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.