Schwarzenegger: Makes Clinton look like a monk....

[Diamond]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

Hello?

[reprise]

I'm always totally bemused by the interest showed by US voters in the sex lives (past and present) of their politicians.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by reprise
I'm always totally bemused by the interest showed by US voters in the sex lives (past and present) of their politicians.

That's because they want a religious leader as much as a political one.

[American]

His nasty values are just another way he makes HIMSELF look like a democrat. He's a trojan horse liberal. But he can lift a lot of weight, so I would definitely vote for him anyway.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Arnold wasn't married, in the oval office, and didnt lie under oath about it.

stop playing out your lame moral dilemma.

[crackmonkey]

... and hasn't been accused of numerous rapes.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/images1/clinton.gif

here's the sleazo video : http://secure.mediaresearch.org/rm/stewardess/segment1.ram

[RandFan]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... and hasn't been accused of numerous rapes. Is there some sort of comfort in the fact that Clinton has only a single accusation of rape?

Broaddrick details alleged rape by Clinton (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33027)

A Clinton campaign worker at the time, she described a meeting in her hotel room in which Clinton held her down forcibly on a bed and bit her lips while engaging in sexual intercourse. After the encounter, Clinton allegedly told her not to worry because he was sterile.

[DavidJames]

"But mommy, Billy did it too!"

"If Billy jumped off a cliff would you jump off too?"

"I'm sorry mommy!"

"That's ok, when you grow up you will realize that people are responsible for their own behavior and you should not blame others or make excuses."

Sometimes, getting older and growing up aren't related.

[figarot]

Originally posted by DavidJames
[B(snip)
Sometimes, getting older and growing up aren't related. [/B]
how true

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by American
His nasty values are just another way he makes HIMSELF look like a democrat. He's a trojan horse liberal. Wow. Over generalize much?

Why do you think only Democrats can have poor values or make bad decisions?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"But mommy, Billy did it too!"

"If Billy jumped off a cliff would you jump off too?"

"I'm sorry mommy!"

"That's ok, when you grow up you will realize that people are responsible for their own behavior and you should not blame others or make excuses."

Sometimes, getting older and growing up aren't related. Who are your words directed to? The individual who says that "Schwarzenegger: Makes Clinton look like a monk" or those who take issue with the proposition.

Could you point out who made excuses and for whom those excuses were made for?

Could you point out who placed blame on another and for what behavior?

Or is this just a straw man?

[American]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wow. Over generalize much?

Why do you think only Democrats can have poor values or make bad decisions?


Overgeneralize is my middle name, dude. I really don't mean it so much as I pretend.

[DavidJames]

Clinton ignore my post, I don't know Clinton what got into me, it's not Clinton my nature to Clinton interrupt children at play. Clinton

:D


Clinton

[Mike B.]

Well I am stumped what that means...:confused:

[Malachi151]

That link went to a bunch of info on Survivor contestants who used drugs...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Clinton ignore my post, I don't know Clinton what got into me, it's not Clinton my nature to Clinton interrupt children at play. Clinton ???? So you are just joking around? Hmmmm.... Why acuse the posters of being children at play? Are you to be taken serious or are you trying to make some kind of point? Why is it so difficult to answer direct questions? Do you find some kind of satisfaction in being obtuse? If so then why is your behavior not childish as opposed to others?

Your post is non-responsive. Whatever.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
???? So you are just joking around? Hmmmm.... Why acuse the posters of being children at play? Are you to be taken serious or are you trying to make some kind of point? Why is it so difficult to answer direct questions? Do you find some kind of satisfaction in being obtuse? If so then why is your behavior not childish as opposed to others?

Your post is non-responsive. Whatever.
I believe, RF, that Mr. James is sarcastically referring to the tendencies of some posters to inject Clinton into every discussion, even those who claim to have been appalled by the inquisition against him. Truly, it does get old. I wish these posters could try very hard to remove the C-word from their vocabularies, at least for a while.

Thanks

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky

I believe, RF, that Mr. James is sarcastically referring to the tendencies of some posters to inject Clinton into every discussion, even those who claim to have been appalled by the inquisition against him. Truly, it does get old. I wish these posters could try very hard to remove the C-word from their vocabularies, at least for a while.

Thanks Sure, but the the topic of the thread mentions Clinton and compares him to Scharzenegger. I would think that this is the wrong place to complaing about people talking about Clinton. Unless of course he is complaining about the thread itself. Which seems odd since it is attacking Arnold and not Bill It is for that reason that I asked

RandFan
Who are your words directed to? The individual who says that "Schwarzenegger: Makes Clinton look like a monk" or those who take issue with the proposition.

Could you point out who made excuses and for whom those excuses were made for?

Could you point out who placed blame on another and for what behavior?

Or is this just a straw man? What I fail to understand is why Mr. James can't answer a simple question? Why must he be obtuse?

[Diamond]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sure, but the the topic of the thread mentions Clinton and compares him to Scharzenegger. I would think that this is the wrong place to complaing about people talking about Clinton. Unless of course he is complaining about the thread itself. Which seems odd since it is attacking Arnold and not Bill It is for that reason that I asked

What I fail to understand is why Mr. James can't answer a simple question? Why must he be obtuse?

Because it's obvious that you are deliberately avoiding the point of the thread, which is to say that the official Republican candidate for the Governorship of California is an ADMITTED dope smoker, drug taker and participated in orgies and gangbangs.

In no sense can Clinton's alleged sexual promiscuity compare to Arnie's actual admitted sexual promiscuity.

What I fid hilarious is the extraordinary powers of ignorage and misdirection, when it is pointed out that Republicans can behave every bit as badly as any Democrat.

[DavidJames]

"I believe, RF, that Mr. James is sarcastically referring to the tendencies of some posters to inject Clinton into every discussion, even those who claim to have been appalled by the inquisition against him"

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner, but really, Mr James? No need for such formality :)

My post was sarcastic and childish, but to be honest, not nearly as sarcastic and childish as the first draft ;)

Seriously, Clinton was part of the original post. An attempt, I believe, to draw out those hypocrites who have slammed 'C' and may be grading Arnie on a curve. Maybe not my kind of thread, but after taking a look I noticed RF bring in the rape accusation and well, the rest is history :) So, yes it's true that Clinton was part of the original post, but to paraphrase Tricky, I was sarcastically referring to the tendencies of some posters to inject accusations regarding Clinton into...

Hereby ends my contributions to this tread. Clinton

[American]

"TALK TO THA HAND!"


HAHAHAHAHA! I LOVE THAT! :roll:


Ya got my vote!


(HAHAHAHAHA... I can't get enough of it!)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Seriously, Clinton was part of the original post. An attempt, I believe, to draw out those hypocrites who have slammed 'C' and may be grading Arnie on a curve. I have said that a number of the claims against Arnold are appropriate. I don't give him a pass. However I don't believe anyone has accused him of rape.

Juanita Broderick was a very credible witness. It was odd that womens groups accross the country said that we must believe Anita Hill but were silent as to Clinton.

Interesting that you should use the word "hypocrite". I bring up Clinton all of the time to show the hypocricy of many who excused Clinton but decry similar behavior in others.

So I thank you for the use of the word "hyopocrite". I don't know where you stood on the Clarence Thomas affair or where you stand on the Clinton one. I assume you don't believe Ms. Broderick based upon your post. I don't know if you are equal in your judgment of Arnold as you are with Bill. So long as you are consistent then I respect you. If you are like the many who attacked Thomas but graded Bill on a curve....

Anyway thanks even if you would not respond to my initial questions and even if you still have not answered all of them I am at least a little less confused than before.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diamond
Because it's obvious that you are deliberately avoiding the point of the thread, which is to say that the official Republican candidate for the Governorship of California is an ADMITTED dope smoker, drug taker and participated in orgies and gangbangs. Sorry but that is NOT the point of the thread. Please read the headline again.

In no sense can Clinton's alleged sexual promiscuity compare to Arnie's actual admitted sexual promiscuity. Aha! This is in fact the point of the thread. There is a problem though.

Are you seriously making the claim that Clinton's alleged rape of Broderick is not as bad as Arnolds promiscuety? Surley you jest?

What I fid hilarious is the extraordinary powers of ignorage and misdirection, when it is pointed out that Republicans can behave every bit as badly as any Democrat. The official Republican candidate? You don't know what you are talking about. Most Republicans have distanced themselves from Arnold. From the very start Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and many Republican commentators have pointed out that while Arnold might be less of an evil than Davis he is by no means a favorite of Republicans. It is very unlikely that Arnold could win the Republican primary.

However, to show that I do "get it". I would agree that it is hypocrytical to dismiss allegations of Arnold's behavior while condemning Bill's. The topic starter says that Arnold's behavior is worse than Bill's but that is certainly arguable.

The problems with this proposition are.

1.) There is a very credible rape allegation. (I don't know if Bill did it. I have some real concerns). But allegation for allegation Bill's are worlds appart from Arnold's

2.) Many moderate Republicans like Arnold and myself were angry about the Clinton investigation. The Lewinsky affair and other such "aleged" impropriaty had nothing to do with whether or not Bill could govern as president.

3.) Those who defended Bill are not comming to the defense of Arnold.

It would seem that hypocracy comes in the shape of donkeys and elephants.

[reprise]

Because it's obvious that you are deliberately avoiding the point of the thread, which is to say that the official Republican candidate for the Governorship of California is an ADMITTED dope smoker, drug taker and participated in orgies and gangbangs.

Can someone explain to me what relevance Arnold's sexual and drug-taking history has to his running for Governor? Hell, it's not as if it's even something he's tried to cover up.

[ImpyTimpy]

Easy Reprise, people are easily swayed by scandal. The more dirt you can dig up on someone, the less likely they are going to get voted in. It's the good old ad hominem fallacy - don't listen to him, he used to take drugs! Just because it's a fallacy doesn't mean it won't make a convincing argument against someone.

[reprise]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Easy Reprise, people are easily swayed by scandal. The more dirt you can dig up on someone, the less likely they are going to get voted in. It's the good old ad hominem fallacy - don't listen to him, he used to take drugs! Just because it's a fallacy doesn't mean it won't make a convincing argument against someone.

Can you imagine as bigger deal being made in Australia about someone running for a seat in Parliament having smoked dope or had group sex (especially if it was years before they entered politics). The only circumstance I can even conceive of voters giving a toss about something like that is if a candidate was currently engaging in private behaviour which was diametrically opposed to their public stance - like if Fred Nile was having an affair or owned the building which housed an abortion clinic or brothel, for instance.

Heck, we've had plenty of alcoholic politicians, plenty who've had affairs, plenty who've smoked dope, a significant number who are openly gay - raising such issues in an attempted smear campaign in Australia tends to rebound on the person who's throwing the mud.

[peptoabysmal]

I'm still voting for Ahnold, just because I want to be able to say "Governator".

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/recall_priceless.jpg

[Tricky]

Apparently Ahnold is having a hard time escaping his acting roots. The only debate he will participate in is one where he gets to read the questions in advance. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/02/debate.questions/index.html) (Schwarzenegger 's) aides strongly denied that the actor-turned-politician agreed to participate only in the September 17 debate because he would have a week to script his remarks.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Was Arnold married at the time he was having his fun, or did he deny it on the record at any time?

I thought the point of the Clinton thing was that he was having an extramarital affair and he lied about it. Not that he'd had (gasp!) oral sex.

[DavidJames]

RF: Sorry, you are correct I shouldn't have left without completely answering your questions:

"Could you point out who made excuses and for whom those excuses were made for?"
"Could you point out who placed blame on another and for what behavior?"

My primary point was this part of my comment: "people are responsible for their own behavior" The actions of C are completely irrelevant to a discussion of the actions of Arnie. Clearly, raising the significance of C's actions (wasn't married, in office, rape) was meant to reduce (excuse?) the significance of Arnies and direct attention elsewhere. My words, "blame and make excuses" while marginally related here, have been part of the repertoire of many of those obsessed with Clinton, both in the 90's, and for crying out loud still in 2003. I threw them in, free of charge.


"Who are your words directed to?"
Those who tried to minimize Arnies actions and shift focus to C by these comments:
"Arnold wasn't married, in the oval office, and didnt lie under oath about it"
"and hasn't been accused of numerous rapes."
"Is there some sort of comfort in the fact that Clinton has only a single accusation of rape?"

I'm sure everyone believes they have good reasons for including their favorite bit of C lure, knock yourselves out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
My primary point was this part of my comment: "people are responsible for their own behavior" The actions of C are completely irrelevant to a discussion of the actions of Arnie. You know, the thing that really makes me angry and frustrated is that I spent years arguing that Clinton's sex scandal was not relevant. I had expected (WRONGLY) that the people who kept spouting "politics of personal destruction" would come to the defense of a Republican in similar circumstances.

Not only do I find that not true but I also find that in a thread that points out the hypocrisy of the right I am somehow wrong for pointing out the self same hypocrisy of the left.

I just don't get it. Someday I suppose I'll get the whys and hows of the double standard.

Thanks for the answers...I guess.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
You know, the thing that really makes me angry and frustrated is that I spent years arguing that Clinton's sex scandal was not relevant. I had expected (WRONGLY) that the people who kept spouting "politics of personal destruction" would come to the defense of a Republican in similar circumstances.

Not only do I find that not true but I also find that in a thread that points out the hypocrisy of the right I am somehow wrong for pointing out the self same hypocrisy of the left.

I just don't get it. Someday I suppose I'll get the whys and hows of the double standard.

Thanks for the answers...I guess.
I have to agree with RandFan here, at least partially. I too hate that a person's private life has become such an issue in politics. We can point fingers if we want as to "who started it", but I think the right thing to do is to simply stop doing it.

The only information about Arnold's past that has any relevance is:
Whether he violated any important laws.
How his behavior may reflect on his policies.

I know that there is still a lot of hard feelings by Democrats about "The Great Unpleasantness", but they need to put those aside and campaign on the issues. Of course, we all know that the reason the Politics of Personal Destruction is so common these days is because it works. Unfortunately, most voters can't hold more than one or two thoughts in their head at a time, so spinmeisters have discovered that you will do well to make those one or two thoughts lurid ones. I truly wish this were not the case, and I am strongly prejudiced against candidates who choose the mudslinging route.

That being said, I don't think that Bustamante (the only "real" Democratic contender) has mentioned a thing about Schwarzenegger's checkered past. Really, the Democrats should hope that if a Republican wins, that it is Arnold. He is about as liberal as a Republican can be, which may not be saying much, but hey! Take what you can get!

[c0rbin]

I just don't get it. Someday I suppose I'll get the whys and hows of the double standard.

Have you ever played a team sport?

Essentially, anyone on my team is worth defending. Anyone on the other team is worth attacking.

I think it is as simple as that.

Even keeled folk, moderates, if you will, might find themselves a little disillusioned at the prospect of people block-headedly taking sides because the reality of what it means to be a politician comes grotesquely into focus.