I Hate Steve Westly

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Doogie, I’m curious if you’ve turned into an Angelides hater just because I support him - dude, you can pull up a ton of dirt on just about ANYONE in this world, however, the vast majority of what you’ve posted is anti-Tsakopoulos, with an attempted inference that Phil is his lapdog or something. Dude, you couldn’t be more wrong. Whenever Phil has had a conflict of interest while serving in office, he has politely excused himself from the discussion and/or decision making process. How do I know this? BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONSISTENLY BEEN IN THOSE MEETINGS AND SEEN HIM DO IT.

Sure, plenty of people have given Phil more than $10k - this doesn’t even COMPARE to what Arnold has recieved, especially when you look at the $100,000 a plate fundraiser dinners he’s hosted, combined with the fact that he HAS NOT consistently excused himself when conflicts of interest have arisen. Furthermore, if the standard contribution limits were imposed on one’s OWN contributionss, Westly would be hard pressed to keep up with either candidate. The fact that such a large number of people have donated money to Phil’s campaign is to my mind a testament to his leadership.

Of COURSE Phil would ditch a bad investment that could end up costing him in the long run for a dollar so he wouldnt’ have to disclose it - it was a smart move, and the less bad press a candidate has during a campaign the better - wouldn’t you do the same?

All in all dude, what the FUCK does a Texas Republican have ANY interest in this at ALL for? Why are you so pro-Westly? He’s a WEASEL, and he’s got like ZERO charisma. Seriously, watch the debate betwen Phil and Steve, and you’ll know what I mean. Phil’s got better ideas, more friends and connections across the state and the nation, and the charisma to inspire the people of California. He’s a GREAT candidate.

42

[quote]hspder wrote:
Doogie:

You seem to have spent a good part of your weekend finding random blogs and newspaper articles attacking Phil.

My question is: why? What was your motivation?

Seriously, I’m curious.
[/quote]

My motivation, as stated earlier in this thread, was my general irritation with you and knewsomE.

I’m taking some online courses, so I’m stuck in front of the computer sometimes. I have a short attention span, so I sometimes have 7 or 8 firefox windows
open. A good part of my weekend, though? Google, cut, paste. It’s not that time consuming. It is kind of sad that you and knewsomE haven’t spent any time researching Angelides.

43

knewsom,

You know you barely skimmed the articles I linked to. You just want to keep your head stuck up Angelides ass.

If by “leadership” you mean “corruption”, I agree with you 100%. I can’t believe that in response to articles pointing out Angelides’ scummy nature, the best defense you had was “I know he’s honest because I know people who say he is.” Wow.

[quote]
Of COURSE Phil would ditch a bad investment that could end up costing him in the long run for a dollar so he wouldnt’ have to disclose it - it was a smart move, and the less bad press a candidate has during a campaign the better - wouldn’t you do the same?[/quote]

No. Of course I wouldn’t sell my office to the highest bidder, either. I’m funny like that.

[quote]
All in all dude, what the FUCK does a Texas Republican have ANY interest in this at ALL for? Why are you so pro-Westly? [/quote]

I’m not pro-Westly. I hope he trails Arnold by 10 million votes in the general election. I’m anti- anyone that could be supported by the California Democratic Party.

[quote]
He’s a WEASEL, and he’s got like ZERO charisma. [/quote]

Oh, now I understand. You base your voting on who gets your panties the wettest. You could of just said that up front instead of pretending there were legitimate reasons to support Angelides.

44

Simple rule for you Californians: If Nancy Pelosi likes someone or endorses someone, simply vote the other choice.

There, I just saved you all from having to wade through all the issues.

:slight_smile:

HH

45

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Simple rule for you Californians: If Nancy Pelosi likes someone or endorses someone, simply vote the other choice.

There, I just saved you all from having to wade through all the issues.

:slight_smile:

HH[/quote]

Simple rule for anyone voting anywhere:
If HeadHunter likes a candidate or is going to vote for a candidate, vote for the other choice.

There, I just saved anyone else reading this thread from ever having to think about anything ever again - all they have to do is ask your opinion and do the opposite.

:smiley: dude, you totally walked STRAIGHT into that one, you know that, right?

-K

46

[quote]doogie wrote:
You know you barely skimmed the articles I linked to. You just want to keep your head stuck up Angelides ass. [/quote]

actually, I read the parts you quoted quite thoroughly - I assume that if there was a “smoking gun” that directly implicated Angelides in a corruption scandal, you’d have quoted that portion of the article instead of the portions that claim “potential” conflicts of interest.

You won’t FIND a smoking gun because there ISNT one, because Phil IS a standup guy. I KNOW the man, and I can tell ya - he’s not a slimeball, he’s a good guy. You can find articles that slight ANY public figure - it goes with the job.

[quote]
If by “leadership” you mean “corruption”, I agree with you 100%. I can’t believe that in response to articles pointing out Angelides’ scummy nature, the best defense you had was “I know he’s honest because I know people who say he is.” Wow. [/quote]

see previous paragraph - furthermore, the people I know who have personally witnessed Phil’s consistently ethical behavior in matters of state are people I would trust with my life, and not lightly - people who simply WOULD NOT LIE to me. Besides, if they had ever seen him do anything unethical in office, they wouldn’t be working for him.

again, this is hearsay and total BS. Offer up some “real” proof of corruption on Phil’s part. Anyone who knows the man knows that Phil does what Phil thinks is right, and he has shown this consistenly through his time in office.

[quote]
I’m not pro-Westly. I hope he trails Arnold by 10 million votes in the general election. I’m anti- anyone that could be supported by the California Democratic Party. [/quote]

Then you are so inherently biased that there is little to no point to this discussion - I might as well be aruging with a wall. You’re a tool. Go secede.

[quote]
Oh, now I understand. You base your voting on who gets your panties the wettest. You could of just said that up front instead of pretending there were legitimate reasons to support Angelides.[/quote]

I’m sorry but a candidate’s ability to lead and inspire are genuinely important qualities - no, NECESSARY qualities. To do a good job in office, a leader must be able to inspire the citizens and deal with the senate/legislature.

I’d say that charisma is ONE legitamate reason to support the guy, and a MORE legitamate reason than voting for someone because they are a 'born again christian" - and don’t EVEN try to tell me that people didn’t vote for bush because he’s a “christian”! Did you know that Bush’s "
denomination" doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!?

Gee, no WONDER so many crazy hardcore bible thumpin’ evangelical so-called Christians turned out in droves to the voting booths! they were all scared shitless by their pastors that a Catholic would be president!

47

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Did you know that Bush’s "
denomination" doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!?

Gee, no WONDER so many crazy hardcore bible thumpin’ evangelical so-called Christians turned out in droves to the voting booths! they were all scared shitless by their pastors that a Catholic would be president![/quote]

Since the rest of your post can be summed up as “My friends told me he’s good”, I’ll just address this last stupid statement.

Bush is Methodist. Here’s the entry on Methodism in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:

Here’s the Vatican’s report on Methodist/Catholic relations:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030410_methodist-catholic-dialogue_en.html

Quit talking out of your ass.

48

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Simple rule for you Californians: If Nancy Pelosi likes someone or endorses someone, simply vote the other choice.

There, I just saved you all from having to wade through all the issues.

:slight_smile:

HH

Simple rule for anyone voting anywhere:
If HeadHunter likes a candidate or is going to vote for a candidate, vote for the other choice.

There, I just saved anyone else reading this thread from ever having to think about anything ever again - all they have to do is ask your opinion and do the opposite.

:smiley: dude, you totally walked STRAIGHT into that one, you know that, right?

-K[/quote]

You stole my idea and somehow I walked into something?

Ah, the libs! Libs are like a horny little dog that just keeps wanting to go after your leg.

49

[quote]doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Did you know that Bush’s "
denomination" doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!?

Gee, no WONDER so many crazy hardcore bible thumpin’ evangelical so-called Christians turned out in droves to the voting booths! they were all scared shitless by their pastors that a Catholic would be president!

Since the rest of your post can be summed up as “My friends told me he’s good”, I’ll just address this last stupid statement.

Bush is Methodist. Here’s the entry on Methodism in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:

Here’s the Vatican’s report on Methodist/Catholic relations:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030410_methodist-catholic-dialogue_en.html

Quit talking out of your ass.[/quote]

It makes more sense than what comes out of his mouth.

It is so much fun to watch the libs unravel in this thread! It won’t change them (that requires thought) but it was fun nonetheless.

50

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_128162744.html

Phil Angelides up Ten POINTS in the latest poll, with only 11% of voters undecided.

51

[quote]doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Did you know that Bush’s "
denomination" doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!?

Gee, no WONDER so many crazy hardcore bible thumpin’ evangelical so-called Christians turned out in droves to the voting booths! they were all scared shitless by their pastors that a Catholic would be president!

Since the rest of your post can be summed up as “My friends told me he’s good”, I’ll just address this last stupid statement.

Bush is Methodist. Here’s the entry on Methodism in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:

Here’s the Vatican’s report on Methodist/Catholic relations:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030410_methodist-catholic-dialogue_en.html

Quit talking out of your ass.[/quote]

DUDE, next time read my post. I didn’t say ANYTHING about what the Catholics think of Methoodists. You are so off base it’s not even funny anymore.

Had you produced reputable sources with any real evidence of corruption I would seriously consider my support for Phil, but seeing as all you showed me was based soley on conjecture in DISTINCTLY EDITORIAL PIECES, I’m inclined to believe the personal accounts of his conduct that I’ve heard.

HH, quit acting like Salacious Crumb over there - it’s really rediculous.

52

[quote]knewsom wrote:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_128162744.html

Phil Angelides up Ten POINTS in the latest poll, with only 11% of voters undecided.[/quote]

"
SurveyUSA found Angelides does best among liberal voters and in the Bay Area.
"

… which, not coincidentally, is the place (SF Bay Area) Westly is from and where the most people know him…

This is one of those times where I truly feel that there’s no place on the planet I’d rather live in… Stanford just couldn’t be anywhere else.

I’m sorry, my colleagues and I have to go celebrate now. :wink:

53

[quote]knewsom wrote:
HH, quit acting like Salacious Crumb over there[/quote]

ROTFLMAO! :smiley:

54

[quote]knewsom wrote:

Did you know that Bush’s "
denomination" doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!?

Gee, no WONDER so many crazy hardcore bible thumpin’ evangelical so-called Christians turned out in droves to the voting booths! they were all scared shitless by their pastors that a Catholic would be president!

doogie wrote:
Since the rest of your post can be summed up as “My friends told me he’s good”, I’ll just address this last stupid statement.

Bush is Methodist. Here’s the entry on Methodism in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:

Here’s the Vatican’s report on Methodist/Catholic relations:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030410_methodist-catholic-dialogue_en.html

Quit talking out of your ass.

knewsom wrote:
DUDE, next time read my post. I didn’t say ANYTHING about what the Catholics think of Methoodists. You are so off base it’s not even funny anymore.
[/quote]

You are full of shit. Show me any official Methodist writing or official that says Catholicism is not a form of Christianity. Clearly, Catholics don’t think Methodists have a problem with them.

55

Wow. I can hardly believe the silly fight picking and poo flinging I’m seeing going on in this thread.

What the posts do appear show is the normal political smear campaign apparently under way, attempting to make issues where there are none.

56

Doogie, I was referring to the Evangelical Christian Churches (as far as I know, they don’t all fall under one big huge “Methodist” umbrellea - I get the impression that there are a lot of loose organizations and entirely independent churches that are called “Evagelical”), not to the Methodist Church, and I was not necessarily speaking to their official stance/dogma, but how these “Christians” refer to Catholics - not as fellow Christians, but Catholics; they make a VERY clear distinction, and I have heard quite a few of them say, “no, they’re Catholics, not Christians, WE’RE Christians”. They like to try and use the general term of “Christianity” to apply to their narrow portait of the faith.

I have also gotten the impression from a number of Mormons that their preists indirectly instructed them to vote for Bush. I’m not saying this is a huge conspiracy and that it happened everywhere, but I AM saying that it happened, despite being specifically noted as ILLEGAL in the Constitution.

Remember, this idea of faith dictating who to vote for was once used as a discriminatory argument against Irish immigrants in an attempt to prevent them from voting, giving the excuse, “the pope will tell them how to vote”.

57

[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow. I can hardly believe the silly fight picking and poo flinging I’m seeing going on in this thread.

What the posts do appear show is the normal political smear campaign apparently under way, attempting to make issues where there are none.[/quote]

I’ll never understand what causes you to make effeminate posts like this over and over again, year after year. Maybe it’s because you’re Canadian, maybe because you weren’t breast-fed long enough. Whatever it is, it needs to stop. Therefore, I’m going to clue you in on something.

Smearing people and making issues where there are none are THE VERY PURPOSES of political threads. Repeat that to yourself a few times.

If you’ve spent any amount of time researching a candidate or issue before forming your opinion, there should be no way in hell that you log onto this forum and end up changing your mind based on something some anonymous goofball posts. If you (rather than reading newspapers, watching the news, or reading magazines) come to an internet forum on a “bodybuilding” website to actually make up your mind on political issues, you are totally fucked.

These threads are for arguing. Some douchebags like to pretend they are unbiased and above the fray. If that is an accurate description of them, then they are passionless eunuchs who have no business being here in the first place.

I hope this clears things up for you.

58

[quote]doogie wrote:
Smearing people and making issues where there are none are THE VERY PURPOSES of political threads. Repeat that to yourself a few times.

If you’ve spent any amount of time researching a candidate or issue before forming your opinion, there should be no way in hell that you log onto this forum and end up changing your mind based on something some anonymous goofball posts. If you (rather than reading newspapers, watching the news, or reading magazines) come to an internet forum on a “bodybuilding” website to actually make up your mind on political issues, you are totally fucked.

These threads are for arguing. Some douchebags like to pretend they are unbiased and above the fray. If that is an accurate description of them, then they are passionless eunuchs who have no business being here in the first place.

I hope this clears things up for you. [/quote]

LOL… and some people have made learning a lifelong habit which requires them to look at things, think about them and try not to make up their mind before they do so.

However, I’ll disagree about the politics forums existing simply for the purpose of fighting about things. This is simply an extension of the political landscape, and that is part of the problem.

So, basically, you are arguing that we are all supposed to be swift-boating the other candidates full time to see who can sink the opposition faster.

What a twisted little political world you are going to end up with… or already have. It may be what works, but that doesn’t make it right or good for your country.

Anyhow, I do know you are just trying to get my goat, and I’m not biting.

59

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Doogie, I was referring to the Evangelical Christian Churches (as far as I know, they don’t all fall under one big huge “Methodist” umbrellea - I get the impression that there are a lot of loose organizations and entirely independent churches that are called “Evagelical”), not to the Methodist Church, and I was not necessarily speaking to their official stance/dogma, but how these “Christians” refer to Catholics - not as fellow Christians, but Catholics; they make a VERY clear distinction, and I have heard quite a few of them say, “no, they’re Catholics, not Christians, WE’RE Christians”. They like to try and use the general term of “Christianity” to apply to their narrow portait of the faith.[/quote]

You back-pedal more than anyone I’ve ever seen. First you say you were in the Marines. Then you say it was your friend who was is in the Marines, not you.

Now you specifically wrote:

[quote]
Did you know that Bush’s “denomination” doesn’t even regard Catholicism as a form of Christianity!? [/quote]

If you are too ignorant to know what a denomination is, don’t use the damn word.

Bush’s denomination is Methodist. Methodists do not think Catholics aren’t Christians. You are a spineless liar.

What the bloody fuck does that have to do with the lie you told about Bush and Methodists?

You got an “impression” from some Mormons that a “number” of their priests “indirectly” instructed them to vote for Bush? I can’t believe you wrote such stupid shit.

“I heard from some guy that he heard that this other dude knows someone who has a cousin that went to junior high with a girl who…” SHUT THE FUCK UP with your “my friends say” and your “I got the impression” bullshit.

Do you think if you went to a Black church in Harlem the preacher might not “indirectly” instruct the congregation to vote for democrats?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200309\NAT20030918a.html

This site has a lot of articles on churches from both sides getting whacked by the IRS for endorsing or criticizing candidates:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=14127

[quote]
Remember, this idea of faith dictating who to vote for was once used as a discriminatory argument against Irish immigrants in an attempt to prevent them from voting, giving the excuse, “the pope will tell them how to vote”.[/quote]

It was used against Kennedy, too. It’s also probably not a coincidence that we’ve never had a Jewish president.

Again, what the bloody fuck does that have to do with you making up lies about an entire Christian denomination?

60

[quote]vroom wrote:

LOL… and some people have made learning a lifelong habit which requires them to look at things, think about them and try not to make up their mind before they do so.
[/quote]

Absolutely. Read books, newspapers, magazines. Watch the news. Think about things before you make up your mind. DON’T, however, let the deciding factor be some zit-backed 'roid user on an internet forum.

[quote]
However, I’ll disagree about the politics forums existing simply for the purpose of fighting about things. This is simply an extension of the political landscape, and that is part of the problem.[/quote]

Which is it? Do you disagree that the politics forums exists simply for the purpose of fighting about things, or do you think this is simply an extension of the political landscape?

[quote]
So, basically, you are arguing that we are all supposed to be swift-boating the other candidates full time to see who can sink the opposition faster.[/quote]

Yes. It would be sad if it were anything else. Again, people should not be making up their minds about issues or candidates based on threads on a bodybuilding website.

[quote]
What a twisted little political world you are going to end up with… or already have. It may be what works, but that doesn’t make it right or good for your country.[/quote]

It is reality, and it’s not any sadder than living in a fantasy land of lolipops and leprechauns.

[quote]
Anyhow, I do know you are just trying to get my goat, and I’m not biting.[/quote]

Maybe. Or maybe I meant every word of it.