I'm sure you've all heard by now that Ah-nold might be running for governer of California sometime soon.
What do you think about this?
Do you think he'll have a chance?
Do you think he's just trying to use his star status to win the position or do you think he's very serious about it?
If he does win....do you think he's capable of doing the job well?
Remember....Ah-nold has been a serious Republican supporter for some time now.....I personally think that he would take the job very seriously and try to do the best job he can.
Post Edited (07-25-03 15:34)
I think he's serious, but I don't know if he would do well in an election. It would depend on who ran against him, but he might win if he were able to mobilize a lot of people who don't normally vote--the way Jesse Ventura was able to do. He might be able to pull off some kind of populist type campaign but I think that would be his only chance.
I guess I'll probably have the chance to vote for him seeing as how I'm moving to California this fall.
if he were to enter as a republican (which he is) and go for it, then he's got the best chance over the rest of these f**kers.
there really are only 2 people that hold public interest in the recal, Schwartzenegger who has done a little dabbling in politics and is a respected action star as well as a U.S Immigrant living the American dream that he's worked hard to earn.
Or there is a former LA mayor who also has a good chance. Both he and Anrold are friends and if Arnold runs then he wont. However if Arnold doesnt run then he's got the highest chance of becoming the next governor of CA.
a Poll was taken and The mayor( I really cant remember his name now) has 21% of the peoples vote, Anrold has 15% everyone else( ther are like 5 others) all have 12% or under.
If he does run I'll give him my vote, if not then I'll vote for the former LA mayor. It's a win win situation now that we got a good chance of getting that dirty son of a b***h Davis out. I hate this f**ker with a passion. Maybe now CA can get off its feet
For what I've heard, the present California governor is not doing his job very well (read something about a big economical deficit), so Arnold may have strong chances of winning if he runs against him. His star status will surely help if he does, but he seems more prepared to enter politics than most stars-turned-polititians.
since i don't know much about arnold and his political ambitions, i'm not sure how he'd go, especially in voters' eyes, yet he is probably one of the more driven celeb-turned-politician type folk i've seen around
and besides, who would dare run up against the terminator!
"i'd like to propose a new bill that would..." random politician
"QUIET!" arnold
"as you say mr schwarzenegger, here take the keys to my car as a token of goodwill as well... please don't hurt me..."
californian politics just became fun for me! maybe he's next film could be about a mayor who decides to take a hands on approach to fighting crime.
;-P
I'd say he'd do a pretty good job. I don't think Arnold gets enough credit as a businessman. He was getting rich before he was famous. And he's educated. Earning degrees is a nice, non-physical occupation for bodybuilders recuperating between workouts. I would not be a bit surprised if he is elected, and serves quite successfully.
I'd be surprised if he doesn't go Berserk if they don't do what he says or laughs at his jokes - no wait, that was Rainer Wolfcastle.
I was thinking that Arnold was a Republican...then I changed it to Democrat.
Which party does he belong to?
Republican --- which must make for interesting conversations with his in-laws.
Personally I think he'd do alright as CA's governor, bearing in mind that whoever is going to be governor is going to have it rough due to tax revenues being way down. It is much easier to govern when the coffers are full.
Not to get on a political rant or anything BUT......
The bulk of CA's current fiscal crisis was caused by massive fraud by the western energy companies (Enron & their ilk) -- all of which are Republican-controlled and Republican-supported (as well as being huge Republican supporters).
The idea that Arnold or any other Republican will face the truth of this situation and actually do something about it -- rather than balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and working people of the state -- is ludicrous.
You seen to know a lot of how bad we got screwed. Just curious really. we got screwed by Enron and the wetern electric which ar eboth republican yes. ANd having arepublican governor would be interesting too though. Our current governor is just lining his pockets with money and wasting the taxpayers money ..on Prisons.
Education has been cut in half almost and so have the police and fire dept bad, and he wants to pay albout 50 million to build new prisons. And the thing is all the prisons we have now are reported as in perfect working conditions and new prisons arent needed.
So soemones payed him a lot to make these new prisons, that was the straw that broke the camels back. The fact that eduication has been screwed royally in the past 8 months is bad enough but the police and fire dept getting it worse and all of a sudden hes going to spend a massive amount of money for brand new prisons is bulls**t.
I'll take an actor any day of a greedy lieing f**ker like davis.
It is not so surprising that Schwartz, is a Republican. Republicans actually have a huge internationao base since many come from nations that are extreme liberal/ borderline socialist. they would like to see some copetiotion and money in their pockets.
If you think about it though, Bush Jr. is borderline socialist..... He has increased the scope, power and jobs of govt. while passing awful tarrifs and ridiculous medicare laws.
Yeah, I think there's a big risk that Bush is going to somehow alienate a lot of his more conservative supporters--much like his father did. It seems like a lot of people are angry at him about immigration.
I doubt Schwarzenegger has much chance--from what I can tell, it seems like people are angry at Davis, but the anger doesn't seem to extend to his party. Arnold is probably a little too conservative to appeal to the middle of the road voters--it seems like in recent years that the successful Republicans have had to be somewhat moderate at least on some issues--I remember Pete Wilson didn't seem to be much of a social conservative except for when it came to immigration.
Hi I'm s**tASHTHECAT wrote:
> I'm sure you've all heard by now that Ah-nold might be running
> for governer of California sometime soon.
>
> What do you think about this?
> Do you think he'll have a chance?
>
> Do you think he's just trying to use his star status to win the
> position or do you think he's very serious about it?
>
> If he does win....do you think he's capable of doing the job
> well?
>
> Remember....Ah-nold has been a serious Republican supporter for
> some time now.....I personally think that he would take the job
> very seriously and try to do the best job he can.
>
>
> Post Edited (07-25-03 15:34)
> I'm sure you've all heard by now that Ah-nold might be running
> for governer of California sometime soon.
>
> What do you think about this?
> Do you think he'll have a chance?
>
> Do you think he's just trying to use his star status to win the
> position or do you think he's very serious about it?
>
> If he does win....do you think he's capable of doing the job
> well?
>
> Remember....Ah-nold has been a serious Republican supporter for
> some time now.....I personally think that he would take the job
> very seriously and try to do the best job he can.
> f**k you
>
> Post Edited (07-25-03 15:34)
Wow, looks like I was sure wrong....of course, after I moved here I learned just how low an opinion just about everyone here had of Grey Davis, across the board.
I think he's doing an okay job, but the hole the state is in is very deep and is something that has been going on for years and years. Arnold seems sincere about wanting to bring people together, but it seems like he's got a lot to contend with...much like the action hero fighting against incredible odds! It will depend on who his opponent is of course, but I'll definitely considering voting for him when he's up for re-election.
Has he done anything at all while in office? I've been a bit busy listening to other news. I swear all I've heard from him was getting a mountain named after him and that's all. And I think "s**t" is the smartest guy here.
"Has he done anything at all while in office? I've been a bit busy listening to other news. I swear all I've heard from him was getting a mountain named after him and that's all."
The media has ignored him (except ever so briefly during the gay marriages in SF thing, and even then he was only a sideshow. That the media isn't covering his administration is probably a sign that everything is going great. Let's face it, if he slipped up even a little the TV news stations would be letting us know. (This is all from the perspective of an East Coaster).
He got a couple of propositions passed--I believe they refinance the state's debt and make it a lot more difficult for the state to borrow more money, if I remember correctly. There was a lot of bipartisan support for each of them. I believe he pretty much stayed out of the gay marriage debate, which was wise in my opinion.
I listen to radio more than I watch television news, but it seems like he mainly keeps his head down and does his job--maybe he's on the television news more, but it doesn't seem like he's in the news a lot here either.
They announced yesterday morning that California's credit rating has improved for the first time in 4 years, so he must be doing something right.
I'm still p**sed off that I'm paying $2.45 a gallon for gas, though.
Gas prices are bad everywhere. We're paying roughly the same in Canada. No politican (with any clout) seems to have the guts or integrity to stand up to the greedy, price-fixing oil companies. And most consumers are such sheep that they'll b***h and moan, but they'll never bother to participate in a boycott.
I am not certain that a boycott is the best option. The companies know that you need the gas sooner or later, so I am uncertain on how effective a boycott is. I think your best bet is to advocate intelligent gas usage and practice it. For example: I carpool to the unit with another Marine who lives nearby, try to hold off on running errands except for one day where I get them all done (one trip), and purchased a car that gets 25 mpg town and 34 mpg highway. (Have been actually getting about 27 around town and nearly 38 on the highway.) No SUVs for me.
I also looked into a hybrid, but I was really worried about the longterm maintenance costs. I think that in a few years the tech will be mature and definitely worth it.
I agree with Andrew. I think a gas boycott is sorta like a food or electicity boycott. You can limit your usage responsibly, but an outright boycott would never really work.
Even a limited boycott like a one day boycott recently advocated doesn't really do anything but hurt the local pumps for a day, but in the end, unless you change your behavior, you're going to buy the gas eventually anyway.
That being said, I just got a new job in my home town that allows me to telecommute so my gas usage will be dropping, but that's more an incidental, and highly timely, bonus than an intent.
AndyC wrote:
> No politican (with any clout) seems to have the guts
> or integrity to stand up to the greedy, price-fixing oil
> companies.
Here we go with this, again. Show me real data that the oil companies are (1) working together in collusion to gouge the consumer (2) that they are 'fixing prices' to make exhorbitant profits and (3) that there is any industrial endeavor whose final product price is not linked to the cost of raw materials.
This 'evil oil companies' stuff is pointing the 'finger' at the wrong (imagined) problem, and really helps to divert attention from more realistic explanations. The truth of the matter is we buy the raw crude from a region of the world that is political unstable, must pay to ship it here and then refine it. If you do any kind of homework on this issue at all, you'll learn that the American oil companies are all but out of drilling raw crude and are merely processing facilities to refine the crude into the thousands of products oil is made into.
Also, I heard this just this week from a dude in the petroleum industry. Many US refineries have shut down (hurting production) because it is simply too expensive for them to process crude into the FORTY-FIVE separate gas formulations needed by various states. California, in particular, has formulation laws that have put many smaller refining companies out of business.
So, the real causes of high gas prices? We purchase the raw material. Over-regulation of the industry at both the processing and the consumer level. State and federal taxes that are in some cases over 60% of the retail price and general inflation.
Every year or so, this gets circulated. See the following link to see the gas boycott SPAM story.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/gasout.htm
-Ed
"Still working on that tagline."
Funny stuff. I really laughed when the morons who wrote the document said three dollars per gas gallon was abusive. Here in Europe some countries charge as much as 1 euro per liter. 1 euro must be like 1'1 US dollar now, I think. In my country 1 liter of unleaded costs 90 cents of euro.
Gas in Hong Kong is as much as $6US a gallon regular. We have it good in America.
Petitions are useless in most situations. And an outright boycott of gas stations would not work for obvious reasons, but targetting a few carefully chosen companies for a period of time would not prevent anyone from filling up, and could be sustained for a long time. Once those companies lowered their prices, the others would fiollow suit or face unfair competition. Granted, it would only result in temporary price relief, but price relief nonetheless, and it could be repeated. Most importantly, it would send the message that people aren't going to buy gas at any price, which is what we're doing right now. If there is some indication that people are willing to do more than grumble and cough up the money, governments and oil companies would put a higher priority on finding ways to make gas more affordable to consumers. As it is, there is no motivation that will mean anything to them.
As for finding ways to cut down, it doesn't work too well if both you and your wife drive to work in opposite directions, you both have meetings on various nights, you live at least a couple of miles from any stores, none of your coworkers live near you, your job requires you to drive a lot, and none of your relatives live less than 20 minutes away. Also doesn't help if you need something bigger than a compact car to serve your purposes, or if you can't afford the latest technology. There are really few places I can go without driving, and my vehicle is about as fuel efficient as it can realistically be. Gas costs me more than $200 a month.
Besides, high fuel prices don't just hurt you when you're buying fuel. They raise the price of everything that has to be transported. They also raise your property taxes, because it takes fuel to operate buses, snow plows and graders, and to truck concrete and road gravel. I've seen first-hand just what a difference it can make in a municipality's budget. I've seen fewer bad roads fixed in a year, simply because the cost to transport the materials was higher than expected.
High fuel prices hurt trucking companies, farmers, retailers, and a lot of other businesses. Most people just don't see beyond filling up at the pump.
Something needs to be done.
AndyC wrote:
>
> Something needs to be done.
>
Aside from letting the market forces work things out, what? I don't ask this cynically or with sarcasm, but honestly. I agree with what you said about gas prices effecting far more than just 'filler up.'
There's an old adage: "Whatever the market will bear." Until the price hits that point, most of what is said in complaining about it is lip service. When the valuation becomes too far out of whack, demand will go down. Somehow.
(Showing my stripes as a free marketist)
PS: One thing that can be done is the state and fed can cut the very high exise taxes on fuel. Some areas are actually doing this, on a small scale at least. I *THINK* one place is Pennsylvania, but I may have that wrong.
That, I think, is the problem with gas. Normal market forces don't have the same effect, because there is very little competition. If they keep their prices about the same, all of them will have a steady stream of business regardless of what they charge, because our jobs, our businesses and our lifestyles depend on it. It's certainly no coincidence that prices jump when people buy the most. Any other retail business would have sales at the peak times of year, but the nature of the fuel business allows them to hike the price when we want it the most.
I don't just blame the oil companies, of course. The overseas oil producers have the luxury of causing the price to rise simply by producing less. I wish I could do the same at work. Governments are also to blame. In Canada, we have a federal government that calculates sales tax on gas after all the other taxes have been added. The provincial government in Ontario has been raising gas taxes for years, justifying it by telling us the money will go toward maintaining our highway system. Then they turned a bunch of highways over to the municipalities - but none of the money. They still charge the high gas taxes, and insist that they had never earmarked the money for any specific purpose.
The problem is that the oil producers, oil refiners and distributors, and governments are all benefitting greatly from the situation as it is, and they can all conveniently shift the blame onto each other. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that they are conspiring with each other, but they all know how the system works, and how to exploit it to the fullest.
The only thing that can be done is for consumers to do more than complain while continuing to pay. A well-targeted boycott would at least send that message. Pick one large company, and participants don't buy from them for a day or a week, or indefinitely. Buy from somebody else. That would be very costly to a company if enough people did it, and the threat that it could happen to any company at any time might just break their ranks, and force the kind of healthy competition the industry needs.
There's no guarantee, of course, but I haven't heard a better idea.
>A well-targeted boycott would at least send that message. Pick one large
>company, and participants don't buy from them for a day or a week, or
>indefinitely.
That idea was covered in the Snopes link a few messages back. The affected company would just sell their gas to the companies who were selling.
Great. So the consumer really has no recourse.
I generally don't think government meddling is a good thing, but I almost wish for some sort of legislation that would require gas price increases to be justified and approved by a regulatory body. Judging by the cost of electricity in Ontario, which is controlled in this way, it probably wouldn't help. Besides, governments benefit from the status quo more than anybody.
We'll just have to live with a perfectly legal quasi-monopoly of competing companies that don't engage in any competition.
Just shows what happens when something everyone wants is controlled by a few big corporations. Somerthing to think about as the various Mom and Pop retail, hospitality and entertainment businesses are wiped off the map.
>Great. So the consumer really has no recourse.
An all-out boycott of gas might force them to lower prices, but it would require everyone to stop buying it.
Other than that, you're free to come up with an alternative fuel source...