Dear Mr. Schwarzenegger...

[Kram41]

You went 0 for 8, we want our $80 million back.

[boekebong]

You went 0 for 8, we want our $80 million back.

True story.

[Justin_stacy]

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

It's a wonder arnold even try's with such a hopeless state.....

[boekebong]

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

It's a wonder arnold even try's with such a hopeless state.....

Have you ever read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Also...tries.

[Paul Tao]

Dems kept NJ and VA govs as well as gained seats. Dover's intelligent design school board was taken by Dems. Tucson council went to the Dems. Maine's anti-gay initiative, I'm pretty sure, lost. Arnold got pwned on his initiatives.

Not a bad night, not a bad night at all. Ohio could have done better, but you can't win them all. Bloomberg isn't surprising.

[boekebong]

Dems kept NJ and VA govs as well as gained seats. Dover's intelligent design school board was taken by Dems. Tucson council went to the Dems. Maine's anti-gay initiative, I'm pretty sure, lost. Arnold got pwned on his initiatives.

Not a bad night, not a bad night at all. Ohio could have done better, but you can't win them all. Bloomberg isn't surprising.

Agreed.

[I am all talk]

dare I say, The Terminator's been terminated?

[Justin_stacy]

Have you ever read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Also...tries.


A poor example (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0503/articles/nuechterlein.html)......but to answer, yes, partially at least. I can tell you that it was viewed with great amusement here.

But what else would be expected of a harper's crony?

[boekebong]

A poor example (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0503/articles/nuechterlein.html)......but to answer, yes, partially at least. I can tell you that it was viewed with great amusement here.

But what else would be expected of a harper's crony?

I would imagine, haha.

[Justin_stacy]

Bloomberg isn't surprising.
You hear he's now thinking about a presidential run in 08' or 12'?

[boekebong]

You hear he's now thinking about a presidential run in 08' or 12'?

It'll be fun to watch the Republican's eat the flesh off one another's bones in the primaries.

Hillary v. Desecrated Body in '08.

[Lueda Alia]

dare I say, The Terminator's been terminated?
hahahahahaha

[Lueda Alia]

Dems kept NJ and VA govs as well as gained seats. Dover's intelligent design school board was taken by Dems. Tucson council went to the Dems. Maine's anti-gay initiative, I'm pretty sure, lost. Arnold got pwned on his initiatives.

Not a bad night, not a bad night at all. Ohio could have done better, but you can't win them all. Bloomberg isn't surprising.
I agree. definitely great news to wake up to.

[splitsecond]

Dems kept NJ and VA govs as well as gained seats. Dover's intelligent design school board was taken by Dems. Tucson council went to the Dems. Maine's anti-gay initiative, I'm pretty sure, lost. Arnold got pwned on his initiatives.

Not a bad night, not a bad night at all. Ohio could have done better, but you can't win them all. Bloomberg isn't surprising.


Did anyone expect anything less in all of those places? They are Democratic hotbeds. I wouldnt take this victory too heavily, because Republicans hardly ever win in any of those places. its no different in this shithole: Dems have run this city into financial ruin and the county into tax hell, yet these ignorant fucks around here will vote for ANYONE with a D next to their name simply because of the Union heritage around here. Its sickening.


P.S. California is hopeless. Just wait until it is overrun with illegals, then you will see some SERIOUS fiscal problems. They reall need to do away with initiatives in that state.

[Lueda Alia]

Did anyone expect anything less in all of those places? They are Democratic hotbeds. I wouldnt take this victory too heavily, because Republicans hardly ever win in any of those places. its no different in this shithole: Dems have run this city into financial ruin and the county into tax hell, yet these ignorant fucks around here will vote for ANYONE with a D next to their name simply because of the Union heritage around here. Its sickening.


P.S. California is hopeless. Just wait until it is overrun with illegals, then you will see some SERIOUS fiscal problems. They reall need to do away with initiatives in that state.
I always thought VA was a red state? Didn't Bush win it last year, too?

[siberianxkiss]

NJ loses anyway. Both candidates were horrible. Corrpution is the Jersey way.

I think Virginia had a Democrat before this election, but it can be said that the Republicans and the President do not have as much political capital as they seem to think they have. We'll see next year how many in the GOP up for reelection distance themselves from the Pres.

Bloomberg wont run for Pres in 2008 or 2012, i think he's gonna stay in NYC for a while, as he should cause he's doing a pretty good job.

California, wow please dont reelect the Governator.

[Trainsaw]

A Dem has been gov in va for awhile now, i was so happy that Kaine (Dem) won tho, Kilgore (Rep) was running a shitty mudslinging campaign. The asshole would air ads in northern va about being pro choice then air ad's in southern va about being pro life and the phrase "Kaine is too Liberal for Virginia", It was probably a bad move to have a guy w/ a 35% approval rating show up rooting for you also, Eat it Kilgore

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/wnatw/hahakainecopy.jpg

[noodledancer]

You went 0 for 8, we want our $80 million back.
i just pulled an all nighter to write a paper that's due today, i didn't know the results until just now. i was kinda hoping 74 would somehow manage to pass...

[selftitled85]

NJ loses anyway. Both candidates were horrible. Corrpution is the Jersey way.

I think Virginia had a Democrat before this election, but it can be said that the Republicans and the President do not have as much political capital as they seem to think they have. We'll see next year how many in the GOP up for reelection distance themselves from the Pres.

Bloomberg wont run for Pres in 2008 or 2012, i think he's gonna stay in NYC for a while, as he should cause he's doing a pretty good job.

California, wow please dont reelect the Governator.


corzine is not a terrible candidate. the other guy was awful but corzine is decent.

[Justin_stacy]

It'll be fun to watch the Republican's eat the flesh off one another's bones in the primaries.

Hillary v. Desecrated Body in '08.


and hillary still wouldn't be able to win....

[Justin_stacy]

Bloomberg wont run for Pres in 2008 or 2012, i think he's gonna stay in NYC for a while, as he should cause he's doing a pretty good job.
.

two term limits......but i wasn't saying he should run, only that it was released yesterday that he was thinking about it.

[splitsecond]

I always thought VA was a red state? Didn't Bush win it last year, too?

Its sort of in the middle, but tends to go democrat, at least on the local and state level.

[selftitled85]

Its sort of in the middle, but tends to go democrat, at least on the local and state level.

that is also how it is in say ny. ny always votes dem for pres but has a highly republican mayor and one of the most respected republicans in rudy giuliani as a future candidate as a former mayor.

same with cali. cal always votes dem in elections but has a rep governator.

[Justin_stacy]

that is also how it is in say ny. ny always votes dem for pres but has a highly republican mayor and one of the most respected republicans in rudy giuliani as a future candidate as a former mayor.

same with cali. cal always votes dem in elections but has a rep governator.

highly, as in strongly republican mayor? Are you kidding? Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, that hardly makes hm "highly" republican. And the same goes for the "govenator".....these are not strong republican figures in the idealogical sense, that is how they win in largely democratic areas.

[Dan Hollister]

You went 0 for 8, we want our $80 million back.

You are an idiot. You cannot blame Arnold for losing the election.

You want to blame someone for stealing 80 million? (Oh, by the way, Arnold spent several million dollars of his own personal money in this election.) Try blaming the unions, who spent $150 million of your money fighting against him with lies.

[Cal Smith]

from what i understand bloomberg ran his campaign pretty liberal.

That's how it seems to be a lot of time depending on where you come from. If you come from a predominatley conservative area than the liberals you find tend to be more conservative on social issues. Same goes for the other way around.

[AreTwoKay]

dare I say, The Terminator's been terminated?
You may

[I am all talk]

that is also how it is in say ny. ny always votes dem for pres but has a highly republican mayor and one of the most respected republicans in rudy giuliani as a future candidate as a former mayor.

same with cali. cal always votes dem in elections but has a rep governator.
california didn't elect a conservative gov., we elected a moviestar gov.

[Dan Hollister]

No, we elected a moderate governor, which is EXACTLY where we should be.

Far right Republican conservatism is idiotic. But on the same token, far left Democratic liberalism is equally stupid. Where the answers lie is somewhere in the middle. I don't care how much anyone hates Bush or hates Republicans... the answers do not lie in the Democratic party, either. They exist in the middle... they exist without extremes.

Any extreme is dangerous, is doesn't matter which side.

[noodledancer]

No, we elected a moderate governor, which is EXACTLY where we should be.

Far right Republican conservatism is idiotic. But on the same token, far left Democratic liberalism is equally stupid. Where the answers lie is somewhere in the middle. I don't care how much anyone hates Bush or hates Republicans... the answers do not lie in the Democratic party, either. They exist in the middle... they exist without extremes.

Any extreme is dangerous, is doesn't matter which side.
i had no part in electing arnold, but i like your thinking.

[siberianxkiss]

from what i understand bloomberg ran his campaign pretty liberal.

That's how it seems to be a lot of time depending on where you come from. If you come from a predominatley conservative area than the liberals you find tend to be more conservative on social issues. Same goes for the other way around.

bloomberg is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, considered a "liberal Republican"

[Kram41]

No, we elected a moderate governor, which is EXACTLY where we should be.

Far right Republican conservatism is idiotic. But on the same token, far left Democratic liberalism is equally stupid. Where the answers lie is somewhere in the middle. I don't care how much anyone hates Bush or hates Republicans... the answers do not lie in the Democratic party, either. They exist in the middle... they exist without extremes.

Any extreme is dangerous, is doesn't matter which side.

The Republican party is an example of extreme conservatism and the Democratic party is an example of extreme liberalism? :shake:



You are an idiot. You cannot blame Arnold for losing the election.

You want to blame someone for stealing 80 million? (Oh, by the way, Arnold spent several million dollars of his own personal money in this election.) Try blaming the unions, who spent $150 million of your money fighting against him with lies.

I'm not blaming Arnold for losing the election, but the fact that it happened in the first place. None of these were pressing enough measures (as evidenced by the defeats) to warrant a special election.

[Dan Hollister]

You can't say that because they were defeated means they weren't necessary. He was outspent! I don't know if you've noticed, but people don't usually do research on these things. I've heard so many people with misconceptions. One person here said "if I vote no, my firefighter neighbor will lose his job!" And other such rubbish.

74 was neccessary. It's not about morals or about teachers. It's about fact. Fact: California schools suck ass. Fact: Every study you look at will show how teachers are the #1 influence on success, not money. Fact: Every study you look at will show you that teachers don't peak until their 4th year, and that tenure after 2 isn't enough to determine how good they are.

75 was a no-brainer. What on earth could be the downside of giving people the option to opt-out of campaigns they disagree with? The reason why people were against it is because the unions spewed lies about how Arnold hates union members, and they also said idiotic things like "we can already opt out if we want to." What they didn't mention is that you can opt out, put you are punished for it! They take your liability insurance away from you if you do!

The rest are confusing, I will grant you. But 74 and 75 were fundamental. And the argument that people voting against them means they weren't good is BS. He was outspent. Do you think Arnold would've lost if the unions showed no commercials against him? Think again.

The unions lied in ads. They did not argue against him honestly. They did not do point-by-point debates. They lied. Plain and simple. And they outspent him, using the money of unionized workers, who all generally earn under 50k. I don't call that a fair loss.

[Kram41]

You can't say that because they were defeated means they weren't necessary. He was outspent! I don't know if you've noticed, but people don't usually do research on these things. I've heard so many people with misconceptions. One person here said "if I vote no, my firefighter neighbor will lose his job!" And other such rubbish.

74 was neccessary. It's not about morals or about teachers. It's about fact. Fact: California schools suck ass. Fact: Every study you look at will show how teachers are the #1 influence on success, not money. Fact: Every study you look at will show you that teachers don't peak until their 4th year, and that tenure after 2 isn't enough to determine how good they are.

75 was a no-brainer. What on earth could be the downside of giving people the option to opt-out of campaigns they disagree with? The reason why people were against it is because the unions spewed lies about how Arnold hates union members, and they also said idiotic things like "we can already opt out if we want to." What they didn't mention is that you can opt out, put you are punished for it! They take your liability insurance away from you if you do!

The rest are confusing, I will grant you. But 74 and 75 were fundamental. And the argument that people voting against them means they weren't good is BS. He was outspent. Do you think Arnold would've lost if the unions showed no commercials against him? Think again.

The unions lied in ads. They did not argue against him honestly. They did not do point-by-point debates. They lied. Plain and simple. And they outspent him, using the money of unionized workers, who all generally earn under 50k. I don't call that a fair loss.

Yes, let's fire more teachers and hire all those people that are out there looking for teaching jobs right now. They're lining up around the block of schools here to teach.

[Dan Hollister]

That's the whole point - prop 74 does not mean we will fire people, it means we can fire people if necessary!

There's a teacher down here in LA who was refusing to use school textbooks - using his own false writings and unofficial documents - as well as constantly swearing at students. For years. They could not fire him because he was tenured.

Are you honestly telling me that since there aren't a lot of people standing in line to be teachers, that we shouldn't have consequences for people who do shit like that?

I had a teacher who was bipolar and went off her medication. She failed 100% of her students. Every single student. She was unhelpful. She yelled at, and degraded, her students. They could not fire her because she had been fine for 2 years, and then started to go insane once she was tenured. Nothing they could do.

But that's fine? We should defend bad teachers because they're all we got?

[Kram41]

That's the whole point - prop 74 does not mean we will fire people, it means we can fire people if necessary!

There's a teacher down here in LA who was refusing to use school textbooks - using his own false writings and unofficial documents - as well as constantly swearing at students. For years. They could not fire him because he was tenured.

Are you honestly telling me that since there aren't a lot of people standing in line to be teachers, that we shouldn't have consequences for people who do shit like that?

I had a teacher who was bipolar and went off her medication. She failed 100% of her students. Every single student. She was unhelpful. She yelled at, and degraded, her students. They could not fire her because she had been fine for 2 years, and then started to go insane once she was tenured. Nothing they could do.

But that's fine? We should defend bad teachers because they're all we got?

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement.
Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.

Existing state law already gives school districts the authority to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty, or other activities not appropriate to teaching—no matter how long a teacher has been on the job.

THIS UNNECESSARY ANTI-TEACHER INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR ONLY ONE REASON—to punish teachers for speaking out against the governor’s poor record on education and criticizing him for breaking his promise to fully fund our schools.

The governor says that Proposition 74 is needed. But university researchers say that they know of no evidence to support the claim that lengthening the teacher probation period improves teacher performance or student achievement. Good teaching comes from mentoring, training, and support—not from the kind of negative, punitive approach imposed by Proposition 74.

[Katie Schmitz]

I saw a bumper sticker on my way to school this morning that read "Don't be a girlie man; vote for Bush" with AHHHHHNOLD's pic next to the quote.

:shake:

[Katie Schmitz]

What about Prop 10?

[Dan Hollister]

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement.
Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.

Existing state law already gives school districts the authority to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty, or other activities not appropriate to teaching—no matter how long a teacher has been on the job.

THIS UNNECESSARY ANTI-TEACHER INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR ONLY ONE REASON—to punish teachers for speaking out against the governor’s poor record on education and criticizing him for breaking his promise to fully fund our schools.

The governor says that Proposition 74 is needed. But university researchers say that they know of no evidence to support the claim that lengthening the teacher probation period improves teacher performance or student achievement. Good teaching comes from mentoring, training, and support—not from the kind of negative, punitive approach imposed by Proposition 74.

That's bullshit! You actually believe Arnold is trying to punish teachers? You really believe that?

Do you have any idea what the process is right now to fire a tenured teacher who has done something wrong? It generally takes TWO YEARS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. To fire a single teacher who is tenured, even if the proof that they were bad teachers is obvious.

Come on. Use that brain of yours. You want to tell me that here in California, where our state is 2nd to last in education, here in America, where our entire education system is a joke compared to every other modern or westernized country in existance... you want to tell me that we have great teachers that deserve to stay and continue our downward spiral of absolutely terrible education?

But since you are obviously buying into the union propaganda that Arnold is some evil guy who wants to punish people, rather than actually improve the state, I see there is no hope in convincing you overwise. It saddens me to think there are people out there who don't just disagree with the propositions, but actually think Arnold feels nothing but hostility towards are people, which is just not true.

[noodledancer]

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.
my dad started teaching high school at age 50 & had tenure after teaching one year full-time & one year at 60% time. does that make sense to you? it doesn't make sense to me or him. it's quite worrisome this is applicable to a 24 year-old straight out of college. i have a lot of respect for those who go into teaching, but two years is simply not enough time to make a proper assessment of a new teacher.

PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement.
Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.
keeping shitty teachers because it's easier to leave them be than try to remove them won't help student achievement either. quality education requires quality educators. all of the top-of-the-line eqipment in the world won't change that. besides, why exactly would a measure dealing with extending the probationary period for new teachers be expected to improve school funding or maintenance? those entirely separate issues brought up to distract from the one at hand.

Existing state law already gives school districts the authority to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty, or other activities not appropriate to teaching—no matter how long a teacher has been on the job.
school districts often don't want to go through the hassle & expense of trying to remove a teacher who hasn't done anything criminal. why not make a bit easier to do so?

THIS UNNECESSARY ANTI-TEACHER INITIATIVE WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR ONLY ONE REASON—to punish teachers for speaking out against the governor’s poor record on education and criticizing him for breaking his promise to fully fund our schools.
i love a good conspiracy.

The governor says that Proposition 74 is needed. But university researchers say that they know of no evidence to support the claim that lengthening the teacher probation period improves teacher performance or student achievement. Good teaching comes from mentoring, training, and support—not from the kind of negative, punitive approach imposed by Proposition 74.
so, to mentor, train, & support new teachers is fantastic, but closely monitoring their performance for a few more years in addition to that is completely heinous?

[Kram41]

Under current state law, certificated employees serve a probationary period during their first two years of service with a school district. During the probationary period, state law currently requires certificated employees to be evaluated at least once a year. At the end of the employees’ first or second year, school districts may choose not to rehire them without offering specific reasons. If not rehired, probationary employees do not have the right to challenge the decision.

Given the longer probationary period, districts could dismiss more teachers during their first five years. This could result in salary savings by replacing higher salaried teachers toward the end of their probationary period with lower salaried teachers just beginning their probationary period.

Similarly, due to the proposition’s modifications to the dismissal process, school districts might experience greater turnover among permanent teachers. This too would result in teacher-related savings from replacing higher salaried veteran teachers with lower salaried, less experienced teachers.

The supply of teachers could be reduced because the longer probationary period and modified dismissal process might be perceived as increasing job insecurity. This would have the effect of putting upward pressure on teacher compensation costs.

The longer probationary period could lead districts to retain some struggling new teachers beyond the current two-year period to give them additional chances to succeed. By retaining these teachers—instead of replacing them with lower-cost entry level teachers—this would have the effect of increasing teacher salary costs above what they otherwise would have been.

Connecticut, North Dakota, and South Carolina are the only 3 states with a one-year probationary period for teachers, and all 3 of these states score above the national average in every subject for acheivement tests. Indiana and Missouri are the states with the longest (5 year) probationary period, and they both score worse than the 3 states with the 1 year probationary period, so you cannot tell me that there is a correlation between length of probationary period and student performance.

[noodledancer]

Under current state law, certificated employees serve a probationary period during their first two years of service with a school district. During the probationary period, state law currently requires certificated employees to be evaluated at least once a year. At the end of the employees’ first or second year, school districts may choose not to rehire them without offering specific reasons. If not rehired, probationary employees do not have the right to challenge the decision.

Given the longer probationary period, districts could dismiss more teachers during their first five years. This could result in salary savings by replacing higher salaried teachers toward the end of their probationary period with lower salaried teachers just beginning their probationary period.

Similarly, due to the proposition’s modifications to the dismissal process, school districts might experience greater turnover among permanent teachers. This too would result in teacher-related savings from replacing higher salaried veteran teachers with lower salaried, less experienced teachers.

The supply of teachers could be reduced because the longer probationary period and modified dismissal process might be perceived as increasing job insecurity. This would have the effect of putting upward pressure on teacher compensation costs.

The longer probationary period could lead districts to retain some struggling new teachers beyond the current two-year period to give them additional chances to succeed. By retaining these teachers—instead of replacing them with lower-cost entry level teachers—this would have the effect of increasing teacher salary costs above what they otherwise would have been.

Connecticut, North Dakota, and South Carolina are the only 3 states with a one-year probationary period for teachers, and all 3 of these states score above the national average in every subject for acheivement tests. Indiana and Missouri are the states with the longest (5 year) probationary period, and they both score worse than the 3 states with the 1 year probationary period, so you cannot tell me that there is a correlation between length of probationary period and student performance.
1) i simply don't think two evaluations is enough for assessing a new teacher. the current minimum requirement is appalling & i'm not sure if it is always met. my dad has been asked by administrators if he really wants/needs them to come in during the usual classroom observations.

2) much of the above assumes that school districts would regularly fire good teacher just to save money on salaries. that's a pretty fucking cynical outlook- even for me. plus, i think the costs of constantly needing to recruit teachers would outweigh any possible benefit here.

3) there is a difference between a "struggling teacher" & an incompetant one. a struggling teacher will get better with training & experience- an incompetant one will not. passing through a two-year probationary period doesn't necessarily mean you're awesome, it means you're satisfactory. most people improve with experience, so a longer probation period means more experience before being hired for a permanent position.

4) you both champion & condemn the ability to replace teachers with "low-cost entry-level teachers." that confuses me.

5) i don't think anyone said there was a correlation. do you really think that that those states are truly comparable? many social factors influence school performance. schools in inner cities & low-income areas generally perform worse than all others, so states with a large proportion of such schools, will rank lower in student performance regardless of probationary period length.

6) extending the probationary period will not solve all the problems in california schools, but it could be a step in the right direction. the state is in the position financially to be pouring unlimited dollars into education that will likely be mis-managed, so looking for ways to help improve teacher quality is a wise move. however, it seems like people are more willing to complain, but do nothing, rather try something.

[Just Decent]

You went 0 for 8, we want our $80 million back.


Just hold on to your wallets next time one of his craptastic movies comes out! :microwve: