Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:11:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
437 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 provided), or are trivial and unsubstantiated. But if a women feels
like she has a bonafide compliant against Arnold, by all means it should be
investigated as any other crime allegation.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ahem. I think this story broke back in August. How much time does the Times
need?
| |
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.
|
Agreed. But I think it is disingenuous to expect him to address it before the
recall or to expect him to pull out on such short notice. All of this reaks of
innuendo and heresay. Despicable really.
| |
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!).
|
What, and drop the arrows? At least be known as “Bruuuce”:-)
| |
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.
|
Yes, it is the talk of conservative radio-- the talk shows hosts take the
pragmatic position (get the “R” in office), the die-hard conservatives take the
“moral high ground” (McClintock) position.
| |
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).
|
Hmmm. I wouldn’t call him a “politician” yet, but it is interesting to see him
learn the ropes as he goes (the in-laws are probably pretty helpful;-) Whether
he molds himself to a politician remains to be seen.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ah, well you have definitely caught me in that no, I do not read the LATimes. I
can’t even stomach my local rag, the Minneapolis Red Star and Tribune. I have
read and heard about examples of stories they run, and so it is based upon that
that I draw my conclusions. But in all fairness to me; I’ll bet you my LEGO
collection (substantial, BTW) that if I ever did read the LATimes religiously
for 2 weeks or a month or whatever, I wouldn’t change my opinion of it.
| |
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.
|
lol, I never knew about her (or knew of her). TV news...shudder.
| |
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.
|
I see what you mean. Again, my problems with Clinton were about his character.
Even if it is shown that Hilliary was okay with his extra-maritial affairs, I
still say he is a spineless coward for not simply saying “yeah, I did her, but
that is our business and not anyone elses. Political suicide? Maybe, and
maybe not. He was a lame duck anyway, and by coming clean, the Republican lynch
mob would have been disarmed of the weapon of perjury.
It seems to me that Arnold is coming clean; “Yeah, I behaved inappropriately,
I am sorry, it was wrong, I’m not like that anyone.” If nothing else, I respect
his honesty.
| |
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.
|
Voting for him would be a risk I suppose, as was voting for Jesse. Jesse did
some good things, BTW, and the most enjoyable part of his tenure was when he
snubbed Dems and Reps alike. I loved it. He even wanted Minnesota to go
unicameral! What a delicious thought:^d`Outsiders are very good, but the
problem is that it seems only celebrities have the ability to win rather than
sharp, intelligent third party choices. Nothing ventura-ed, nothing gained;-)
Take a chance on Arnold-- it’s only for 2 years. Rest assured that nothing
will change if Davis remains or Bustamante gets voted in (except a huge raise in
your taxes;-) Heck, I’d vote for Arnold just to have the books audited and see
what indeed the heck happened!
| |
| |
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!).
|
Jesse made many political enemies, and he was shrewd enough to see the
handwriting on the wall. But I would have voted for him again.
| |
| |
| |
(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).
|
Nothing quite like being able to see the Masters in person:-) I was an art
major in kollege, and as a kid growing up Van Gogh was my favorite artist.
Sadly, my interest in modern art died with the advent of Andy Worhol and Pop
“Art”. Maybe it’s just that I’m getting old and cranky-- like RM:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Arnold claims in one breath that he does not deny all the stories about grabbing and immediately continues that "this is not (him)." Well, if he admits he did it, then it is him. What is this fairy tale that it isn't. He wants to imply that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) 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. (...) Of course the timing is suspect. Then again, sometimes it (...) (21 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
