 | | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Out of curiosity, what led you to conclude that Arnold was the best qualified candidate to head the world's fifth-largest economy? (...) One reason is that this is a potential violation of voter privacy. Another reason was that this courteous (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Whoops! That should be 2000, instead of 2002. What the heck was I thinking? Dave! (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Wishful thinking--only 1 year with Dubya instead of 3... Dave K (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) "you've seen one stolen election, you've seen them all" ??? I dunno, that was just a guess (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Instinct. It's worked many times for me before. Ok, before you hit me with a "Get real!" remark I was just plain sick of the usual politicians. I just wanted to try someone else. (...) I was shown the blank side and so was the guy who asked me (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. God knows why!
|
|
The point to the slight subject change is that one minute into the counting, the networks are already declaring that everything is decided. God, I despise network news: Don't touch that dial - we are gonna skip the story and tell you the (projected, (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Gee, that's a fairly pathetic rationale in my view. Is that the way you keep track of your bank account -- instinct? Arnold is worse than business as usual. He is a puppet backed all the way from D.C. to Enron. Didn't you know? Always follow (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I had a pain in my chest, and I was sick of all the usual doctors telling me that it was lung cancer, so I went with my instinct and consulted a wealthy actor rather than someone with experience in treating my ailment. I just wanted to try (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I'll just take that as a scarcasm. (...) Hold on there as second! I was watching Hardball on MSNBC last night and people on the show brought up some very important points. One that caught my attention was IF there was a run off between (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) I'll just take that as another sacarasm. (...) Again, I'm going to note Hardball on MSNBC. Arnorld has something no one else up there showed- charasima! If there is one thing I have seen all so often in this life (I was one of those teens who (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) You've misinterpreted my intent, so I'll restate it: I find your choice "to try someone else" to be insufficient cause for an informed citizen to cast a ballot for one canditate in preference to another. Would you care to elaborate on your (...) (21 years ago, 8-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) "Absolute unknown" can take on a lot of possibilities. If you mean unknown to the public in general then Arnold not an "absolute unknown". I have my sample ballot in front of me right now and am going down the list to see which names I (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Absolute political unknown. I had presumed that you would be able to identify the term within the context of the discussion, but I see that I am in error. You dismissed a range of other candidates just because you didn't know their names. This (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) Honestly, I dismissed most of them for pretty much the same reason - I didn't know their name simply because they were not seriously running for governor. And let's add to that I dismissed the names that were similiar to better known people (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: Once again, you're forgetting my prohibition against posting except when you agree with me. I just don't understand you sometimes. (...) There's a difference, I think, between ignoring anonymous (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: This Californian Has Voted. Have You?
|
|
(...) We are the chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree, we agree - Bored of the Rings (...) No, we dismiss the anonymous simply because they are anonymous. I don't have a clue as to who they are. I at least knew beforehand who Arnold was, I could (...) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
