Seems like as good a method as any...

http://www.wjactv.com/food/2433456/detail.html

Lol Someone posted this on my message board a couple days ago:

http://www.tacobell.com/2003recall/

Personally, I find it a little offensive that a fairly large corporation is being a private shill for Schwarzenegger. Isn't it obvious that their base product is going to sell better than the others? And they equate Davis with what's probably an unadvertised, traditionally low-selling product. And they're advertising the hell out of those Grilled Stuft Burrito things.

A more accurate test would probably be a set of equally-priced low-selling items with similar ingredients. But they thought they'd put an external weight on it in favor of Ahnult and specifically against Davis.

If I didn't already not go to Taco Bell, I'd probably stop going just for this.

If I didn't already not go to Taco Bell, I'd probably stop going just for this.

Most people find it difficult to stop going after a trip to Taco Bell.

And I thought I would be accused of taking things too seriously by noting that chicken (and of course, "steak") items always cost more than comparable beef ones. Should Al Franken have subtitled his new book "Run From the Bell"?

Most people find it difficult to stop going after a trip to Taco Bell.

LOL ! Best one I've heard all week!
Bitt's post reminded me of this one though.

Well, you know, stupid pop-culture things often have a greater impact on the great unwashed than one might hope. It's often been cited that SNL's skits casting Gerald Ford as a bumbling, physically inept idiot had a significant effect on the outcome of the 1976 elections. Taco Bell is probably more pervasive than SNL was at the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had an effect on the election, and I doubt the Schwarzenegger campaign is funding it. Well, at least not above the table.

However, read the fine print:

*Product results will be indexed to pre-promotion levels to insure fairness to all candidates.

I'm not sure I am interpreting that right, but it looks like the results are weighted such that the important factor is the relative change in the quantity of each item sold since before the promotion started...

and I doubt the Schwarzenegger campaign is funding it. Well, at least not above the table.

How dare you insult my campaign! My astrotuhfing campaign is no different than all the otha politicians who buy they way into political ohfices each year.

Besides, the Taco Bell strahtegy allows me to connect with the vitally impohtant 18-25 unemployed stonah demograhfic.

If you continue to speak out against my campaign, you will be tehminated!

Hmmm. Good point. I wonder if ``will be'' means that it has already happened or if it will happen before they publish the final results.

If you continue to speak out against my campaign, you will be tehminated!

If I thought I'd get my way / I could be so much sweeter / But I find everybody understands / Uzi 9mm

Peter

[wiping tear from eye]
That's beautiful, man.

if i lived there, id vote for georgy russel as she prolly their cutest one running.

That's beautiful, man.

Was that single even released in the US?

Peter

Interesting that you picked a Johnstown TV station's web site for this.

Do we have any members for whom WJAC is a local station? (the next cable system east has it; mine doesn't)

I'm SURE someone in California would love to represented by the Contracepta-melt.

Do we have any members for whom WJAC is a local station? (the next cable system east has it; mine doesn't)

It was just coincidental that their site had the story towards the top of the Google News search I did on this topic. Though WJAC was the local NBC affiliate for me during my time at Penn State.

She'll get my vote, if I don't just vote for Davis. I know he's a schmuck, and doing a piss-poor job, but this whole recall thing is a farce.

Agreed on that. I had thought that we were just the laughing stock of the country, but I talked to someone who is living in the middle east and he says the news there is full of stories of the election and that we are, in fact, the laughing stock of the entire fricking world. Sigh.

For a cogent discussion of why California's brand of democracy doesn't work, I'd like to recommend the last few chapters of Fareed Zakaria's excellent book, The Future of Freedom.

or this: Doonesbury

> California's brand of democracy doesn't work

It is the same reason Democracy isn't working on a country-wide level; people can buy what they want. Money is the great corrupter of politics, and when the Republicans can buy a state recall election just like big business can buy a president, democracy fails.

While I would never argue against the corrupting influence of money on politics (and wanted McCain to run as an Ind., just so somebody might whine about it), that's nothing new. Rich people have bought power since money was invented; now we just have lots of narrowly defined special interests doing it. Which brings us to Zakaria's point about the changes in Calif. in the last 20 years: that if you can demand popularity contests be held on ideas, values or even individual leaders (whether duly elected like Davis or, God forbid, appointed ones like Greenspan or Supreme Court justices), then you're suffering from way, way too *much* democracy and not nearly enough leadership.

I'm jumping into the end of this but... are you insinuating that Democrats wouldn't have taken advantage of a situation such as this? The idea that Republicans are "big money" and Democrats aren't also seems implied in your statements... which is completely indefensible.

I agree, although I'm no Republican. There are no qualitative differences between these two useless parties. (Zakaria fingers the Party Primaries for this.) Choosing one party based on which special interests it's more easily influenced by is like choosing a prostitute based on which positions she specializes in. It's missing the central point, which is they're whores.

Choosing one party based on which special interests it's more easily influenced by is like choosing a prostitute based on which positions she specializes in. It's missing the central point, which is they're whores.

That is beautiful man. I may have to use that for an signature somewhere

But you might have a favourite position.....which makes the choice relevant

I'm happy to see this recall. It shows that the people are still in charge in California. The problem with this country is the power of the government. The government is no longer run by public servants; rather, they are the masters, and the 'civilians' are the servants. It has been etched into the minds of millions that the government is the ruler of their lives and they must obey.

There is a 'liberal' movement in this country, where liberation is the last thing on their minds. Higher taxes are a priority, as that gives them more power over individuals and increases their reach as totalitarian rulers. Secondly, they perpetuate unconventional thinking - philosophies that go against those that have been around for thousands of years. Afterall, they can't have their future subjects be rational thinkers. And of course, as the fuhrer of germany once said, the first thing you have to do before you seize total control is disarm the people. Having an armed public threatens the liberals' view of an all-controlling government, united with the one-ruling world government. It's no surprise the UN doesn't want 'peasants' owning guns.

There are two types of liberals. The first type has a vision of what this country and the world will be like in the coming future. Socialist totalitarianism. Everyone works for the government. The freedom to pursue happiness and liberty is a thing of the past, but of course now there is no crime and everyone is safe. They will no longer be afraid of their own destiny, just as a criminal in jail knows he is safely tucked in his cell with three meals a day, while a television calmy passifies his mind - he has no uncertainty about what the future will bring. The world is united as one, by one. There is no war, except for the war to kill Israel, the last stronghold of the enemy. To keep track of and control the subjects of the world, everyone is fitted with barcodes on their bodies. These are used for trade and as a replacement monetary system for paper money. It is no coincidence that all barcodes contain three number 6's coded within. How much of this wishful vision the type 1 liberal sees varies, but one thing is for certain. Every new law they fight for and their whole outlook on how life should be is only to diminish the existing rights of the people. The masses must be conditioned to the point that they want to give away their rights, that they want to serve the ruling beast.

The second type of liberal is the result of this mind conditioning. Liberal women are easily terrified by violent images of guns or promises of global warming. They are easily duped into believing propaganda, and are absolutely frightened by the prospect of mass hysteria. They have no desire for knowledge. They are not experts in any special field of work. If someone tells them something, they believe it. The more forcefully it is told to them, the more they believe it. So-called studies are done everyday by so-called scientists, who come to conclusions that are accepted as fact and truth. This is being done today. Do not trust your instincts, don't trust the beliefs that were passed down through countless generations, don't trust what you've learned throughout your entire life, trust what you are being told. Trust the scientifically proven.
Liberal men are, simply put, feminized males. "The strongest sign of decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculization of women." The society filled with bi-gender women, devoid of honorable men, thirsts for a hyper-masculine police state to keep order. These feminized men are not confident in their ability to create their own destiny and to care for themselves and their family. They ignore rational thinking and logic. They have no women of any integrity to keep them sane. They do not value or respect courage, ingenuity, or wisdom. They adopt the beliefs and fears of the liberal woman. They have little capacity to think for themselves, or to analyze their environment. They essentially never became men. They are afraid of confrontation, and would never stand up for what is right. They are cowards who value their lives more than anything, as they are afraid of what will come with death.
"The country that draws a broad line between its fighting men and its thinking men will find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."

There are, however, many men and women who stand for what is right. They will not obey or bow down to a ruler. They will not work as a slave for the government, and they will not yield power or their God given rights to a ruling elite. It was men like these who fought on April 19, 1775 in Concord, and men like these who fought in the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto in the spring of 1943. These people will fight at all costs to preserve their liberty. This is why disarming the public is essential to the type-1 liberal's vision. A type-2 liberal is afraid of guns. They are not concerned with the functionality of firearms or the necessity to have one. All they know is that they are bad and scary just as they've been told, and they threaten their precious lives. Therefore, in their eyes, guns should only be in the hands of the almighty protectors, the rulers. Currently, an outright gun ban in America would ignite an immediate defiance and revolt, which would spread like wildfire and the type-1 liberals would lose all control over the hearts and minds of all the type-2 liberals in this country. So, for the past several years they have adopted the strategy of banning firearms incrementally.
"They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't speak out. They came for the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist, so I didn't speak out. They came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so I didn't speak out. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out."
First, ban the scary looking ones. Then, we'll ban the cheap ones. Then we'll ban the most powerful ones. Each new gun law is passed off as a sensible infringement on article two of the Bill of Rights.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The second amendment has been infringed many times over.

Buy a rifle and become proficient with it. Hold on to it like you would hold on to your freedom. An armed public is the best defense against oppression, invading armies, and the common criminal. The type-1 liberal's vision will never come to pass if americans keep their values, embrace common sense and wisdom, and stay well-armed. If the liberals seize total power of this country, there will be a bloody civil war. Type-1 and type-2 liberals are infesting the entire world, and they have their sights on America as the next obstacle to a world government and the destruction of Israel.
After 9/11, many americans got a reality check. Many type-2 liberals were instantly converted into rational individuals. The inevitable war against the liberals will come, and hopefully that war will not be on our own soil and amongst ourselves.

Some of us radical liberals are prepared to defend that liberty - and have learned to use weapons to that end.

OK, I admit, I was never very good with the assault rifle. The rocket launcer was more my thing.

But I don't think either has much of a role in the current situation in California.

Ok, i started side-tracking a little, but cut me a break. That shit took me like two hours to write.

d33zy, as usual your posts are drivel filled with more straw men than Kansas. I will just touch on a couple of things:

> It shows that the people are still in charge in California.

No, it shows that if you have enough money, you can force a recall vote.

> [all said with sarcasm] Do not trust your instincts, don't trust the beliefs that were passed down through countless generations, don't trust what you've learned throughout your entire life, trust what you are being told. Trust the scientifically proven.

Yeah, trust the basless beliefs that our ancestors used instead of facts. Believe the earth is flat, flame is one of the four basic elements, and a tiger penis can cure impotence. Be one of those people that believes that common sense says that if an ordinary penny comes up heads 10 times in a row that it is 10 times more likely to come up tails than heads on the next toss. Believe global warming is a myth because it was cool this year. Be ignorant just because our ancestors were.

> The strongest sign of decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculization of women."

Yep, women should be barefoot, naked and pregnant cooking dinner and men should be out hunting for food. Gender roles should never change.

As for the rest of it; I don't even know where to start. It is so far from reality I do not even think I need to really say anything at all.

Edit: fixed typos

And to think, I didn't even know Ann Coulter was on this BBS!

American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

ok, i had typed out a nice long biteing responce that the computer just lost when my firewall blocked the post (which really really really ticks me off) so im just going to say that your post, ninti, has way more straw men in it than d33zy's

Man, It's been a while since I've done this...

In reply to:

---

> It shows that the people are still in charge in California.

No, it shows that if you have enough money, you can force a recall vote.

---

Recalls have often been attempted in California against statewide officials and legislators. All governors in the last 30 years have faced some level of recall attempt. Significantly, none of the recall attempts aimed at statewide officials has ever reached the voting stage. However, recall efforts against state legislators have reached the voting stage, and four were actually recalled. Senator Marshall Black (R-Santa Clara County) was recalled in 1913, followed by Senator Edwin Grant (D-San Franisco) in 1914, and by Assembly members Paul Horcher (R-Los Angeles County) and Doris Allen (R-Orange County) in 1995. There have been many successful recall attempts at the local government level in California.


If you have enough money in a populist state you can force a recall vote. That is true. However both parties have more than enough money to force a vote on any given candidate. If money was all it took, opposing parties would start recall campaigns as soon as they lost elections.

In reply to:

---

Yeah, trust the basless beliefs that our ancestors used instead of facts.

---

Everyone believes based on percieved facts, whether modern or prehistoric in time period. Unless you can prove the perception to be false, claiming all tradition is baseless is as silly as claiming all new understanding is baseless.

In reply to:

---

Yep, women should be barefoot, naked and pregnant cooking dinner and men should be out hunting for food. Gender roles should never change.

---

I don't know what the originator's beliefs are, but believing in gender differences/roles is a far cry from "barefoot in the kitchen" models. Such slippery slope arguments are unlike you and should be avoided.

It's possible to be liberal without having subjugation in mind. It's possible to socialist without advocatin totalitarianism. I agree with some of what you're saying, but you're way too conspiracy-theorist for me. Oddly the liberal movement you describe seems to have as much in common with the theoretically conservative Bush government as it did the previous Clinton government, if not more.

I don't think a gun ban is the answer to gun violence problems. I think the underlying factor(s) need to be addressed. A social welfare system might be one way of addressing them, but it might not. We have no experience to indicate it isn't, and everything else seems to be done by experimentation, so I can see a place for this to occur somewhere as an exercise to see what can be done.

Of course, this is just the man trying to tax you and keep you under his thumb, and not an attempt to rectify any actual problems in this country, I'm sure.

I'm frustrated with the direction we're going. Protectionism in the face of free trade would seem to be a futile endeavour, and yet, we are exporting entire industries. If a war would ever happen, well, what if we're cut off from our now-offshore sources for things like shoes, or microchips, or whatever? And what of all the people who now suddenly find themselves unemployed? After a while, the unskilled or semi-skilled position you lost and have been unable to replace with anything near comparable in terms of wages will result in problems in your life. Taking up arms might be one result of the frustration. Killing some random person isn't going to fix the problem though. It doesn't make the gun the problem. The person is the problem, and their situation the catalyst. Getting rid of the catalyst is a better answer than removing guns from law-abiding citizens or trying to profile to figure out who's likely to crack. It's the choice that *doesn't* involve walking all over people, but it requires money.

Liberties are important, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to have something to be free *for*. Conversely, having something to be free for shouldn't mean throwing away our freedoms, and that, sadly, is the direction things are pointing.


Anyhow,
"It is no coincidence that all barcodes contain three number 6's coded within." means you and I speak different languages anyhow. In my language "all" means there are none for which it is not true, and yet, the one conveniently on my desk on a CPU upgrade has none.

So there's no point in even trying.

In my language "all" means there are none for which it is not true, and yet, the one conveniently on my desk on a CPU upgrade has none

For the sake of clarity, I do believe that he was offering a vision of the future, not the way things are today.

For my own part, I think that a lot of "liberal" thinking has some fundamental flaws that take it in the wrong direction from the beginning. However, it is equally clear that while my values do tend to line up with the conservative party in this country, there are things that equally disturb me there as well.

We love to cry foul with things like the recall and the last Presidential election, but neither of those things were about Republicans and Democrats. Either party in the same positions would have done the same things. It's just left to the other party to complain about it. I still am not exactly sure why this recall vote is happening, and when I asked a politically minded co-worker, his response was "he's a democrat, isn't that enough?" *sigh*

Such slippery slope arguments are unlike you and should be avoided.

Scott Adams clearly states on page 324 of the hardcover edition of "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel" that "slippery slopes" are an example of "Weasel Wisdom." Which explains why, given a psychological word association question of "Slippery Slope?" I would respond without hesitation, "John Ashcroft!"

> However both parties have more than enough money to force a vote on any given candidate. If money was all it took

No, that is not all it takes. It also take a certain amount of sliminess to abuse and corrupt a process that is meant for recalling corrupt politicans and turning it into a partisan weapon. The Republicans seem to have a gift for this. Note that of the four recalls you mentioned, the only two to happen in modern times was the recall of Horcher and Allen, who were recalled by the Republican party because they sided with the Democrats on a crucial vote. And I should not even have to mention the Clinton impeachment.

No, all it takes is money and low morals. The guy behind the recall, Darrell Issa, has both. Multiple arrests, though only one conviction, offer plenty of evidence of the latter. And no doubt he is rich. No, all you have to do is donate a million or so to the recall campaign to hire people to get signatures for you. Mind you, these are professional signature gatherers that care little what they are getting signatures for, but have a lot of practice wheedling people to get them. Just sucker enough people in and you too can force a recall election, and hurt the state of California in the process.

Those aren't just four officials that I mention, those are the four officials actually recalled. The Berkeley Study states that all California governors in the last 30 years have faced recall campaigns at some level. That would include several prominent Republicans... like Ronald Reagan for instance.

> Everyone believes based on percieved facts, whether modern or prehistoric in time period. Unless you can prove the perception to be false, claiming all tradition is baseless is as silly as claiming all new understanding is baseless.

Yes, but the implied argument (through the sarcasm) was that what science says is not as accurate or important as what our ancestors said, just because our ancestors said it, which is complete and utter BS. He makes the same argument for "instincts" which is also a complete crock. The scientific method is a far superior way of determining truth than your gut feeling or what our ignorant ancestors thought.

> don't know what the originator's beliefs are...Such slippery slope arguments are unlike you and should be avoided.

This is d33zy we are talking about here. I just assume the worst and am usually correct. In any event, it is clear that that this is about feminism and/or homosexuality, both of which I already know he hates. If he wants to be more clear in what he is ranting about this time, I would be more than happy to address it more specifically.

If he wants to be more clear in what he is ranting about this time

God, no! Don't encourage him. Let him go live in his little shack in the swamp. He'll be happier there.