Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Oct 2003 00:19:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
476 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 none of the stories are true, but not actually say that none are (the
classic non-denial denial). Just another politician.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
If it broke in August then the timing is hardly suspect. That they gathered
info in the meantime, enough that Arnold is not denying that there is
substance to the claims, speaks that if anything, they did it right.
| |
| |
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.
|
Brokaw: “So, do you deny those stories about grabbing?”
Arnold: “Not at all.” (though he does deny some)
What’s despicable (except Arnold’s actions)? I’d rather have the truth on short
notice rather than not at all. Nor does the Times owe it to Arnold to publish
the story on some timetable that is convenient for him.
| |
| |
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”:-)
|
Lightning bolts. The gods are zapping me for my effontery (I always was a
Sisyphus fan - well, maybe not the name).
| |
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.
|
And Rush just takes drugs....OOooooooooo. Sorry. Allegedly - has he actually
made a real denial yet, or just non-denial denials?
| |
| |
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.
|
Oh, I think he knows how to be ruthless and prevaricate, which seems to be a
prerequisite to be a politician (a successful one, at any rate).
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Well, of course you wouldn’t! Who would risk their Lego collection over
admitting that they might be wrong? You could claim that 2+2=3 and you’d defend
that to the death to save your Lego collection! :-)
| |
| |
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.
|
And yes, she had that gleam in her eye.
| |
| |
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.
|
Spineless coward? Ummmmmmmmm....yes! At least on that particular account. At
the same time, I could read between the lines (as could just about everyone
else) and knew that he “did” Monica. It wasn’t exactly a secret - more a stupid
lawyer’s game.
| |
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.
|
Count one on the side of Arnold. But if he has toned down, it’s awfully darn
recent - which, I suppose, is okay, even if recent, as long as it is real.
| |
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!
|
The state got screwed over by Enron, and the “liberal” Davis tried to be as
laissez-faire conservative as he could about it. Followed by speculating on
investments and spending money based on bad projections. Or, to sum it up in
one word: stupidity. Stupidity and weakness...Two! Our two chief weapons....
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, okay, he ran out of town just in front of the rail-bearing mob, but I’m
gonna count that as chased out by an unhappy electorate. And at least Arnold
doesn’t come off with the WWwhatever (fake sport federation/council) scripted
attitude.
| |
| |
| |
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:-)
|
I dunno, I kinda like Worhol, and I take a perverse delight in Christo’s
wrapping things and juxtaposing nature with oddly man-made things. I didn’t
care for most of the early 20th century art, however. Early Cezanne, yes, late
Cezanne in his capacity as the father of abstract expressionism with his
increasingly abstract landscapes, no. It’s all subjective in the end: “Art is
whatever you can convince people is art.”***
-->Bruce<--
League of Green-Eyed Devil’s Advocates
***infamous quote of a smart-alec art student whose name will not be mentioned
here, but it will be noted he has green eyes
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) I would add to that the observation that his apology was also an oddly flaccid non-denial denial. He didn't say "I apologize for grabbing these 15+ women, which was wrong of me to do." Instead, he said, "I apologize if I offended anyone," (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
