I never cease to be amazed by the antics of those on the far left. Let's step into the WayBack machine just one administration's worth. Remember the guy in the White House then? Remember what he did?
Numerous, documented sexual misconduct allegations happen over a period of 30 years, in a continuing pattern.
The big one, with Monica, while he's married and in the White House.
He directly refutes the allegations. Never happened.
Well, he says, something might have happened, but it's not what YOU think.
Well, he says later, what I may or may not have done, might, in certain lights, appear indiscrete.
OK, he says, YOU think I did something wrong. I don't, but if you'll shut up and go away, I'll apologize. So there, I apologize, now go away.
His supporters rally around him with "It's no big deal, stop making an issue out of it. European leaders do it all the time. It's not like he took advantage of his position, after all she's a grown woman!"
All this took place during the age of awareness and sensitivity to sexual harressment.
He and his supporters are screamingly liberal.
And now, on to Arnold ...
6 sexual misconduct allegations happen over a period of 30 years.
The big one, E. Laine Stockton - in 1975, when he's single, during the days of disco and sex.
Cops to it immediately.
Says it happened, he's not proud of it.
Makes a genuine, publicly televised apology.
The liberals (who back in the '70's advocated free love), scream "You shouldn't oughtta have done that, way back in the '70's. What were you thinking?" (NOTE: These are the same people who publically exclaimed that Clinton's actions during the 90's were no big deal.)
This took place during the bootie shakin' era of disco, when sexual harressment was viewed by the public at large as when you didn't get any.
Arnold and his supporters are conservative.
I can hear the arguments now,
"Clinton did apologize" (he mouthed the words, but he had spent so long denying it that he came across saying "I'm sorry you feel that I did anything wrong", IMOHO)
"You can't compare the two, Clinton's actions were consensual, Arnold forced himself on that poor woman" (Either something is wrong, or it isn't. No one is saying that Arnold didn't make a terrible mistake, he's saying he did. I am curious, however, about the world view that says a married man, who's sworn himself to be faithful to his wife, can bop a page in the white house. Say it with me now, "That ain't right!")
"What about X, Y, Z ... ?" (At the time of this post, 2 of the six women had allowed themselves to be identified, the other four were afraid of reprisials. From Arnold? With him under the microscope, that's not likely. From the Kennedy's via Maria? PUL-LEEZE, the Kennedy's haven't the control they once had. If the issue is big enough to acclaim it, then stand behind it. To the best of my knowledge, Arnold apologized to all six women and the nation. Whether they choose to accept his apology or not is between them and Arnold.)
Liberals make me tired. The message they are sending, whether they are aware of it or not, is blunt and simple "It's OK to sleep around on your wife, if you are liberal, but don't even try to cop a feel if you are conservative."
Now, that I've throughly polarized the audience ...
Splatted and munged
quote:
Call the church,
Call the police,
Call the church police.
...THE CHURCH POLICE
I think what you are saying is that Democrat and Republican Guv'nors (pending result) have alot in common. Or if you are a republican you are saying, if it's ok for a democrat President to do it then it MUST be ok for a republican to do it? Possibly you don't care what the person you are voting for got up to, all you want is someone who is popular with the movie going masses, has a good body, and starred in some of your favourite films?
Originally posted by DrPoke I think what you are saying is that Democrat and Republican Guv'nors (pending result) have alot in common. Or if you are a republican you are saying, if it's ok for a democrat President to do it then it MUST be ok for a republican to do it? Possibly you don't care what the person you are voting for got up to, all you want is someone who is popular with the movie going masses, has a good body, and starred in some of your favourite films?
quote:
Originally posted by rooney4 The above is not what I thought you were saying. I thought you meant it was OK for one of the men , but not for the other.
Nope, Nope, Nope.
I believe that you're projecting your own views here. I think that I was fairly clear that I personally believe that both guys screwed up (if you'll pardon the pun). My beef is with the spin doctoring, not their previous jobs. Which, BTW, is another pet peeve of mine. Instead of directly addressing the issues (in this case, whether or not the man in question believes the public will swallow a lie), a non-sequitur, emotional hot-button is pushed:
quote:
Possibly you don't care what the person you are voting for got up to, all you want is someone who is popular with the movie going masses, has a good body, and starred in some of your favourite films?
This appears to be a clear case of issue avoidance. If we follow this caboose of thought, the issue is no longer spin doctoring, but rather actors as government representatives. We are no longer discussing who believes the public has no memory of previous events, but rather who has the biggest box office draw. IOW, the discussion will be shifted from who accepts responsibility for his actions and who tries to avoid said responsibility.
Personally, I would rather have a government representative (be it local, state or federal) who owns up to his mistakes and has shown that he has learned from them, rather than one who splits verbal hairs in a convoluted attempt to dismiss them.
Splatted and munged
quote:
Call the church,
Call the police,
Call the church police.
...THE CHURCH POLICE
I completely agree with splam. They both did something wrong. But it is hypocritical that the liberals in this country condemn Arnold for acts that happened years ago (I know there were some allegations about some incidents that happened not to long ago, but I'll get to that later). It was during a time of free love. Clinton, however, committed adultery, abused his power, tarnished the dignity of the White House and the Presidency, and lied about it under oath. Arnold, on the other hand, admitted to some wrong doing within hours and apologized. We are not even certain if half these allegations are true and if you're going to just take the LA Times' word than your opinion doesn't really matter to me anyways. Arnold did not send for these women to come up to his hotel room like Clinton did (Paula Jones). Oh, and this new allegation about the photo is totally false. Come on people it only takes common sense. I would love to see someone force a woman to lift up her shirt, keep it up, get your other hand and take a clear Polaroid picture. It's almost impossible. Also, was this stunt woman wearing a bra? Being a stunt woman I would think she would require some support. Maybe she lifted up her shirt and bra and had someone take the picture for her because that makes logical sense. Plus, if someone did something that humiliating to you would you ever work with them again like she did three years after. I didn't think so.
in the words of eminem:
"...to spit liquor in the face in this democracy of hypocrasy. f*ck you ms cheney! f*uck you tipper gore! f*uck you with the freest of speech this divided states of embarassment will allow me to have, f*ck you!......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i'm just kidding america, you know i love you."
10-03-2003 08:00 PM
Americaaah RULEZ! 
