Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:45:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
484 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
So Liberals shouldn’t criticize his behavior lest they politically
incorrectly “judge” the morays of another culture;-) As for the Young
Republican meetings-- I doubt he started attending them before his first
million earned;-)
|
A cute answer (heck, you got me to laugh with you!), but it doesn’t deal with
the substance of the claims. I think we are up to 15 accusers, a number that
will no doubt grow.
| |
| |
And who cared before - just another crass foreigner. Now, if Arnold ran for
office 30 years ago, I think we would have heard of the incidents by now.
You question why some want to remain anonymous? I think the answer to your
question is evident in your own resposne.
|
The timing, -->Bruce<--, the timing. If ever there were a classic example of
mud-slinging, this would be it. Or the nazi flap.
|
Of course the timing is suspect. Then again, sometimes it takes a while to
research these things. On the other hand, sometimes it’s a matter of when is
the most damaging time to release it, and whether it should be bothered with
(you don’t if he is losing, for example - you become the front runner and you
become a target). In any case, you still have to deal with the substance of the
claims. It was easy to dismiss the nazi thing out of hand - I could see in an
instant that it was taken out of context, and until it was put into context, I
gave it little notice. Those that freaked at it didn’t like Arnold anyway (an
aside, if I ran for office, I’d be known as Bruce since no one would want to
type my last name either!).
The boorish behaviour I have little doubt of. Whether or not that type of
person should be governor is up to the individual voter. If he has put it
behind (ahhhhhh, that would be a non-groped behind) him, I rather imagine that
many will not care. Except...for the religious right, who are placed in a moral
bind.
| |
| |
| |
| |
But whatever, who can know the
truth of these wild allegations one hears about from time to time. It
doesn’t much matter to me.
|
Agreed.
|
Great! So, no complaints about Clinton in the future, right?
|
As much as I prefer to never talk about Clinton again, I will say this.
Okay, I will even buy the consenting adult thing defense for Clinton
(assuming part of that consent came from Hillary). So he is a moral
degenerate. What irked me about him is that he didn’t have the testicles to
admit it and move on-- he hid behind lies and obfuscation. Take
responsiblity for your actions, and if you are too ashamed of them, then
perhaps that says something about them. He’s a spineless coward.
|
Arnold is hiding behind lies and obfuscation, too. It’s the kind of thing we
train our politicians to do (i.e. it works, therefore they do it).
| |
| |
Do you actually read the Los Angeles Times on any regular basis in order to
form such an opinion, or is this just an attempt to shoot the messenger?
|
Are you actually disagreeing with me, or just questioning the validity of my
opinion (which is mine, however stupid or ill-informed you may think it to
be)
|
Actually, I’m trying to get you to confront your own opinion and get you to
decide whether you are justified in that opinion, or are you merely falling into
a partisan trap of your own devising. From my standpoint, I feel that you are
taking the path of least resistance and the one that is the most comforting
(regardless of accuracy) to you by simply demonizing those that say things that
you don’t like.
| |
| |
Wait...network TV? As in what kneejerk-conservatives think is the heart of
“the liberal media”? So....it isn’t liberal?
|
Richard is asserting (I think) that network TV endorses Arnold because the
print media (ie the LAT) certainly isn’t IMO. Since I don’t watch TV, I
don’t know if he is right or wrong about that. My only opinion about network
TV is that they will show anything that will make them a buck (including
juicey gossip, etc). They care about ratings, and if “scandal” boosts
ratings, then lead with it! Don Henley nailed network news in “Dirty
Laundry”:
|
Numerous newspaper have recommend Arnold for governor (though I think an Oakland
paper just withdrew that recommendation). Habitually, the L.A. Times does not
make recommendations for Governor or President unless a candidate is in
overwhelming, complete and total, abject moron, in which case they recommend the
other guy (I know they broke their own rule at least once, but I can’t recall
more than that).
Christine Lund, at the time of Channel 7, ABC local “Eyewitless News”, is the
“Bubble-Headed Bleach Blonde” that Henley spoke of, by the way. I do not watch
local news as a general rule - I despise the “litany of death” that they ascribe
to.
| |
| |
Or is Arnold really a liberal,
but if that is the case, why is the liberal (ahahahahaha!) Los Angeles Times
torpedoing him? Why not torpedo the real conservative, McClintock?
|
Because they know that he doesn’t have a chance to win.
|
Awwwwwww, does this mean I have to concede a point to you? :-)
| |
| |
A liberal who believes in a balanced budget who fools around a lot. Does
this sound like Clinton reborn or what? I take it you are a big Clinton
supporter, then? :-)
|
You assume I like Arnold, about whom I am not rabid. The best thing he has
going for him is that he is an “outsider”, which is almost enough. After
all, I voted for Jesse:-)
|
I’m not saying that Arnold is your ideal candidate, but I am drawing a parallel
and noting the somewhat selective support and scorn you apply.
And let’s turn that around on me. If Arnold is a social liberal but fically
responsible candidate, he actually sounds like my ideal candidate! The problems
are that I fear he’ll rubber-stamp the far right bills (much the way that the
rather consevative Davis rubber stamps democrats bills). Further, I have no
clue as to what he intends to do - all he says are the vaguest genralities (I’m
for you, I’ll be wonderful, ignore those charges, say something specific? God
forbid!). Which, by the way, really does drives the reporters nuts (at least it
does the Times). Who the heck knows what you are getting beyond that he grabs
women, grunts lines in a heavy accent (my God, he even screams with an Austrian
accent!), has utterly no political experience and shows little understanding of
the political process, and is a singularly ruthless competitor (with the
inherent good and bad that that implies). He’s the classic blank check that
everyone wants to project their own set of values onto - a delusion that can be
fostered by never actually saying anything.
| |
FAKE SPORT???? TAKE THAT BACK! ;-) Actually, he wasn’t run out on a rail;
he decided not to run for re-election.
|
LBJ decided not to run for re-election, too (translation: he was run out on a
rail!).
| |
A classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Let’s face it--
Ralph Nadar is responsible for Bush being in office rather than Gore. Think
about it. You may not have liked Gore, but I’ll bet you would have liked him
better than Bush;-)
|
Gore is responsible for Gore not being in office (aside from Jeb and Daddy
Bush). I threw away my vote by voting for Gore, not the other way around. I
vowed that if Gore screwed it up, I was going Green.
| |
| |
(Hey! I can’t do my Edvard Munch’s The Scream emoticon anymore because of
the underline in formatted text...boo!)
|
It’s just as well.... people now associate the scream emoticon with Home
Alone anyway...:-)
|
Augh! I don’t know whether to scream because a great piece of art has been
cheapened, or glad that the honorific reference was made. Oh, I can’t be mad
about art right now - I just saw another Van Gogh I hadn’t seen before this
weekend and I’m ecstatic (no watching political commercials for me). Anyone in
Los Angeles should run to see the Russian collection that ends after this
coming weekend (www.lacma.org - Los Angeles County Museum of Art).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Let it, and let him address each one. I have a feeling that after tomorrow, the issue will become mute (sic), because most of the allegations are beyond the statute of limitations (so at best they would get an apologize which he has already (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) So Liberals shouldn't criticize his behavior lest they politically incorrectly "judge" the morays of another culture;-) As for the Young Republican meetings-- I doubt he started attending them before his first million earned;-) (...) The (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
