| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 5:36:49 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger today admitted that as recently as 2000 he groped and fondled women on his movie sets. Good to know that the leading candidate in the recall election for our most populous state is a misogynist. Funny about how around the time he started to consider a political career he "saw the light" and decided it was a bad idea to grope women that were not his wife-wonder how she feels about it. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ladylight |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 11:52:45 PM
Teee-heee!! Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.
Hey Bill R., thank you for not being a groper! Yes of course there are a few good men around, my hubby among them. As I've said, he used to be the one groped by the opposite sex, and I think this was because he truly was a faithful men and some ladies felt extremely challenged by that. Yes, and I do not think our King Richfed would stoop to grope, and not because Queenie would decree: Off With His Head! But because he would not stoop to grope, case closed.
Unwanted groping is indeed stooping.
But seriously, Bill R., here you are telling it as it is: >>>just days before the recall vote, when it appears Arnie may win, and just coincidentally right after Clinton shows up to give advice on how to run a winning campaign. It became classic Klintonian blow smoke up your butt tactics.....accuse accuse, divert, lie, bring hardcore Dems out to make accusations, and press all the emotional buttons.....taking away from issues and bringing it into the emotional arena. It was classic. "He's a groper!" He's a Nazi!". "He's a neanderthal, knuckle dragging boor!". "It's a right wing Republican conspiracy!". Everything he tried to use to divert when HIS butt got in trouble. Didn't work though. Cut the numbers down some, but I think it threw the middle roaders into a reactionary camp against those tactics and Arnie won.<<<
And this is your best line: >>> ...threw the middle roaders into a reactionary camp against those tactics and Arnie won.<<<
Light and Luck to you, and all the LOTMers!
|
| securemann |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 8:30:07 PM
I was engaged in hand to hand combat many years ago with a psycho.We were rolling on the floor and I do believe Rich came to help.During this intense battle I think I was groped.Did you grope me Rich? Somebody groped me!! Being a SECUREMANN and a Secure Ward Brute,I was groped.All the battles I was in there were many gropes.I'm going to the media about this groping.Hey wait a minute,come to think of it,I was in a battle with a female and I do believe I was groped by the female staff while doing their job.Oh well,just another male that was groped. |
| richfed |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 1:01:42 PM
Spoken like only our Towne Crier can!! Good to see ya, Ladylight! |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 12:55:26 PM
Well, feminist or not, in my view groping and unwanted advances and "joking around" like that are boorish, crude, insensitive, disrespectful and degrading. No excuses. If he did those things, shame on him. Hollywood, however, is an entirely unique universe unto itself. Weird. Unexplainable. Different lifestyles, morals and values entirely. And, we weren't there. If these ladies alleging the conduct were so outraged, one wonders why they come out of the woodwork just days before the recall vote, when it appears Arnie may win, and just coincidentally right after Clinton shows up to give advice on how to run a winning campaign. It became classic Klintonian blow smoke up your butt tactics.....accuse accuse, divert, lie, bring hardcore Dems out to make accusations, and press all the emotional buttons.....taking away from issues and bringing it into the emotional arena. It was classic. "He's a groper!" He's a Nazi!". "He's a neanderthal, knuckle dragging boor!". "It's a right wing Republican conspiracy!". Everything he tried to use to divert when HIS butt got in trouble. Didn't work though. Cut the numbers down some, but I think it threw the middle roaders into a reactionary camp against those tactics and Arnie won.
Back to the groping issue. Never an excuse. And not all men think like that or act like that. I don't do it. Can you EVER picture Rich doing such a thing? All men are not the same. |
| ladylight |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 09:10:15 AM
Hello y'all
I am coming out on the side of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Before you attempt to chop me down with your muskets and hatchets, Hear me out! First off, I want to know: is he guilty of RAPE? In other words, has he taken it further to actually drug or beat a woman into sexual submission? Second, has this been reported to the police? Third, has he, actually, FIRED A WOMAN, OR CAUSE DAMAGE TO HER LIVELYHOOD, JUST BECAUSE SHE REFUSED HIS ADVANCES?
Before I go on, I buy his excuse that he thought he was being playful, because after all he is an idiotic, egotistic male. They think that this kind of behavior is manly, masterly, hunterly, and accepted by their peers (especially around film sets; how many of you have been around Hollywood insiders?)
I am more feminist than you could imagine I'd be (little ole aunties are not supposed to be fightning amazons but to sit in a corner and shut up), and in my day, especially when I was a young immigrant in the USA, just off the boat so to speak, and desperate, suffered from a great deal of sexual harassment - during job interviews as well as later, in the workplace, and had to quit many times because of it. Today, I am a cynic, and know that many men, especially men in power (even if it's a small powerbase such as being the boss in a 2-person inky dinky office) can be arrogant, overbearing, and give themselves the right to grope or more when they have the power and are convinced THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
So, take these men and place them into a Broadway/Hollywood environment, wherein a more open and liberal moral climate exists, and where their power and ego is so much more magnified. Take one of them, namely Arnold, and give him a stunning physique, a vibrant brain, ooodles and oodles of narcicism, genuine charm, and as his star rises, literally thousands of women who throw themselves at him. The LEAST these women do to him, is to grope him. As his fame and power burgeons, and being the basically low-brow, testesterone-driven, brutish male that he is, he thinks he has the same right as they have, he too can reach out and grope freely, and on occasion he aims wrong, in other word propositions women who have no interest in him. And then when he has the temerity to run for political office, these women are harvested and used by his opponents, at the last minute.
I am not saying groping, harassing, propositioning is right and correct and accepted behavior. I am just saying that too many men engage in similar behavior and get away with it. I'd whack my husband if he'd do the same. But as it so happens, I have also witnessed women, some of them his colleagues at work, and some of them mutual friends, grope him when they thought I was not looking, or even proposition him. And truth is I felt embarrassed on their behalf. But the fact is not all of us operate on the same moral principles, and the best the gropee can do, is to say no, no, no. No, I am not interested.
If, the groper, male or female, takes his/her unwanted advances further and uses violence, and then revenge, we enter a different arena. I want to hear if Arnold has done that. Raped, or beaten up a woman or women, and has he fired them or caused them to be fired, when they said no.
Finally, I do believe that he is guilty of "groping," but also believe that he thought he was being playful and thought women like to be overpowered by "masterful, hunter-type" men. This makes him an idiot like all tooooo many numbers of men, but not a rapist. I am not sure all of the charges are true, either. But this is a lesson for him or men of similar disposition. Know that one day, you will be called on the carpet.
As of Maria Shriver and the California's constituents...
Well, Maria knows her man, she knows he is a film star, she knows the environs of Hollywood, she knows men in general, and she is a highly intelligent and courageous female.
And the Californians... they saw something in Arnold, and have taken a chance on that he might be |
| Kurt |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 06:37:26 AM
Didn't corporate management of media industries come to their senses and insist that the news division show a profit in the 1970s? |
| Kurt |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 05:34:16 AM
Mr.Schwarzenegger inherits a $8 million deficit and a state constitution that does not allow increasing land tax, income tax, ... tax. He has promised to abolish the car tax (which is the same as land tax only it gets renters also) so he really inherits $13 million deficit.
On the news lately they said New York has the highest community college tuition in the country and California has the lowest. Thank God that pinko bleedingheart lowest tuition is gonna be smashed. |
| Kurt |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 05:25:12 AM
Rush Limbaugh has every right to use that cancerous pusshole of a mouth to insult me. I'm glad thousands find this amusing. I better shut up. |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 02:05:36 AM
So MANY points were missed, and mistated, I don't even care to TRY to respond. I wouldn't know where to begin.
I will say this though.....WHEN I took journalism...and WAS a journalist, it was drilled into us REPORT THE NEWS. Opinions are for the editorials. If an opinion was interjected even unwittingly, the editor slammed you and made you rewrite telling you NOT to editorialize. Also, and it's not your fault being so much younger likely, but I REMEMBER when the news WAS the news. Only in the 60's (and 70's) particulary did the media try a new format as a trial balloon......spending time "personalizing" the media with cross talk. Cute little pokes at each other. We didnt stop it then......should have. It's became a 15 second clip or sound bite of "news" and 2 minutes or more of opinionated commentary. NO. News is NOT about opinion. That's for talk shows and editorials. Which by the way, Limbaugh IS. A TALK SHOW. A radio talk show. News is report the facts and let the viewers form their own opinion.
News is: "two people were killed today in an accident on I-95 during rush hour. Apparently the driver swerved to avoid a car entering from the on ramp. Neither occupant had been wearing a seat belt. Traffic was tied up for 45 minutes." Period. NOT all that and THEN five minutes of "experts" telling us how seatbelts should be worn, that stronger laws are needed, that stiffer legislation is needed to compel people to wear their seatbelts, have two people "in the street" agree (picking and choosing those answers from among the 20 asked) and end with a closeup of the damaged car full of blood and dangling seatbelts. THAT'S EDITORIALIZING AND PURE PROPAGANDA. It's why we get so little news in a half hour as opposed to when it WAS news.
That's all done for you now. They "report" the news and tell you what to think about it. If you find that better, then there truly is no hope for you.
Polarity in the parties? IF they were doing things right, and doing things that made sense, and doing things that most felt were good for the country there would NOT be the extreme polarity that there is today. It would be a choice between the better candidate. For that matter, it should ALWAYS be a choice between the better candidate rather than whether he is Dem or Republican Frankly, I don't think there really arent all that many differences anymore in the REALLY important things........but I don't mean that in a good way. It's all a smoke screen. Buy into it. That's good little baaaaaa sheep. Exactly what they want you to do. We get ever more restrictive laws jammed down our throats that don't solve any problems but DO become quite useful as precedents for, or are useful in oppressing us and bringing us ever closer to Brave New World and 1984. Until we wake up one day and ask "what the heck....how did this happen?"
The media got Arnie elected? God is that out there somewhere over the rainbow. They PULLED their support for him. Like I said....media did not elect him. Absolute contempt for Davis and his failed policies defeated Davis. Arnie only won because he had the biggest hoopla. Frankly, if a PIG who could only grunt was running against Davis, he STILL would have lost. As it turns out, the pig who could only grunt DID win.
It couldn't possibly be because Davis, a liberal Dem, was just inept, huh? That people were fed UP with more and more taxes for bullcrap programs when the state was hemorraging financially and falling apart. That grade school through high school education sucks compared to the rest of the country. That crime continues to escalate. That brownouts and blackouts occur because the state has to buy most of it's power from neighboring states and we certainly wouldnt want to shut off our hot tubs...but NOBODY wants to build any more power plants because the spotted whinkle doofer might be disturbed in it's habitat. Nah. Couldnt have been anything like that. Gray Davis was a parago |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 3:39:33 PM
All I have to say is that there's no way this guy could have won the election without the "news" media making such a big deal about him running; or without the "news" media telling everyone that Davis was so disliked, that anyone else would be better (not that Davis didn't deserve it). And if this election had been during the Clinton era, "Ahnold" would have called himself a Democrat. The only reason he's calling himself a Republican is beacuse they're more popular at the moment. |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 3:22:39 PM
I said "MOVING to a color blind approach" it's obvious we're not there because of the points you bring up. Compared to Jim Crow days we're making progress, a lot of prejudices still need to die and we need to stay on guard against new ones. Lynchings and cross burnings have dropped off considerably, that's progress. Non-white folks can vote, sit in the same restaraunt, etc... The military color-blindness is a very recent thing, let's give the rest of society some time to integrate the policies our military has been able to institute in the last 50-60 years. Change comes much more swiftly in a well regulated military environment, it's still working it's way through society.
As to people's free speech being stifled- Lott's people ran away from him after he made his comments about the nation being better off had we elected the pro-segregationist Dixie-crats in the 40's. He apologized for these words, said they were thoughtless. The administration that he represented didn't want to be associated with that viewpoint, understandably. He was abandoned by his own people. Limbaugh resigned because he couldn't take the heat, his choice, he dropped that ball. He didn't want to become the poster boy for bringing racial issues back into the NFL, he was not willing to go that far out on a limb. He has the opportunity to run his mouth off on a daily basis to millions of listeners, they appreciate his viewpoint, the viewers of ESPN NFL coverage apparently don't. I don't buy that his free speech rights are being trampled. And Schwarzenegger won, nobody is stifling his rights to free speech. He's proved that you can grope women, call yourself an upstanding member of the Republican party and be elected governor of our most populous state.
And what is the news media here for if not to interject their OPINION. Conservative media pushes conservative agenda's, Liberal media pushes liberal agenda's. If you want a bland churning out of data you've got the BBC. Wasn't Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" just a media "OPINION" that advocated American Revolution. The Loyalists certainly didn't agree with that opinion. The discussion that media creates helps the nation come together. We shouldn't look at media as stifling free speech, rather an instrument of it. The fact that media can blow any crazy idea it wants out in the wind is proof that it is working. It's up to intelligent people to discern what THEY feel is right out of it and let it inform their opinions. It's the duty of the media to "slam folks with other views", that's how we get debate, discussion. One side says something, the other side reacts. We go back and forth and the observers decide who is making the most convincing arguement. You can't decide that some side or view is "RIGHT" and disallow opposition to it. That's like Bush calling folks who wanted more discussion of the Iraq issue unpatriotic.
And aren't Democrats and Republicans supposed to be polarized--what's the point of having a two party system if they don't disagree on most of the major issues. It's that very disagreement that creates the issues of the day. It's only too bad we don't have more viable parties. I don't agree 100% with either party, it is most definitely a lesser of evils situation at every election. Doesn't this trend of Republicans becoming more like Democrats and vice-versa disturb you? This trend is why I refer to Republicrats and Democans occasionally, if we're not careful we're gonna end up with ONE party that no one likes. Democrats and Republicans, Conservative and Liberals CANNOT agree on major moral issues, if they do then each side will have so compromised their original positions that we might as well go to a monarchy. These polarizing differences are what keep our nation and our media alive. Flaming Liberals have just as many rotten tomatoes thrown at them as Ultra-Conservatives. Extremism in any direction-Conservative, Liberal, Religious, Atheist is |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 2:19:37 PM
Exactly. |
| richfed |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 1:01:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
And, finally, we are NOT color blind. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. We single out parts of our society BY ethnicity with such things as affirmative action, driver licenses for illegal aliens, college placement credits FOR ethnicity, etc. That's not a color blind society. That's a program and policy guaranteed to keep color and bias viable and in the minds of everybody. Giving extra credit FOR color is just as damaging to a society as keeping somebody DOWN for color. And it ain't color blind. The only real color blind part of society I have ever seen is the military. Performance oriented, merit oriented. Blacks and whites train together, sleep in the same foxhole, advance according to merit and hard work only, and die together. And even THERE the libs want to polarize things.....destroy that which is working.
Holy cow, Bill! I mean I REALLY, REALLY agree with this last point ... All that stuff you mentioned just serves to accentuate our differences. It does nothing to further race or ethnic relations. Breeds resentments, if anything. This is one of my pet peeves, and you covered it well. One, of many, reasons I enjoy sports ... on the field, race matters not. It's just guys working together for a common goal- like the military, in a sense. There are lessons to be learned here ... if only they would WAKE UP!!! |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 11:40:12 AM
Didn't understand that last one a'tall. Will wait for the translation..........
As to this: "The reason I'm not personally outraged is that I'm not really a big fan of these three guys. If it was somebody I gave a crap about I might defend them..."
Point proven. They've won. They being those who would whittle away and chip away at a truly free society by polarizing Dems vs Reps, blacks vs whites, liberals vs conservatives, gays vs straight, hawks vs doves, etc etc etc........and by doing so distract us with emotional smokescreens while they steal a country and a free Republic from us. This country USED to be about defending a man's right to be what he wanted, think how he wanted, act how he wanted, say what he wanted...even if it was not YOUR view. And defend that right violently and loudly. We were outraged, or we used to be, when free thought or speech was stifled. We held in contempt news and media when they interjected "opinion" into their reporting or took an obvious slant. They were careful NOT to do that because of the backlash they would suffer. That's all changed.
We've become a society that tolerates other views getting stifled, slammed and other folks with different views getting marginalized, ridiculed, fired, etc......as long as OUR particular issue is not assaulted. And that is the path to a society where NOBODY is really free. Sure - make fun of me for saying so. I don't have to live much longer in the world that is being created. But when you make it a "hate crime" to SAY something and give Gov the legal power over your thoughts........that is NEVER a smart thing to do. Gov ALWAYS expands that power into other areas. As an example.
I'm truly sorry to see Arnie win. I think he's an idiot, frankly. His winning doesnt speak to his qualifications or suitability but only to the contempt Gray Davis was held in. And, perhaps, it was a reaction to the dirty last minute campaign that jerk tried. Clinton's advice and tactics backfired on this one.
And, finally, we are NOT color blind. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. We single out parts of our society BY ethnicity with such things as affirmative action, driver licenses for illegal aliens, college placement credits FOR ethnicity, etc. That's not a color blind society. That's a program and policy guaranteed to keep color and bias viable and in the minds of everybody. Giving extra credit FOR color is just as damaging to a society as keeping somebody DOWN for color. And it ain't color blind. The only real color blind part of society I have ever seen is the military. Performance oriented, merit oriented. Blacks and whites train together, sleep in the same foxhole, advance according to merit and hard work only, and die together. And even THERE the libs want to polarize things.....destroy that which is working.
End of sermon. Like it or not, these aint opinions these are facts. |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 08 2003 : 02:24:01 AM
Good luck Californians!! Celebrity politicians are pretty sweet. Is this the first you've had since Reagan? Even though Jesse Ventura was much more of a minor celebrity he was fun to have in office. I'm sure you'll enjoy the media circus that your state politics are destined to become. Go Governator!!!! |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 9:10:26 PM
Why aren't more members of the media, the more conservative folks out there, defending Schwarzenegger, Limbaugh, and Lott? The reason I'm not personally outraged is that I'm not really a big fan of these three guys. If it was somebody I gave a crap about I might defend them, I leave their defense to their supporters. I'm not going to go out on a limb for someone I don't agree with. Their supporters should be making their case, not I. As to oppression of freedom of speech, I'm not sure about that. Just because their speech may not be too popular doesn't mean that it's being suppressed. No one is censoring them, they are able to run their mouths off at will it's just apparent that it isn't going over too well with the public. Whether people like it or not the nation has been moving to a color-blind approach to the race issue. People are trying to think of each other as Americans, not African Americans, Arab Americans, etc... You're right, Limbaugh and Lott shouldn't have said anything differently. They should openly express their personal opinions. They should just accept that the mainstream may not always agree with them. Conservative folks are as far from the middle of the road as Liberal folks. No group can expect support from the public on every issue. You are doing an excellent job of defending your viewpoint and the folks you support, thank you, I'm happy that I know you will continue to be as outspoken as you are. I only hope that I'll be able to defend people I support as eloquently. Let's keep the discussion going. |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 8:40:58 PM
"These guys would probably both have said things differently if they had considered this point."
Or maybe, they had forgotten that there is no real freedom of speech in this country anymore. After all, they are republicans laboring under the illusion it's still a free country.
I would like to think they would NOT have said anything differently.
They have won you know. If folks like you arent outraged, and have come round to the point that "you should have known better than to say that" as an acceptable reaction to oppression of freedom of speech and thought.........they've won.
Is that bleating I hear in the background? Must be shearing time.
|
| Bill R |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 8:33:14 PM
I ask the question: WHY are we letting the "guardians" of free speech suppress free speech? Why aren't we blistering their backsides for pumping this inane crap into our living room, and for stifling speech that isn't politically correct (in their eyes) while claiming to be the "defenders" of free speech?
And why are you not offended by the concept of "race" being a forbidden topic......or ANY topic being forbidden for that matter.....and accept that anybody should "know better" in broaching them? What? A sports commentator was supposed to AVOID ever making a "black" statement.....when half or more of the field IS black?
It's OKAY to skew entrance TO college by race, but NOT okay to say it is being done? Or it's OKAY to promote a quarterback DUE to race, but NOT okay to say it has been done? My. Nice country you would wish for us. |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 8:01:37 PM
I agree that's it's foolish to think that Limbaugh WOULDN'T say something that a lot of people would consider inflammatory. You might as well put Howard Stern in that position. They both piss a lot of people off. They are both mouthpieces for different political agenda's. And yes, most politicians seem to be morally reprehensible. It just seems that Limbaugh and Trent Lott should have known that in today's political climate the media doesn't give any latitude on racial speech. I'm not saying it's right that these guys are getting run out of town for what they said, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but they should have at least thought they might be stirring a big pot of poo by making the comments they did. I am not defending our reactionary media in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that as an observer it is obvious to me that the media does not allow people to discuss race openly. These guys would probably both have said things differently if they had considered this point. |
| Dillon1836 |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 8:01:09 PM
Well,Swarzenegger is a guy....we've all had those times where we did something we sometime regret....but saw it wasnt wrong at the time!
Swarzenegger was elected because California needed a leader who was new to politics and wouldnt pull the tricks and mistakes Davis made.They felt someone well known would get them the man they needed to do the job.
I'm for Swarzenegger.....whether or not he fondled women on his movie sets.
(No offense to the women on this board for Ahhnolds act was not needed) |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 7:41:08 PM
I wouldn't equate human behavior with POLITICAL behavior. One is normal, the other is aberrative. You know what the biggest loss is?
Mudslinging takes away from talking about the real issues. By design. If issues are gonna bite you in the as*, then mudsling or make allegations to deflect talk from the issues. The issues are why Davis is in his present position in the first place. On the other hand, I wouldnt vote for Terminator either. It's almost like the only people who run in politics are the sleazes and the flawed.
It's to the point that if they are merely sleazes and flawed, we think that's better than criminal and outright liars and breath a sigh of relief. It's all smoke and mirrors - the whole party partisanship thing. Keeps us at each other's throats while they steal our country from us.
As for Limbaugh, they just on NBC lectured us for five minutes that we have to be careful about newspeople with notoriety, like Limbaugh, expressing their opinion and accepting it as fact. How that's the big sin he committed. EXCUSE ME? His TITLE was sports commentator, not newsperson. He was HIRED to give his opinion. His real mistake was saying that due to media's wanting a successful black quarterback so badly, they raved about him when he wasnt THAT good. That's a sports opinion, made by a sports commentator payed to express his opinion, and was directed at the media NOT racial or anti-black. Anti-liberal media maybe.
So they hammer him, and lecture we, the audience, how his big sin was making an opinion which could be mistaken as "news".....and we all know THEY NEVER slant the news, express opinions as news, etc.
I think they are trying to sink the guy before the next election. Shut him up. Get him out of the picture. He hurts the liberals. People listen to him. This was just an excuse to hammer him just like the notorious birthday party comments that were made and sank another prominent republican. Now, I didnt like that guy, but the ploy and the agenda was clear enough to a blind man. Media hoopla'd that too.
Lessee........sink Limbaugh a conservative spokesman over bullcrap. Sink a Republican chairman of committees over bullcrap again hoopla'd about by media and driven by them. Keep quiet about 1st Ammendment gag order, cause they are exempt, and they've shown the correct bias overall. Yeah. It's a free country all right. You sure can say what you want here, as long as it fits into the liberal agenda. There's no curtailment of freedom of speech in THIS country.
|
| susquesus |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:41:44 PM
Funny how politics get uglier and uglier the closer you get to election day. All this mud-slinging gets pretty entertaining. It's great to see grown men, public servants nonetheless, call each other names. Everybody waits to play their biggest hands until the last minute, when they judge it'll do the most damage. Yes, I'm sure this is politically motivated, it sounds like this report has been in the works for months and possibly years. I wonder if anything else will come out about any of these guys in the next four days. It seems to be policy to kick people when they're down, you give 'em a bloody nose and then a black eye. It's like the Limbaugh circus, first they call him a racist and while he's still reeling from that they accuse him of being involved in a prescription drug ring. I don't want to take any sides, it's just an interesting look at human behavior. |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:07:09 PM
So basically your solution is to play right in their hands? Generate a huge outcry against him for this, have Gray Davis win, and suffer some more? To make a point? Give them EXACTLY what they want, and play THEIR game?
My comment was not about holding him up to a standard the Dems refused to hold Clinton up to, my comment was more along the lines of, they should SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. The ploy is as transparent as Clinton was to many of us.
Swarzenegger may actually win. Do I think he would make a better Governor? Not my call. I think you guys deserve what you get out there, whether it be Terminator or Terminature for not demanding more of your pols....and only caring about which party they are.
And for ALLOWING the double standard to exist in the first place through allowing the excuses be made for Clinton.
By the way, it was no accident after Clinton goes out there to advise Davis how to win a campaign that we start hearing crap like the recall is a Republican conspiracy and about Terminator's sexual piccadillos. The master of lies, obfuscation, turn the point away by raising some ridiculous side issue etc has been on the scene, obviously. |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:06:02 PM
I guess all I'm saying is that men or women, especially married men or women should keep their hands to themselves, regardless of whether they're politicians or not. It seems like it should just be common respect for your spouse. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 02 2003 : 6:02:30 PM
Well Susquesus, if he does it AFTER assuming the office (that is of course if the recall is approved, and if he wins the election), then you will have a very valid point. But, until that criteria is met, what you are doing is comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
