain in power.

15

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.

[/quote]

Very accurate analogy to what has happened here. A key reason why the idiots remain so entrenched in Sacramento. Also the reason why they campaigned and spent VERY heavily during Arnie’s first term to defeat his re-districting ballot measure.

16

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.

[/quote]

And this is called Gerrymandering

17

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.

Very accurate analogy to what has happened here. A key reason why the idiots remain so entrenched in Sacramento. Also the reason why they campaigned and spent VERY heavily during Arnie’s first term to defeat his re-districting ballot measure.[/quote]

Actually this hasn’t been the problem for Cali as you explained it. 2001 Gerrymandering was fully embraced by both parties, districts were drawn up as “safe democrat” and “safe republican.” This wasn’t a case of one party drawing squiggly lines to save itself.

as a result of this, general election competition is almost extinct, and it ends up with only purist retards from each party being put into seats who can never compromise so nothing gets done. And once their in power theres nil to keep them accountable.

the only advantage bringing in a governor who can pay himself in, is that the person avoids being born in this style of politics. Which is exactly why arnold has been able to call out republicans/democrats on this.

its like faux gerrymandering, theyre not doing it gain an advantage over each other, they do it to lock in their own votes and keep hardliners in power.

however gerrymandering can be used to better represent people of a common area. people get pissed that theres skinny long districts running up the coast of California. I would agree with this. People in coastal communities have to deal with specific issues that inlanders don’t. coastal communities are smaller than inland ones, so its easy to have their interests completely washed by large inland populations.

18

[quote]artw wrote:
jake_j_m wrote:
Makes me want to come from California and vote for him :slight_smile:

Don’t. You look like a fucking barnacle for one thing. Secondly, Arnie’s been one of the worst Governors in recent memory here.

He’s basically a tax and spend Democrat, yet he’s shown such little political acumen and an overwhelming inability to work with a mostly Democratic legislature that the state’s legislature has become even more dysfunctional than it was without him. While the state is going through a major recession worse than the rest of the country, Arnie has been passing cap and trade emissions laws that harm businesses even further in order to pander to the Sierra Club crowd.

At the same time, he’s also about to let the California Air Resources Board ban diesel engines on big rigs, which would drive another industry to its death here. He’s also done absolutely nothing to provide anything but meager amounts of funding to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory which is working on a Laser Inertial Fusion Engine nuclear reactor (LIFE). LIFE would meet all of our electricity needs with zero nuclear waste and can actually use existing nuclear waste to power it as well. But Arnie’s been pandering to the eco-terrorist crowd and won’t provide any additional funding.

He’s done nothing about the fact that Californians pay much higher gas prices than the rest of the state for some bullshit “California blend” of gas. The real polluters out here are farmers. Farmers are the biggest source of environmental damage in the state, yet Schwarzenegger’s fiscal and environmental policies do nothing to curb their polluting and make ordinary citizens like myself (whose taxes are footing the bill for all the farmers, especially rice farmers, who are doing the real environmental harm) pay through the nose for everything in order to stay “green”.

He claims to be environmentally friendly, yet he flies his private fucking jet from Orange County to Sacramento and back every week.

On top of everything else, every time the state needs to make budget cuts, the first thing he looks toward are teachers’ salaries/jobs and education funding. His last great idea was to let a shitload of “non-violent” prisoners like drug dealers out of prison early.

Yeah, fuck Arnold Schwarzenegger. I can’t wait until his term is over. Maybe this state will get a real Governor instead of some jerk who thinks the political world is some fucking jungle you hunt Predators in. [/quote]

He’s a Kennedy now, you guys are screwed for life. At least in Arizona we are so corrupt, that even the Kennedy’s cannot infiltrate our system.

19

[quote]artw wrote:
The California voters aren’t the problem here. Most people in the state are entirely fed up with the entire political system here, and are especially fed up with Arnold. But the California legislature is such a huge juggernaut with such deep ties to every lobbyist group imaginable that it isn’t a problem that can be solved by the Governor alone.

Ironically, the gubernatorial candidate that is the furthest removal from everything that is wrong with the Cal. political system is Gavin Newsom. This is a guy who won two City Supervisor elections in a landslide and unopposed in a district with a huge Republican majority. In a very liberal city, he was by far the most conservative of all the candidates he ran against for mayor and won big because he’s shown true pragmatism and an ability to reach across partisan lines to get done what’s good for SF, not what’s good for Democrats in SF or what’s good for his political career.

He’s also managed to create a positive environment for businesses in the city while also helping to strengthen workers’ rights at the same time. Currently, he’s about to take on the entire City Council by opposing this asinine Sanctuary Law that gives sanctuary to illegal minors if arrested.

But he won’t win the governorship because he had the courage to take a stand against the constitutionalized discrimination of gays. (look up the Supreme Court ruling about equal protection laws if you think banning gay marriage isn’t unconstitutional). We’re probably going to be stuck with a total retread in Jerry Brown who comes from the same system that has driven this state into the ground. Newsom is exactly the type of political outsider that the state needs, but the entrenched system is such that he can barely get any money for his campaign from Democrats since they know he’s not likely to play ball with them. The only reason Bill Clinton is behind Newsom is because Clinton’s had a long feud with Brown. The problem isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican one; it’s a Democrat AND Republican one. [/quote]

Bankruptcy would be the best thing to happen to Cali. Let it all collapse and then rebuild from the ruins.

Of course, the dumb cattle, who want something for nothing, will then simply re-install the same old crapola, over time.

20

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how redistricting changes the inherent flaws of democracy.

It doesn’t change various factors you are concerned about but that doesn’t mean it must be useless.

Here is an example to illustrate:

Suppose a state or other political entity is comprised of 55% intelligent people with good judgment, and 45% complete parasites, gelatinous tapeworms, and solipsistic amoebas.

Now if these were homogenously distributed, in every district the voters with good judgment would prevail.

However, let’s say they are not even distributed.

And let’s say that politicians who cater to the parasites are in control of districting.

It will be fairly easy – at least if allowing lines that appear insane – to draw lines where there a majority of districts which for example are 60/40 parasites, and thus won every time by politicians who cater to them.

Let’s say for example there are a million people and there will be 100 districts.

We have a total of 550,000 persons who are responsible for themselves, and 450,000 parasites.

Let’s say we succeed in drawing 60 districts that are dominated 60/40 by parasites. This uses up 360,000 of the parasites – leaving 90,000 – and only 240,000 of the self-responsible people, leaving 310,000.

The remaining 40 districts can then be at a ratio of 310 self-responsible people to 90 parasites.

Result: the parasite-heavy districts win about 60 of the seats every election, and the low-parasite districts win only about 40 seats.

Thus accomplishing political control via districting.

Now the obvious question:

How do you know who the parasites are and where they live?[/quote]

I was explaining a general principle. I used terms I thought you might enjoy.

As to how you know where voters of given sorts live, politicians DO know which areas are rich in voters of the type that vote for them.

That’s why gerrymandering is done.