Trying to find best price in USA for Delta's new X5 bandsaw...I've already Googled plenty...

Andy Barss notes:

>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>: ah, Hal? All politicians lie! At least Arnold won't have to cater to
>: special interest groups like frickin' Davis. And I'm not particularly
>: concerned with his past life. If he can get the state back on track,
>: he's good enough for me.
>
>With his vast experience in politics he looks like a sure-fire
>winner to me.

He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to straighten
things out, but he says he wants to change things.

No wonder Bustamente is in front.

Another great reason for avoiding CA, along with the crowds.

Charlie Self

"He hasn't an enemy in the world - but all his friends hate him."
Eddie Cantor

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> :Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
> : Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.
>
>
> Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?
>
> - Andy Barss
>

Just a guess here Andy, but I'll bet if a Republican candidate was
associated with an organization that made some similar outrageous claim
and refused to distance himself from that organization, you wouldn't be
demanding a quote from that candidate -- the association would be
sufficient. Heck, even if he distanced, disassociated, renounced and
repented from such association, that wouldn't be enough for you. But
since Bustamante has a (D) behind his name, it don't matter. Robert
Byrd's past association with the KKK is probably alright with you too,
can't imagine what you'd have said had it been Trent Lott associate with
that organization, whether he later denounced it or not.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Andy Barss notes:
>
> :>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>: ah, Hal? All politicians lie! At least Arnold won't have to cater to
> :>: special interest groups like frickin' Davis. And I'm not particularly
> :>: concerned with his past life. If he can get the state back on track,
> :>: he's good enough for me.
> :>
> :>With his vast experience in politics he looks like a sure-fire
> :>winner to me.
>
> : He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to straighten
> : things out, but he says he wants to change things.
>
> I really don't understand why the recall is so popular. Aside
> from the fact that recall elections are supposed to be limited to
> situations where the existing office holder is either
> (a) insane or (b) guilty of a crime (neither of which apply to Davis),
> he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8 bilion
> dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).
>
> The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
> the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy. None of
> which are Davis' fault.
>
>

So providing health care and free education as well as other welfare
benefits to illegal aliens (and pushing for more such programs) didn't
have anything to do with exacerbating California's financial problems?
California has the second highest tax rate among the states and its love
for regulations continues to drive businesses from the state, further
eroding the tax base, leaving less and less people to pay more and more
taxes to support the non-productive in that state.

Fact is, in California, illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuiton
while legal aliens and non-state residents pay out-of-state and foreign
tuition rates exhorbitantly higher than in-state tuition. i.e.,
breaking the law pays big time.

As far as that "made-up" electrical crisis, don't you think the fact
that no new generating plants have been built in CA in decades, nor have
any new transmission lines been built because of the howls of protest
from environmentalists when anything like that is proposed, could have
had just a teeny-little bit to do with that crisis? Especially since
several generators had been taken off-line for maintenance at the time.
Certainly the "deals" Grey-out Davis made with the various energy
companies during that crisis compounded California's financial problems.


> Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
> last election) do the Republicans think this is a
> sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
> fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
>

Careful Andy. Don't bet him he can't. You may end up loosing that bet like
the one you lost to me (and promptly welched on).
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> :Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
> : Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.
>
>
> Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?
>
> - Andy Barss

Hello

I have two questions, first, why are you posting this on a woodworking
bbs and secondly what has it got to do with everyone who doesn't live in CA?
If you want to talk politics, Join rec.ca.politics and leave it off of this
board.

Brandon Greenwood



"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew,
>
> The way you can twist and pervert facts. I stand in amazement. 4% may
have
> signed a petition, but please, look at the polls (since YOU bring them up,
> not I). Even the Times poll, the most in his favor, shows the recall vote
> at more than 5% higher than the non-recall vote, and most other polls are
> about 60-40 or better for recall. Right, the election isn't today, so he
> still has some time to buy back some of these votes.
>
> You refer to the recall as a "case of Republicans finding a loophole in an
> old law and exploiting it." How is it a loophole. It is the law, it's
not
> a loophole. If it is such a poor law (evidently your opinion, not mine)
and
> it's been on the books for over 90 years, why haven't you fought to change
> or repeal it? Why haven't others? It's been said by some that the law
has
> never been used before, but this, too, is false. The recall law has been
> used before, it's just that this is the first time it has successfully
> gotten the required number of signatures. So please, don't even try to
> refer to it as some loophole.
>
>
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > :The
> > : California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the
> man.
> >
> > Well, at least about four percent have. My understanding is that you
> > could get 4% of the California population to sign any number of things,
> > including a petition to make tofu the offical food of the state.
> >
> >
> > A fairer way to do a recall would be to poll X number of randomly
> > chosen people, and find that a majority of them favor a recall. Nothing
> > of the sort was done in this case. A rich Republican with a criminal
> > history paid a lot of professionals to go door to door until they
> > collected the 900,000 signatures required by a 90-year-old (at which
time
> > this number of people would have constituted a vastly larger proportion
of
> > CA residents) law.
> >
> > This is a classic, but all too common, case of Republicans finding a
> > loophole in an old law and exploiting it, all the time claiming the
moral
> > high ground. Clever, but dicks nonetheless.
> >
> > -- Andy Barss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The fact that he hid the books during the election and the voters only
> found
> > : out after the last election the scope of the defecit had a major part.
> >
> > :> he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8
> bilion
> > :> dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).
> > :>
> > : He has reduced NOTHING!All the budget deal has done is shift the debt
to
> > : next year with some to the year after that. What I want, and many
other
> > : Californians as well, is a reduction in the spending. Davis (nor
> > : Bustamante) wants to reduce spending, their only plan is to raise
taxes.
> >
> >
> > :> The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
> > :> the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy.
None
> of
> > :> which are Davis' fault.
> > :>
> > : While these factors play a part you also must figure in the fact that
> > : revenue coming into the state (even after figuring in inflation and
> > : population growth) increased by 24%, yet spending increased by 40%.
The
> > : amazing factor was how much speding correlated with making large
> campaign
> > : contributions. Ask the prison guards union. Davis could be bought
for
> > : other purposes as well. Research about the dumping of dioxins (sp?)
in
> SF
> > : Bay that he authorized after a significant campaign contribution. He
> had
> > : disallowed the dumping before the contribution, but stangely permitted
> it
> > : after. The best politician money can buy!
> > :>
> > :> Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
> > :> last election) do the Republicans think this is a
> > :> sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
> > :> fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?
> > :>
> > : If a CEO of CFO of a major business was responsible for turning an
$11B
> > : surplus to a $38B defecit in four short years you know he would be
fired
> by
> > : the Board of Directors. We, the people, are attempting to fire him.
> >
> > : As for Arnold I can only think of two reasons for voting for him:
> > : 1. He ain't Davis
> > : 2. He ain't Bustamante
> >
> > : Arnold is not my first choice, but I will vote for the leader among
the
> > : group of him, Uberoth or McClintock.
> >
> > : Glen
> >
> > :>
> > :> -- Andy Barss
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > Andy Barss
> > Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
> > Douglass 208, 626-3284
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> >
>
>

A google search shows precisely one posting from that name, since 1982
(or thereabouts - whatever the default). So, he either swooped in to
the wRECk for a one shot posting, or he's been lurking. Since's he's
complaining about the off topic-ness, I'm assuming he's been lurking
and reading about ww'g related matters, or that he's a troll. OTOH,
given the number of times we stray from our topic, I have to wonder
how long he has been lurking.

Renata

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:03:24 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
wrote:

>if he's always in lurk mode, how do you know how long he's been here?
>
>dave
>
>Renata wrote:
>
>> This ain't a bbs.
>> You haven't been here long enough, so go back to lurk mode and watch a
>> while.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:22:18 -0500, "Brandon Greenwood"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello
>>>
>>> I have two questions, first, why are you posting this on a woodworking
>>>bbs and secondly what has it got to do with everyone who doesn't live in CA?
>>>If you want to talk politics, Join rec.ca.politics and leave it off of this
>>>board.
>>>
>>> Brandon Greenwood
>>>
>>
>>
>

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:22:17 GMT, "Glen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>As for Arnold I can only think of two reasons for voting for him:
>1. He ain't Davis
>2. He ain't Bustamante
>
>Arnold is not my first choice, but I will vote for the leader among the
>group of him, Uberoth or McClintock.

We should not allow anyone to run for office who was not born to
American citizens. When are we gonna learn.


Hope you had a nice Labor Day weekend...

Trent


Proud member of the Roy Rogers fan club!

Bustamente...now there's a guy who supports a special interest group!
Can you figure out what the group is???

dave

Charlie Self wrote:

> Andy Barss notes:
>
>
>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>: ah, Hal? All politicians lie! At least Arnold won't have to cater to
>>: special interest groups like frickin' Davis. And I'm not particularly
>>: concerned with his past life. If he can get the state back on track,
>>: he's good enough for me.
>>
>>With his vast experience in politics he looks like a sure-fire
>>winner to me.
>
>
> He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to straighten
> things out, but he says he wants to change things.
>
> No wonder Bustamente is in front.
>
> Another great reason for avoiding CA, along with the crowds.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "He hasn't an enemy in the world - but all his friends hate him."
> Eddie Cantor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Andrew,
>
... snip
>
> You refer to the recall as a "case of Republicans finding a loophole in an
> old law and exploiting it." How is it a loophole. It is the law, it's not
> a loophole. If it is such a poor law (evidently your opinion, not mine) and
> it's been on the books for over 90 years, why haven't you fought to change
> or repeal it? Why haven't others? It's been said by some that the law has
> never been used before, but this, too, is false. The recall law has been
> used before, it's just that this is the first time it has successfully
> gotten the required number of signatures. So please, don't even try to
> refer to it as some loophole.
>

Wanna bet that Andy found no issues with the New Jersey senatorial
election when the dems got the NJ supreme court to *ignore* a clearly
written law saying that the ballot could not be changed N (90?) days
before the election? All this of course was in order to allow
Torricelli to withdraw and Lautenberg to sub. The rationale for the
lawsuit? While the law stated what could happen beyond the 90 days, it
meant that injunctive relief needed to be sought within that 90 day
window. Talk about your weasel-worded rationale: i.e. we're democrats,
we control this state, just because the law explicitly states we can't
do such and such, if we don't do such and such we will no longer be in
control of this state and that is not in the natural order of things,
therefore the law must be wrong.

California on the other hand, all legal requirements for recall were
followed, no loopholes or other weaseling was done. Recalls were
attempted in the past against Reagan and IIRC Wilson and never were able
to collect the required signatures.


>
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > :The
> > : California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the
> man.
> >
> > Well, at least about four percent have. My understanding is that you
> > could get 4% of the California population to sign any number of things,
> > including a petition to make tofu the offical food of the state.
> >
> >
> > A fairer way to do a recall would be to poll X number of randomly
> > chosen people, and find that a majority of them favor a recall. Nothing
> > of the sort was done in this case. A rich Republican with a criminal
> > history paid a lot of professionals to go door to door until they
> > collected the 900,000 signatures required by a 90-year-old (at which time
> > this number of people would have constituted a vastly larger proportion of
> > CA residents) law.
> >
> > This is a classic, but all too common, case of Republicans finding a
> > loophole in an old law and exploiting it, all the time claiming the moral
> > high ground. Clever, but dicks nonetheless.
> >
> > -- Andy Barss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Careful Andy. Don't bet him he can't. You may end up loosing that bet like
> : the one you lost to me (and promptly welched on).
>
>
> You're embarrasing yourrself with this tired rant. For those of you
> interested (and, frankly, you all have better ways to spend your time),
> the thread in question begins at:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?q=%2450++%22Andy+Barss%22+group:rec.woodworking&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=97n605%245tq%241%40news.ccit.arizona.edu&rnum=1
>
> I issued a challenge to CW, to find a quote that Al Gore claimed that he
> had "invented the internet".
>
> Mark and/or Juanita replied, with a quote from Gore that, IMHO, simply
> means he correctly takes credit for introducing pro-Intenet legislation in
> the Senate (anyone who construed that quote as literally meaning he takes
> claim for inventing the technology of the internet is either a complete
> idiot, an unprincipled Republican, or both).
>
> CW's contribution? I quote his or her post in its entirety:
>
> "That would probably be a fair assumption"
>
> What was the fair assumption? As stated in Juanita's post, that
> I'm a delusional Democrat.
>
> CW didn't exactly meeting my challenge. At best, he or she
> expressed a wussy "me too" to a largely off-topic and defamatory post.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

Well Andy I have no dog in this fight, but I went to the thread that
you posted via google and found the following post from CW:

Message 28 in thread
From: CW ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Al Gore, Woodcarver?


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Date: 2001-03-01 21:38:05 PST


Do you have Real Audio? Try this.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/gore0312/segment1.ram

--
CW
KC7NOD

It would appear from that that he did indeed meet your challenge by
giving a link to a quote from Al Gore claimimg to have taken the
initiative in "creating the internet". "creating" vs. "inventing" I
guess is your call.

BTW, while you may feel that Al got a raw deal for this tongue slip,
Dan Quayle got much worse for correctly spelling potatoe.

Dave Hall

Andrew,

The way you can twist and pervert facts. I stand in amazement. 4% may have
signed a petition, but please, look at the polls (since YOU bring them up,
not I). Even the Times poll, the most in his favor, shows the recall vote
at more than 5% higher than the non-recall vote, and most other polls are
about 60-40 or better for recall. Right, the election isn't today, so he
still has some time to buy back some of these votes.

You refer to the recall as a "case of Republicans finding a loophole in an
old law and exploiting it." How is it a loophole. It is the law, it's not
a loophole. If it is such a poor law (evidently your opinion, not mine) and
it's been on the books for over 90 years, why haven't you fought to change
or repeal it? Why haven't others? It's been said by some that the law has
never been used before, but this, too, is false. The recall law has been
used before, it's just that this is the first time it has successfully
gotten the required number of signatures. So please, don't even try to
refer to it as some loophole.


"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> :The
> : California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the
man.
>
> Well, at least about four percent have. My understanding is that you
> could get 4% of the California population to sign any number of things,
> including a petition to make tofu the offical food of the state.
>
>
> A fairer way to do a recall would be to poll X number of randomly
> chosen people, and find that a majority of them favor a recall. Nothing
> of the sort was done in this case. A rich Republican with a criminal
> history paid a lot of professionals to go door to door until they
> collected the 900,000 signatures required by a 90-year-old (at which time
> this number of people would have constituted a vastly larger proportion of
> CA residents) law.
>
> This is a classic, but all too common, case of Republicans finding a
> loophole in an old law and exploiting it, all the time claiming the moral
> high ground. Clever, but dicks nonetheless.
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The fact that he hid the books during the election and the voters only
found
> : out after the last election the scope of the defecit had a major part.
>
> :> he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8
bilion
> :> dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).
> :>
> : He has reduced NOTHING!All the budget deal has done is shift the debt to
> : next year with some to the year after that. What I want, and many other
> : Californians as well, is a reduction in the spending. Davis (nor
> : Bustamante) wants to reduce spending, their only plan is to raise taxes.
>
>
> :> The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
> :> the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy. None
of
> :> which are Davis' fault.
> :>
> : While these factors play a part you also must figure in the fact that
> : revenue coming into the state (even after figuring in inflation and
> : population growth) increased by 24%, yet spending increased by 40%. The
> : amazing factor was how much speding correlated with making large
campaign
> : contributions. Ask the prison guards union. Davis could be bought for
> : other purposes as well. Research about the dumping of dioxins (sp?) in
SF
> : Bay that he authorized after a significant campaign contribution. He
had
> : disallowed the dumping before the contribution, but stangely permitted
it
> : after. The best politician money can buy!
> :>
> :> Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
> :> last election) do the Republicans think this is a
> :> sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
> :> fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?
> :>
> : If a CEO of CFO of a major business was responsible for turning an $11B
> : surplus to a $38B defecit in four short years you know he would be fired
by
> : the Board of Directors. We, the people, are attempting to fire him.
>
> : As for Arnold I can only think of two reasons for voting for him:
> : 1. He ain't Davis
> : 2. He ain't Bustamante
>
> : Arnold is not my first choice, but I will vote for the leader among the
> : group of him, Uberoth or McClintock.
>
> : Glen
>
> :>
> :> -- Andy Barss
>
>
>
> --
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Andy Barss
> Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
> Douglass 208, 626-3284
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>

"Dennis [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to
> straighten
> > things out, but he says he wants to change things.
> >
> > No wonder Bustamente is in front.
> >
> > Another great reason for avoiding CA, along with the crowds.
>
> Hey, don't be so hard on Ahhnald. After all, his father died
> in a Nazi prison camp in WW II. Yeah, really. He fell out
> of a guard tower.
>
> Dennis Vogel

It's pretty amusing when this is the big bombshell that the libs were
talking about. Oooh, his father might have been a Nazi. Never mind that
Arnold donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Simon Wiesenthal
Center and helped raise millions more. That's big news. But having a real
Klansman like Robert Byrd in the Senate, that's fine. 'Cause he's real
sorry. Somehow I've missed Cybil Shepard with her undies in a knot over
that.

todd

"Andrew Barss" wrote:
(With snips)
> I really don't understand why the recall is so popular. Aside
> from the fact that recall elections are supposed to be limited to
> situations where the existing office holder is either
> (a) insane or (b) guilty of a crime (neither of which apply to Davis),

Where in the law does it say this? The recall law mentions nothing about
criminality (which would be impeachment, not recall) nor insanity. The
California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the man.
The fact that he hid the books during the election and the voters only found
out after the last election the scope of the defecit had a major part.

> he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8 bilion
> dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).
>
He has reduced NOTHING!All the budget deal has done is shift the debt to
next year with some to the year after that. What I want, and many other
Californians as well, is a reduction in the spending. Davis (nor
Bustamante) wants to reduce spending, their only plan is to raise taxes.


> The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
> the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy. None of
> which are Davis' fault.
>
While these factors play a part you also must figure in the fact that
revenue coming into the state (even after figuring in inflation and
population growth) increased by 24%, yet spending increased by 40%. The
amazing factor was how much speding correlated with making large campaign
contributions. Ask the prison guards union. Davis could be bought for
other purposes as well. Research about the dumping of dioxins (sp?) in SF
Bay that he authorized after a significant campaign contribution. He had
disallowed the dumping before the contribution, but stangely permitted it
after. The best politician money can buy!
>
> Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
> last election) do the Republicans think this is a
> sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
> fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?
>
If a CEO of CFO of a major business was responsible for turning an $11B
surplus to a $38B defecit in four short years you know he would be fired by
the Board of Directors. We, the people, are attempting to fire him.

As for Arnold I can only think of two reasons for voting for him:
1. He ain't Davis
2. He ain't Bustamante

Arnold is not my first choice, but I will vote for the leader among the
group of him, Uberoth or McClintock.

Glen

>
> -- Andy Barss

It works both ways Andy. BTW, where is that $50.00 you owe me?
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> :The
> : California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the
man.
>
> Well, at least about four percent have. My understanding is that you
> could get 4% of the California population to sign any number of things,
> including a petition to make tofu the offical food of the state.
>
>
> A fairer way to do a recall would be to poll X number of randomly
> chosen people, and find that a majority of them favor a recall. Nothing
> of the sort was done in this case. A rich Republican with a criminal
> history paid a lot of professionals to go door to door until they
> collected the 900,000 signatures required by a 90-year-old (at which time
> this number of people would have constituted a vastly larger proportion of
> CA residents) law.
>
> This is a classic, but all too common, case of Republicans finding a
> loophole in an old law and exploiting it, all the time claiming the moral
> high ground. Clever, but dicks nonetheless.
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Anybody remember which side Joe Kennedy took in the 30's?

Yep -- not ours.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
: Andy Barss notes:

:>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
:>: ah, Hal? All politicians lie! At least Arnold won't have to cater to
:>: special interest groups like frickin' Davis. And I'm not particularly
:>: concerned with his past life. If he can get the state back on track,
:>: he's good enough for me.
:>
:>With his vast experience in politics he looks like a sure-fire
:>winner to me.

: He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to straighten
: things out, but he says he wants to change things.

I really don't understand why the recall is so popular. Aside
from the fact that recall elections are supposed to be limited to
situations where the existing office holder is either
(a) insane or (b) guilty of a crime (neither of which apply to Davis),
he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8 bilion
dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).

The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy. None of
which are Davis' fault.


Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
last election) do the Republicans think this is a
sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?


-- Andy Barss

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

: So providing health care and free education as well as other welfare
: benefits to illegal aliens (and pushing for more such programs) didn't
: have anything to do with exacerbating California's financial problems?

And David did this alone? Does the governor really have such
power, or is the legislative wing involved?

: California has the second highest tax rate among the states

What type of tax? Wages? Income? Real Estate? Corporate?
Such a broad statement is meaningless.

: and its love
: for regulations


I think you mean "the love its residents have for regulations, so that
they elect governmental officers to enact them". So,
Davis does what the majority of CA residents want, and that's reason for
firing him? Jeez, whatever happened to Democracy?

: Fact is, in California, illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuiton

So, ELECT PEOPLE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHO SIDE WITH YOUR VIEWS.
That didn't work? Wait for the next damn election. No do-overs.
Work harder next time, don't try to exploit loopholes in
election law.


: As far as that "made-up" electrical crisis, don't you think the fact
: that no new generating plants have been built in CA in decades, nor have
: any new transmission lines been built because of the howls of protest
: from environmentalists when anything like that is proposed, could have
: had just a teeny-little bit to do with that crisis?

You know, Mark, I never thought about it that way, but you're right.
Davis should have been building more electrical plants and power lines
for the last 30 years. Oh, wait a minute: Davis isn't a utility company!
Never mind!

Especially since
: several generators had been taken off-line for maintenance at the time.

At the executive order of the governor, no doubt. (If not, then lay
the blame where it belongs: with the power companies.)

Face it, the GOP in california saw a chance to
redo the past election, and went forward with it,
to the point that it's a national joke. They can't
win a real election, so resort to this sort of lunacy.

What a bunch of losers.


-- Andy Barss

Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
:The
: California voters (or a god percentage thereof) have lost faith in the man.

Well, at least about four percent have. My understanding is that you
could get 4% of the California population to sign any number of things,
including a petition to make tofu the offical food of the state.


A fairer way to do a recall would be to poll X number of randomly
chosen people, and find that a majority of them favor a recall. Nothing
of the sort was done in this case. A rich Republican with a criminal
history paid a lot of professionals to go door to door until they
collected the 900,000 signatures required by a 90-year-old (at which time
this number of people would have constituted a vastly larger proportion of
CA residents) law.

This is a classic, but all too common, case of Republicans finding a
loophole in an old law and exploiting it, all the time claiming the moral
high ground. Clever, but dicks nonetheless.

-- Andy Barss






The fact that he hid the books during the election and the voters only found
: out after the last election the scope of the defecit had a major part.

:> he's reduced the deficit from 38 billion dollars to a projected 8 bilion
:> dollars (a reduction of over 3/4ths).
:>
: He has reduced NOTHING!All the budget deal has done is shift the debt to
: next year with some to the year after that. What I want, and many other
: Californians as well, is a reduction in the spending. Davis (nor
: Bustamante) wants to reduce spending, their only plan is to raise taxes.


:> The deficit was caused by the made-up electrical crisis last year,
:> the dot.com collapse, and the impacts of a weak national economy. None of
:> which are Davis' fault.
:>
: While these factors play a part you also must figure in the fact that
: revenue coming into the state (even after figuring in inflation and
: population growth) increased by 24%, yet spending increased by 40%. The
: amazing factor was how much speding correlated with making large campaign
: contributions. Ask the prison guards union. Davis could be bought for
: other purposes as well. Research about the dumping of dioxins (sp?) in SF
: Bay that he authorized after a significant campaign contribution. He had
: disallowed the dumping before the contribution, but stangely permitted it
: after. The best politician money can buy!
:>
:> Why (tother than a childish desire for revenge for losing the
:> last election) do the Republicans think this is a
:> sensible thing to do? And why do so many CA residents
:> fall for the scam the GOP is pulling here?
:>
: If a CEO of CFO of a major business was responsible for turning an $11B
: surplus to a $38B defecit in four short years you know he would be fired by
: the Board of Directors. We, the people, are attempting to fire him.

: As for Arnold I can only think of two reasons for voting for him:
: 1. He ain't Davis
: 2. He ain't Bustamante

: Arnold is not my first choice, but I will vote for the leader among the
: group of him, Uberoth or McClintock.

: Glen

:>
:> -- Andy Barss



--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
: Is that anything like turing a ~200 Billion dollar surplus into a $480
: Billion dollar deficit, and repeating an equal sized deficit for many
: years?


Of course not! The difference is that the Republican (Bush)
gets credit for the deficit, while the Democrat gets
nailed for reducing his state's.


You see, when the GOP overspends, it's a good thing, since it returns
money to rich people. When a Democrat
increases a surplus, or decreases a deficit, it's a sign he's
a crook. Basic economics!


-- Andy Barss

Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
:Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
: Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.


Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?

- Andy Barss

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to
straighten
> things out, but he says he wants to change things.
>
> No wonder Bustamente is in front.
>
> Another great reason for avoiding CA, along with the crowds.

Hey, don't be so hard on Ahhnald. After all, his father died
in a Nazi prison camp in WW II. Yeah, really. He fell out
of a guard tower.

Dennis Vogel

CW <[email protected]> wrote:
: Careful Andy. Don't bet him he can't. You may end up loosing that bet like
: the one you lost to me (and promptly welched on).


You're embarrasing yourrself with this tired rant. For those of you
interested (and, frankly, you all have better ways to spend your time),
the thread in question begins at:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=%2450++%22Andy+Barss%22+group:rec.woodworking&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=97n605%245tq%241%40news.ccit.arizona.edu&rnum=1

I issued a challenge to CW, to find a quote that Al Gore claimed that he
had "invented the internet".

Mark and/or Juanita replied, with a quote from Gore that, IMHO, simply
means he correctly takes credit for introducing pro-Intenet legislation in
the Senate (anyone who construed that quote as literally meaning he takes
claim for inventing the technology of the internet is either a complete
idiot, an unprincipled Republican, or both).

CW's contribution? I quote his or her post in its entirety:

"That would probably be a fair assumption"

What was the fair assumption? As stated in Juanita's post, that
I'm a delusional Democrat.

CW didn't exactly meeting my challenge. At best, he or she
expressed a wussy "me too" to a largely off-topic and defamatory post.


-- Andy Barss





: "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
:> Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
:> :Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
:> : Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.
:>
:>
:> Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?
:>
:> - Andy Barss



--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?
:>
:> - Andy Barss
:>

: Just a guess here Andy

Well, you'd be wrong there, Juanita.

, but I'll bet if a Republican candidate was
: associated with an organization that made some similar outrageous claim
: and refused to distance himself from that organization, you wouldn't be
: demanding a quote from that candidate -- the association would be
: sufficient.

Why do you think I would think that?

Do you suppose I think you'd excuse behavior in a Republican that you
wouldn't excuse in a Democrat or Independent?

Why do you assume I'm a Democrat? I'm actually a registered Independent,
and have voted Republican in a number of elections.


Heck, even if he distanced, disassociated, renounced and
: repented from such association, that wouldn't be enough for you. But
: since Bustamante has a (D) behind his name, it don't matter.

You're ranting here, lassie!

Robert
: Byrd's past association with the KKK is probably alright with you too,

I think anyone who has a past association with a reprehensible group is
reprehensible. As should everyone.

I also believe people can change, although much less frequently than one
would hope.


: can't imagine what you'd have said had it been Trent Lott associate with
: that organization, whether he later denounced it or not.


Well, Juanita, I think Byrd and Lott have a lot to answer to. Don't you?


As to Bustamente, I asked my question in what I thought was a neutral
fashion. Let me clarify. All I know about the guy is (a) he's Lt.
Governor of California, (b) he's a Democrat, (c) he's a Democrat, and
(d) it was claimed here that he is a radical who wants a large number of
Southwestern states to secede from the United States. The last came as a
surprise, and I asked for documentation.

What's so threatening about that, that you have to resort to personal
aspersions? Why do you have to fly off the handle so often?


-- Andy Barss
k

Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:

(b) he's a Democrat, (c) he's a Democrat, and


Please replace one "Democrat" with "Hispanic". typing error.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:08:47 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: So providing health care and free education as well as other welfare
>: benefits to illegal aliens (and pushing for more such programs) didn't
>: have anything to do with exacerbating California's financial problems?
>
>And David did this alone? Does the governor really have such
>power, or is the legislative wing involved?
>
>: California has the second highest tax rate among the states
>
>What type of tax? Wages? Income? Real Estate? Corporate?
>Such a broad statement is meaningless.
>
>: and its love
>: for regulations
>
>
>I think you mean "the love its residents have for regulations, so that
>they elect governmental officers to enact them". So,
>Davis does what the majority of CA residents want, and that's reason for
>firing him? Jeez, whatever happened to Democracy?
>
>: Fact is, in California, illegal aliens get to pay in-state tuiton
>
>So, ELECT PEOPLE TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHO SIDE WITH YOUR VIEWS.
>That didn't work? Wait for the next damn election. No do-overs.
>Work harder next time, don't try to exploit loopholes in
>election law.
>
>
>: As far as that "made-up" electrical crisis, don't you think the fact
>: that no new generating plants have been built in CA in decades, nor have
>: any new transmission lines been built because of the howls of protest
>: from environmentalists when anything like that is proposed, could have
>: had just a teeny-little bit to do with that crisis?
>
>You know, Mark, I never thought about it that way, but you're right.
>Davis should have been building more electrical plants and power lines
>for the last 30 years. Oh, wait a minute: Davis isn't a utility company!
>Never mind!
>
> Especially since
>: several generators had been taken off-line for maintenance at the time.
>
>At the executive order of the governor, no doubt. (If not, then lay
>the blame where it belongs: with the power companies.)
>
>Face it, the GOP in california saw a chance to
>redo the past election, and went forward with it,
>to the point that it's a national joke. They can't
>win a real election, so resort to this sort of lunacy.
>
>What a bunch of losers.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

And this is going to do nothing but devastate the state. I don't
think the citizens of California realize this. Maybe they do...maybe
they'll defeat the recall.

But even NOW...the state is pretty much in a lame-duck situation.

I know nothing about Davis...or much about what's goin' on in
California. So I'm just expressing a gut feeling. But I can't see
the next guy coming in...especially if its The Terminator...being in
any better of a position of solving California's problems.

One more thing...

Only the folks that VOTED for the current governor should be allow to
vote in the recall. Its a RECALL...a chance for the ORIGINAL voters
to make another choice.


Hope you had a nice Labor Day weekend...

Trent


Proud member of the Roy Rogers fan club!

Is that anything like turing a ~200 Billion dollar surplus into a $480
Billion dollar deficit, and repeating an equal sized deficit for many
years?

Renata

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:22:17 GMT, "Glen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>--snip--
>If a CEO of CFO of a major business was responsible for turning an $11B
>surplus to a $38B defecit in four short years you know he would be fired by
>the Board of Directors. We, the people, are attempting to fire him.
>
-snip--
>
>Glen
>

(no stain for email)

I posted a clip of the statement. You know it and I know it. About that time
you decided to backpedal. You now decide to redefine what was said.
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Careful Andy. Don't bet him he can't. You may end up loosing that bet
like
> : the one you lost to me (and promptly welched on).
>
>
> You're embarrasing yourrself with this tired rant. For those of you
> interested (and, frankly, you all have better ways to spend your time),
> the thread in question begins at:
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?q=%2450++%22Andy+Barss%22+group:rec.woodworking&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=97n605%245tq%241%40news.ccit.arizona.edu&rnum=1
>
> I issued a challenge to CW, to find a quote that Al Gore claimed that he
> had "invented the internet".
>
> Mark and/or Juanita replied, with a quote from Gore that, IMHO, simply
> means he correctly takes credit for introducing pro-Intenet legislation in
> the Senate (anyone who construed that quote as literally meaning he takes
> claim for inventing the technology of the internet is either a complete
> idiot, an unprincipled Republican, or both).
>
> CW's contribution? I quote his or her post in its entirety:
>
> "That would probably be a fair assumption"
>
> What was the fair assumption? As stated in Juanita's post, that
> I'm a delusional Democrat.
>
> CW didn't exactly meeting my challenge. At best, he or she
> expressed a wussy "me too" to a largely off-topic and defamatory post.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
>
>
>
>
> : "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> :> Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> :> :Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
> :> : Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.
> :>
> :>
> :> Does he? Can you cite a quote to this effect from him?
> :>
> :> - Andy Barss
>
>
>
> --
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Andy Barss
> Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
> Douglass 208, 626-3284
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:22:18 -0500, "Brandon Greenwood"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hello
>
> I have two questions, first, why are you posting this on a woodworking
>bbs and secondly what has it got to do with everyone who doesn't live in CA?
>If you want to talk politics, Join rec.ca.politics and leave it off of this
>board.
>
> Brandon Greenwood

You finally got to post something. Good for you!


Hope you had a nice Labor Day weekend...

Trent


Proud member of the Roy Rogers fan club!

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:32:36 GMT, "Glen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> It's been said by some that the law has
>never been used before, but this, too, is false. The recall law has been
>used before, it's just that this is the first time it has successfully
>gotten the required number of signatures. So please, don't even try to
>refer to it as some loophole.

Do you know when it was used, Glen?


Hope you had a nice Labor Day weekend...

Trent


Proud member of the Roy Rogers fan club!

He's running for Governor of California. Who cares?

Charlie Self wrote, wondering if this is really what he meant?

> Andy Barss notes:
>
>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>: ah, Hal? All politicians lie! At least Arnold won't have to cater to
>>: special interest groups like frickin' Davis. And I'm not particularly
>>: concerned with his past life. If he can get the state back on track,
>>: he's good enough for me.
>>
>>With his vast experience in politics he looks like a sure-fire
>>winner to me.
>
> He's a beaut, he is. So far, he's not voiced any kind of program to
> straighten things out, but he says he wants to change things.

You seem to have missed the interview with Shaun Hannity on Fox News.

>
> No wonder Bustamente is in front.

Says who? the LA Liberal Times? Now that's a grest source to base your
statement on. Bustamente wants California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, Utah and Texas to revert back to Mexico.

>
> Another great reason for avoiding CA, along with the crowds.

You are the most NEGATIVE person I have ever heard on any NG I respond to.
You think maybe that's the reason you lost your job! Think about it?

>
> Charlie Self
>
> "He hasn't an enemy in the world - but all his friends hate him."
> Eddie Cantor

Rich
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK.
Atten: Micro$oft Outlook users, please take me
off of your address books!
Email, remove the DOT

Dennis Vogel responds:

>Ever think the problem is the voters themselves? What with
>all the referenda that limit property taxes and mandate higher
>spending for education is it any surprise that the budget is all
>screwed up? Californians should look hard at themselves
>instead of blaming all their problems on one person.

C'mon, man. Are you trying to say we get the government we deserve?

That is a truly awful thought.

Charlie Self

"Men willingly believe what they wish."
Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico