Reply #102: I have never implied that it is 'good'. [View All]

The decision to oust Davis falls into the category of "legal technicality" and going great guns defending Arnold, a person with no experience, even going to the point of defending his "gang-banging" derisive abuse of women, is beyond the pale.

It most certainly is not 'beyond the pale', because I don't consider consensual sexual activites a form of abuse, derisive or otherwise. Nor do I accept that exercising a constitutional right is somehow a technicality.

I am defending the constitution and through that, the law. The only defense I make of Schwarzenegger is that of being innocent until proven guility. If this makes you uncomfortable, it's not my problem.

You hang your entire argument on the finer points of Californians being within their legal rights to recall Davis.

That is not a 'finer' point.

That wasn't the point.

Recalling Davis undermined the idea of recall. Davis wasn't recalled because he was a bad executive, otherwise the people wouldn't have chosen someone with no executive experience to replace him.

He most certainly was a bad executive, and, again, having no political experience is not a disqualifier. You overlook that extensive political experience in the individual that held the office didn't prevent him from contributing to the sorry fiscal shape that the state is in now.

The whole recall idea in California was a bad idea for democracy, whether or not you think it's a chicken little argument or not.

The will of the electorate, based on the Constitution, is not a bad idea for democracy.

I think Arnold is a woman-hater, and you think that's okay.

No, I think that it's OK that you think he is. I reserve judgement until more is known and proven.

It's not. Davis shouldn't have been recalled, and if he was, then California shouldn't have chosen an empty misogynistic narcissist like Arnold.

You disagree with the votes Californians cast and who they chose. Fine.

And any executive experience certainly does make one more qualified than someone with no executive experience.

President Eisenhauer didn't seem to have a problem.

Suffice it to say that I don't buy any of your justifications for supporting a woman-hating narcissist with no experience as the chief executive of the eighth largest economy in the world.

But you did justify having the chief executive of that economy with plenty of experience help drive it into the poor house.