This is why Arnold should not be governor.

"In San Francisco it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that," Schwarzenegger said on NBC.

I knew California was kinda lacking in the smarts department...but now this officially makes them the dumbest state in the US. *nods*

Can someone let me know the amount of homosexual-related deaths in California? :D

And yeah. That's, uh... that's... yeah. *shakes his head*

Heard something about that awhile back. Yep, it's dumb.

and he said he can't self-terminate! what a genius.

Originally posted by Loony BoB
Can someone let me know the amount of homosexual-related deaths in California? :DI just realised, if you blame AIDS on gay people like a lot of christian fundamentalists do then it's a pretty significant number. This makes me sad.

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
[b]

I knew California was kinda lacking in the smarts department...but now this officially makes them the dumbest state in the US. *nods*

As a professor once said, "Today, every other state is pointing and laughing at California."

I must say there's some truth to that. I never understood why anyone elected him; the idea seemed inane at the time, and now the reality is just... blasphemous. >__<

Listening to him speak is quite funny, though. But, it's simply not as funny as Mr. Bush and his Bushisms. ^__^

Originally posted by The Man
I just realised, if you blame AIDS on gay people like a lot of christian fundamentalists do then it's a pretty significant number. This makes me sad.
I'm not sure if that's to do with homosexuals. Wouldn't that be more to do with not wearing a condom?

Of course AIDs is the fault of Homosexuals. That's why in Africa thousands of heterosexual people are dying from it each day.

Hey, don't make fun of Schawesdsgh, I think it's quite a pleasure to have as a president you can find naked on Google.

How is it stupid? San Fransico was illegally giving away marriage licenses to homosexuals. Schwarzenegger would be wrong not to put a stop to it.


Can someone let me know the amount of homosexual-related deaths in California?
-Loony BoB

The idea isn't that homosexuals are deadly, it's the fact that illegally licensing homosexual marriage is just as illegal as licensing assault weapons.

So the only argument left is:


Listening to him speak is quite funny, though. -demi_god


Damn man, making fun of a man's accent... That's rough, actually that's down right low.

Ah, I apologise. I wasn't aware of those facts.

Still, the comparisons he made weren't the best of comparisons, and it probably wasn't the best choice to say that. =P

If you're a native English speaker and can speak German better than Arnold, you may have room to criticize his manner of speaking. Then again, not really.

And he is right, in a sense. The mayor is breaking the law out there. This is the same situation as that crazy judge with the Ten Commandments statue in Alabama or whatever. Sometimes breaking the law is necessary, if the law isn't a just law. But usually there are better ways to have a bad law changed than for our leaders to take things into their own hands. As much as I think the mayor is probably right, it probably shouldn't be his place to break state law out there.

There is no law broken because the law never said a marriage had to be between a male and a female. It's not in the California Constitution.

But Arnold's Swarzenegger's arguments are dumb. That's the same thing as saying if you eat a ham sandwich, you'll most likely do drugs and go into prostitution.

But electing him was dumb in the first place. He has no experience as governor, he has no political experience, and has no political background to fall on. That state has got to be going bonkers as to how people actually elected a guy with a 100 IQ to go into office.

No, it is illegal because the people of California, as far as I am concerned had voted a low to make marriage to be something between a man and a woman. If there was no such law, then what the mayor of San Francisco is doing would no be illegal. However, because there is such a law that defines marriage for man and woman, it is illegal.

Yes, there is a law, Proposition 22, that makes the homosexual marriages illegal, but the state constitution contains an equal protection clause that may have made Proposition 22 illegal in the first place, which is why San Francisco has sued the state. So it depends on what trumps what, in legal terms.

Bleh...I still think it's a stupid law anyways. You're denying someone rights because of their sexuality...which is no more blatent than racism. But I know some city in NM is holding same sex marriages now.

This could become a trend or something...eventually maybe homosexuals will finally get fair treatment.

Now, if a couple was married in a state where same sex marraiges are legal, does California have to uphold their privelages of said marraige? I'm not sure if their law only prohibits couples from being married there, or declares that same sex marraiges won't be recognized at all.

NO ON 22!

So....how has arnold been doing as governor? How about those fiscal issues? What has he done to get things back to a balanced budget and get rid of the deficit.

What else has he done besides this to be a 'bad' governor?

Originally posted by edczxcvbnm
So....how has arnold been doing as governor? How about those fiscal issues? What has he done to get things back to a balanced budget and get rid of the deficit.

What else has he done besides this to be a 'bad' governor?

As I last checked, California is STILL in a deficit. Deficits of over 1 billion don't go away that easily...and until he does something other than making stupid comments, I'll commend him. And as I last check, many of the hundreds of thousands of California residents who lost their jobs still haven't gotten their jobs back.

The only thing he has done is "After school activities", and even that's in limbo right now because the state is STILL in a deficit. So why not tell me what he actually has done well besides talking the talk?

how long has he been in office?

Dude, I don't think it takes a month or two to turn around a state out of deficit. He still have several years to go before he loses the next election.

The hell if I know. Thats why I asked. I don't live in california so I have zero clue. I live in Illinois and I like my governor. Go Rod B.

As much as that deficit isn't going away any time soon and other things like jobs have no come back yet...I wouldn't hold that against him yet. He has only been in office...4 or 5 months? Give him so more time before you can really say if he has done something about the deficit or the other way around.

What I'm saying is that if anybody is against rights of any individual, he shouldn't(or she) be able to hold office. Suppose he actually does do a decent job in California, but deny the rights of a marriage(which has much more than just a title) to same sex couples...is that really fair? You might as well put a racist in office instead, because discrimination is uniform no matter who it is against.

But of course he;s only been in California a couple months...but he was clearly not the most qualified person to take office.

He's not denying anything. He's just enforcing the law, as ridiculous as they are, that's what he's doing.

Unrest over the issue? It could happen. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/23/SAMESEX.TMP)

On the other hand, the man he's tabbing to try and stem this issue is reluctant to take those orders. The State Attorney General, Bill Lockyer (who's been touted as a future governor candidate himself), got a fax Friday from Schwarzenegger quoted as follows:

"I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."

Quite frankly, he can't boss Lockyer around like that. He agrees with Arnold that the act is illegal by state law, but the manner in which the governor is going about solving it can't be done.

The city, by the way, has filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the laws on the books as unconstitutional. At any rate, though, you can expect this issue to get to the Supreme Court sooner or later.

And just think, I have to live here. *sigh*

obviously, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage is the only sensible answer.

At the very least, Arnold has provided the vehicle to get millions of people thinking about California. Now I don't concern myself with a whole lot of details on American politics but from the outside, Arnols seemed like the best option. Also saying Arnold is not qualified, he is an actor, he has spend years perfecting how to lie, he should do exceptionally well. I also say coodos to Arnie. He is definately living the "American Dream" and he seems honest in his attempt to give something back. Only time will tell but I hope he does very well.

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
What I'm saying is that if anybody is against rights of any individual, he shouldn't(or she) be able to hold office. Suppose he actually does do a decent job in California, but deny the rights of a marriage(which has much more than just a title) to same sex couples...is that really fair? You might as well put a racist in office instead, because discrimination is uniform no matter who it is against.

But of course he;s only been in California a couple months...but he was clearly not the most qualified person to take office.

I just get the impression that he's standing by his party. Republicans have always been against this sort of thing. If he supported those kind of marriages, he probably wouldn't be in the Republican party, would he? Honestly though, he couldn't be any worse than the last governor. At least we aren't tripling the vehicle registration anymore. And as long as I am not paying more money to the government, I have no complaints.

Originally posted by Agent Proto
He's not denying anything. He's just enforcing the law
THANK YOU JEFF.

My god, you people will NEVER let this issue rest. .___.

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
THANK YOU JEFF.

My god, you people will NEVER let this issue rest. .___.

Actually, if you look at the dates before Shadow's post, it was almost 2 weeks between posts. Maybe it's you who won't let it go.

Doens't matter if it's two weeks, it's still the law. :) And I'm not the one who is making threads on a an issue that should have been settled in that other thread. But whatever. I'm not going to get into it this time. You are as attentive as a brick. :love:

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Doens't matter if it's two weeks, it's still the law. :) And I'm not the one who is making threads on a an issue that should have been settled in that other thread. But whatever. I'm not going to get into it this time. You are as attentive as a brick. :love:

Actually, I created this thread FIRST. Check the dates. So how can this issue be settled in the other thread if this thread was created first? So quit being a hypocrite with your love icons. This thread was created before that other post. So if you don't like me making threads like this, don't post in them and quit being such a baby.

I'm going to ask you both to cut it out. Stick to the topic.

Why are you so angry? :(

(that was for dingo_jellybean.)

I think people can be far too opinionated at times. Just my own opinion.

Originally posted by Tokkiquil
Why are you so angry? :(

(that was for dingo_jellybean.)

Like I said, and what Yameneko said, I'll stay on topic.

Arnold has no qualifications as a governor, does that mean he'll be a bad governor? No, but it does rise his chances of being a bad governor.

As for me being angry, I guess your definition of angry is one who proves you wrong and for stating the truth. Besides, why not just black out your off-topic comments in this thread like you do your pics?

You didn't prove me wrong. You didn't really prove anything, actually. :) And why are you going for personal insults? I can't help the way I look in pictures!

Yams told you both to stop. If either of you say one more thing to each other, and I don't care if its mean or nice, I will ban you on the spot. You shouldn't have to be warned twice.

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
Arnold has no qualifications as a governor, does that mean he'll be a bad governor? No, but it does rise his chances of being a bad governor.


Well he must be qualified otherwise he'd never have been able to become governor. Here are the qualifications needed:
I. QUALIFICATIONS
A candidate shall:
A. Be a U.S. citizen. Cal. Const. Art. V, §21
B. Be a registered voter and otherwise qualified to vote for that office at the time that
nomination papers are issued to the person. §2012
C. Satisfy the following registration requirements:
1. Partisan Candidates
Be registered with the political party whose nomination he or she is seeking for not less
than three months immediately prior to the time the declaration of candidacy is presented
to the county elections official or, if eligible to register for less than three months, for
as long as he or she has been eligible to register to vote in California. §8001
2. Independent Candidates
Not have been registered as affiliated with any qualified political party within three
months immediately prior to the time the declaration of candidacy is presented to the
county elections official. §8550(f)
D. Not have served two terms in the office sought since November 6, 1990.
I think this is a big problem with this country is that we forget that anyone who meet the simple age and citizenship qualifications are qualified to run for political office. Maybe we should start giving "less qualified" individuals the chance to run. It's sad that we feel that we need a career politician to tell us what's good for us.

That's just my opinion anyway. Sorry eariler for posting in this. I didn't realize it was two weeks old at the time and I now remember that the posting rules are a bit stricter here for old threads. Sorry again. :)

Well, that's not what I meant.

I meant that he had no political qualifications(experience). He just signed a deal with Health and Fitness magazine, I mean he's been a weekly editor(more like a revisor) of the magazine. Although some money will go to the state(about 1.3 million), it's hardly a scratch on the 27 billion dollar deficit. Hopefully he won't get too caught up as vice president(I think that's what he is now after that contract) of H&F Magazine.

It doesn't bother me that he has no real political experience, hell, even Virginia's own governor, Mark Warner, doesn't have much political experience himself. If you know what you're doing, and you do it well, then you're well qualified to be governor. Heck, you can even run for president, but you just need to get recognized and get the majority of votes to actually become governor/president/whatever you're running for.

Originally posted by Agent Proto
It doesn't bother me that he has no real political experience, hell, even Virginia's own governor, Mark Warner, doesn't have much political experience himself. I voted for Earley :P

Sorry Folks, but I don't know how many of you actually live in CA- I'll take Ahhnold over Gray Davis any day of the week.

I'm surprised how little information one needs to have before said one makes a bunch of uninformed snap judgments.

As one who speaks a foreign language better than most foreigners speak english, I can say that Arnold's English is as good as it's going to get, which ain't bad. (No need to point out the gratuitous use of the word ain't.. it is noted)

Of course Arnold has political background. He's married to a Kennedy. You don't have to be a senetor to know something about politics. (look at everyone on this board)

Also, as a californian, I can say that he is doing a bang up job as governor. He is a republican, married and in conference with a very prominant democrat, and (important Item:) He's not in it for the money. He actually took a pay cut to be the governor.

It's been a long time since a governor, or other state official has had enough charisma to be able to get the house and senate of the state to compromise and come together to actually get some things done, and the changes and "house cleaning" that he has already done has already benefited california a good deal.

I'm not saying he's a superior being. But he doesn't suck as a governor.

i dont know how well of a job hes doing. all i hear is negative comments from people talking about cuts here and there. other students were complaining about the prices going up for college units. (it doesnt really make much of a difference to me as my dad pays my college tuition for me) but then again.. people tend to over emphasize the bad and leave out the good.

then again... his reputation precedes him. a few of my teachers discussed the fact he won... most negative points like him and adult films, quoting him that women are objects (dont quote me on that though i heard this from a teacher so i dont know if any of it is true or not)behind in his past.

that said IMO he was an actor... perfect candidate to setup as a figurehead. people tell him what to say, if he screws up they just dissapear and leave him to take the fall. yes.. more conspiracy theory. then again... can they directly point out each and every single dollar in the billions of deficit and tell us it was wisely used in ____? i think not. poltitical figureheads always like to say we are going to do this this and this, and most of the time it doesnt happen or it doesnt completely happen. im just wondering if arnold is the lesser or greater of two evils.

I still believe Ar-nuld is a better Governor than Davis. Yes, he has his flaws, but he doesn't lie about them... well, not as much as Davis did.

Take care all. What ever happened to the honest politician?