Posted on 09/30/2003 7:36:50 PM PDT by ambrose
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:58:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
That is not quite what he meant, try this.
"I really HATE White people, so help me separate us from them and divide us all!!"
Is it just me, or is BustaBooger subtly asking the illegal aliens to flood the polling places on election day?
It seems like Cruz isn't bothering trying to get the black vote much --- especially since the racist called them the "n" word ---- not just once but several times. It seems like he pretty much understands no Americans are likely to vote for him, not many Americans want to have California become a part of Mexico. It's only the Mexican vote he can hope to get.
First, and please learn to spell and write in standard English beyond a fifth grade level. Thank you.
Arnold has not proposed such action. It would be illegal under California law. Are you suggesting that Arnold will violate his oath of office to uphold the laws of the State?
The refferendum can go ahead with or without Tom and Tom does not need to be governor to get the refferendum pushed through. So stop worshipping false prophets wil ya.
Sure it can, but with Arnold against it, the effort will be more difficult.
So, why is he against it? Why does Arnold propose to work through a legislature that has NO intention of heeding him?
He doesn't. He's lying.
1st I reveal your tenacity for repeat misnomers or was it an outright lie. So than realizing that you don't have a leg to stand on you decide that it's time to turn this arguement into a spelling bee?! Pathetic.
"Arnold has not proposed such action. It would be illegal under California law. Are you suggesting that Arnold will violate his oath of office to uphold the laws of the State?"
I can see that you have no idea as to what I've been trying to infer, but I don't think i'll share the knowledge with you anyway, simply because you have shown an inability to think outside of the guidance of your little Tommy.
"Sure it can, but with Arnold against it, the effort will be more difficult."
Another blatent lie by a Tombot. I'm not surprised. It is a flat out lie that Arnold is "against it" as you so claim. He is not a part of it, (because he has not been asked to join) I defy you to provide any evidence of Arnold being "against it" as you have so dubiously claimed. Or retract your LIE!
You accuse me of a "lie" that you have yet to detail. Let's see if you can in the rest of your wretched attack.
I can see that you have no idea as to what I've been trying to infer, but I don't think i'll share the knowledge with you anyway, simply because you have shown an inability to think outside of the guidance of your little Tommy.
Trying? LOL! Nothing there. Let's see if you can.
Another blatent lie by a Tombot. I'm not surprised. It is a flat out lie that Arnold is "against it" as you so claim. He is not a part of it, (because he has not been asked to join) I defy you to provide any evidence of Arnold being "against it" as you have so dubiously claimed. Or retract your LIE!
OK. From the Sacramento Bee, dated Tuesday, September 9, 2003, "Sean Walsh, a spokesman for Republican gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the actor has no plans to join the referendum movement even though he opposed the bill (SB-60)."
Arnold is against the referendum. He won't support it.
Instead his website says, "Work to repeal SB 60 as quickly as possible," and that's all it says. "Work to repeal," contains no commitment to specific action other than a repeal which (as I said) requires the legislature to pass a law repealing what it just passed. That won't happen because it is not in the interest of the Democratic majority.
It's an empty promise.
Conversely, if every non-citizen stayed home, and only those still-living citizens legally registered to voted show up at the polls (and each only voted once,) few democrats would ever be elected.
Oh? Which court? California? Nope, it's a California statute. Federal court? What's his standing for such a suit? Further, he hasn't said he would do that. He said he "would work to get it repealed." Repeal is a legislative action, not a lawsuit.
It would also extend the ammount of time allowed for signature gathering in the referendum process or an initiative process if need be.
Wrong. The period to gather signatures is set by statute.
I also see that you have failed to prove that Arnold is against it. And that it is merely a dishonest exaggeration on your part. Much like I always knew that it was.
Oh, so spin it to get yourself out of it. Nice try loudmouth. Do it again and there will be a charge of abuse.
Yet, I see that your deluded personality with it's inability to admit that it's wrong still hangs onto a false accusation. I believe that bearing false witness is a sin, is it not???
Here is what I said: "Once Arnold helps out with the backhanded "Gosh, I couldn't get the legislature to do anything about it," Cruz will have all the voters he wants, thus assuring a real Republican is never elected again."
It fits exactly what I said he promised he would do; i.e., "try" to get the legislature to repeal it.
You're not doing very well.
So would you like to admit that your guilty of stretching the truth at the very least?!
Here is what you called it: "Completely untrue."
It was not only entirely accurate, it was qualitatively true as well, especially because your entire defense rests on an unsupported assumption: that Arnold will do anything effective to stop illegals from getting driver's licenses.
For Arnold to "work" with the legislature will require that they be in session. Arnold, if he wins, won't take office until the election is certified. That's less than two months before the DMV starts issuing plastic. Given the budget crisis and the fact that the legislature has no intention of repealing a law they just passed, it is cynical on Arnold's part to offer legislative repeal as a means of precluding illegals from getting valid California ID.
That would only occur via the initiative process. The problem is, who will fund such an intitiative? Fat cat corporate donors don't care about these sort of things.
Prop 187 was a California statute that was halted by the California courts.
"Wrong. The period to gather signatures is set by statute."
Yes and no, the date is set to 90 days after the enactment day of the statute. A court ordered delay of the bill could extend the enactment of the law hence extending it's 90 day period.
the rest of your arguement does nothing except continuing to try to justify the lies and misinformation in which you're trying to spread.
"Bustamante Faces Black Critics"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992032/posts
No difference between him and Ahnold, as some on FR believe? Thank God the debate exposed him as the lightweight he really is, and that his poll numbers are dropping accordingly.
How about the unimaginable this week? Davis resigns.
If Davis resigns the governorship THEN Bustamante has a real chance, a better chance than 8 years from now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.