Is the CA recall system a good idea?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Beryl_Mooncalf *
quote:

I wasn’t quoting you, genius

e.g. my point.

Your point was that I quoted you wrong when I wasn’t quoting you? Yeah, you’re doing just great, here.:rolleyes: You need to stick to the actual issues instead of whining about imagined points of order that are of no consequence.

Wrong again…Are you really so sheltered that you don’t know what this is about?

Well that’s just an ad hominem attack, and not particularly clever even as ad hominem attacks go. There is no point, nor any substance to your sentence; only the fallacy that by the mere act of calling me “sheltered”, you have somehow made your view ispso facto the prevailing one. Sorry, try again.

It is not about an election we RECENTLY had, Not about losing, it is about ineptness, a solvent future, limited deficits

Actually it’s about ALL those things, and despite your bald assertions to the contrary, you have yet to explain how all your criticisms of Davis did not apply when he was recently RE-ELECTED. You have not explained how this ELECTION would not have been a perfectly feasible way to get rid of Davis, if, as you seem to be asserting, he so badly needed to be gotten rid of. Simply calling me names and saying it’s “not about” that doesn’t answer the question, does it?

[Blalron]

So what? That’s the law. The law that was I might add voted in DEMOCRATICALLY.

Pay close attention to the OP: “Is the CA recall system a good idea?” not “Is the recall system THE LAW, and voted in DEMOCRATICALLY?”

[Beryl_Mooncalf_1]

blowero

to the contrary, you have yet to explain how all your criticisms of Davis did not apply when he was recently RE-ELECTED.

Oh, on your way home, look back over the other posts, you’ll see the answer you missed, you’ll have to back up a page though…
So, - - wrong again. That’s three strikes.

You have not explained how this ELECTION would not have been a perfectly feasible way to get rid of Davis, if, as you seem to be asserting, he so badly needed to be gotten rid of.

Guess what, wrong yet again
Four strikes. Sorry but you have got to be out now. - Rules, you know.
But I’ll give you a few more hints on this page okay, just becasue…
[ul]
[li]Inaugural Address - January 6, 2003 [/li][li]2003 State of the State Address - January 8, 2003[/li][li]2003-04 State Budget - January 10, 2003[/li][/ul]
There are three occasions when he stepped on his tongue, AFTER NOVEMBER 2002.
Since January 2003 comes after Novermber 2002, it follows that this information wasn’t available when we voted in 2002. He had not fully flattened his tongue until mid January…

You don’t drive when you are like this do you?

[blowero]

I’d respond, Beryl, but you haven’t provided anything of substance to respond to - only childish insults and petty sarcasm. Let me know when you come up with an actual point.

[Beryl_Mooncalf_1]

blowero,
The points stand, however, you don’t. Twice in your previous post you made a statements that were patiently incorrect. These statements were specific and not subject to misinterpretation. The clarity of these statements is such that finding sanctuary in a games of semantics has been denied you. Your mistakes were blatant misstatements, and you have been called to address the matter. There is nothing confusing, or even abstract about these errors, and my calling you on them is not so obtuse as you claim in your little departure charade.
The over-the-shoulder comment you made as you were retreating is yet another misstatement of fact on your part. I have honestly lost count of the total.

My previous calls on you to defend the statements I have challenged stands. In my previous post I have clearly identified the questioned statements and provided you with the location of the evidence that proves you are incorrect. That evidence causing your statements to fail is in this thread, right where you were told it was.
There is nothing but your response missing here. You ignore this call, but I do not It is not up to me to provide new information to you at this time. If you can’t defend your statements, I will dismiss your entire position as frivolous.
Thank you.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Beryl_Mooncalf *
Your mistakes were blatant misstatements, and you have been called to address the matter. There is nothing confusing, or even abstract about these errors, and my calling you on them is not so obtuse as you claim in your little departure charade.

Oh sorry I missed your very serious “calls to address the matter”. Was it here?

So, - - wrong again. That’s three strikes.

Or here?

Guess what, wrong yet again
Four strikes. Sorry but you have got to be out now. - Rules, you know.

Or maybe here?

But I’ll give you a few more hints on this page okay, just becasue…

Or perhaps here?

You don’t drive when you are like this do you

Yes, I just don’t see how I could have possibly misinterpreted your serious tone.

If you can’t defend your statements, I will dismiss your entire position as frivolous.

Too late, I already dismissed you.

[Beryl_Mooncalf_1]

Here blowero, in a few lines, on one page, is what you have not been able to find, or have refused to find. But Caveat, this isn’t all there is, you’ll have to look for the rest least you again embarrass yourself. This is merely enough to defeat your position, and declare the question called. Would that this be a jury trial.
Here is a comment you made, and YOU WERE CALLED ON…

*you have yet to explain how all your criticisms of Davis did not apply when he was recently RE-ELECTED.

You fail to answer the previous calls on that above statement because there is no way to do so is there? Because to do so would require you to admit you have made a blatant error. Your silence in this matter is sufficient to recognize your acknowledgement of defeat. Call it anArgument from Silence You have mistaken facts and are dancing around the issue, however, your silence to the matter speaks louder than anything you could possibility say.
Here is the post which provides how erroneous and careless your statements are.

BUTwe can blame Davis for not doing what you, what I, and what most other individuals have to do when the income and the expenses don’t balance. We call it pulling the belt in a notch or two. The state should be calling for draconian cuts in spending. How he would approach the budget, taxes, and spending was not apparent when the election was held. This is post-election news.

In my last post, the one that started your “deafening silence” in this matter I added to the above I even added a little underlining to help you see the point that so far, you conveniently missed. And I’ll quote a little from the post I made trying to help you see what your silence tells me you saw.
Guess what, wrong yet again
Four strikes. Sorry but you have got to be out now. - Rules, you know.
But I’ll give you a few more hints on this page okay, just because…
[ul]
[li]Inaugural Address - January 6, 2003 [/li][li]2003 State of the State Address - January 8, 2003[/li][li]2003-04 State Budget - January 10, 2003[/li][/ul]
As you can see I was nice enough to give you three examples where Mr.D did his evil deeds to the budget, again after the November election.
SWOOOSH Right?
Then you again, ask for proof with…

• You have not explained how this ELECTION would not have been a perfectly feasible way to get rid of Davis, if, as you seem to be asserting, he so badly needed to be gotten rid of*

And again I refer you to

BUT we can blame Davis for not doing what you, what I, and what most other individuals have to do when the income and the expenses don’t balance. We call it pulling the belt in a notch or two. The state should be calling for draconian cuts in spending. How he would approach the budget, taxes, and spending was not apparent when the election was held. This is post-election news.

And again, much of this didn’t happen until after January 1, 2003, which is after November 2002.

AGAIN, Your silence is deafening on this matter. You side step, slither, snake, and slime away with rhetoric designed to do nothing more that cover up the

DEAFENING SILENCE

And you still post further examples of an ego run amuck. Your failure to answer these calls, and you will undoubtedly continue to do, preferring to dance and wiggle and snake and slime in an attempt to hide or otherwise cover the DEAFENING SILENCE in your corner. That is as transparent as you are in this. I suspect that you will hear of this DEAFENING SILENCE issue again.
The fact is blowero, I know you are defeated because of your silence on the matter. You know you are defeated for the same reason. If you want to continue your charade, have at it. Somehow, doing so seems to suit you now. But oh, that Silence is Deafening.
The Question is called

[blowero]

<yawn>

[Beryl_Mooncalf_1]

Blowero (silently)

<yawn>

And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence.
Paul Simon –The Sound of Silence

[blowero]

(I think Beryl has a crush on me)

[yawndave]

For me, it’s a good thing, because after years of NOT voting, I am now registered, and am, for the first time, really paying attention to the issues that are being raised. It’s really quite amazing to see what the politicians (and “non-politicians” ) are doing in order to gain the top office here in California.