Right, just like the party that claims to be in favor of women’s rights attacked Clinton without mercy for his sexual harassment of his subordinates.
Only not.
Regards,
Shodan
Then what’s the point of this thread? Despite the alternative explanation of gobear and Diogenes (which is entirely plausible and I must admit something I hadn’t considered), I think I’ll wait for the guy who started the thread offer his explanation. Given his track record, I strongly doubt he had something in mind that required nearly as much thought and analysis. I expect that he’s simply happy and gloating because this is something he thinks can be used against a Republican candidate. In which case, it still would be Transparent Liberal Hypocrisy.
As for you, mhendo, you a mind reader now? You got some special insight to the thoughts of elucidator? Unless you do, telling me I’m wrong is a bit premature, innit?
I find your whining funny, especially since conservative hates Arnold. Go cry a river, baby.
We want to see the photos of Jesse Helms with the duck and the string of pearls.
That picture is pretty tame. Let’s remember. Sometimes guys are growers…sometimes show-ers. I was hoping there may be a little leather or bondage involved. shucks.
Interesting point, but no real relevance to my point that [nb]UncleBeer** misunderstood the nature of the posts in this thread.
You want to argue that Democrats can be hypocrites, too? Go right ahead, but employing the tu quoque argument does not make the GOP any less hypocritical in this instance.
What? You wanted something a little more like this? All you had to do was ask.
What was established as factual wasn’t harassment, and what was harassment wasn’t established as factual, and often was established as paid lying. But you know that, or should by now.
No regards from here, sorry. We’re about fighting ignorance, not spreading it.
UncleBeer, you seem bright enough to get the point even without having elucidator explain it to you in his own special way. Not that it won’t be fun when he does, of course.
Back to the OP…
If Arnie is elected, maybe this will be the start of a new chapter in American political campaigns. Imagine Dick Lugar showing his dick (his Luger?) to get elected!
RTA, don’t worry, not all of us missed your National Endowment for the Arts comment. Deftly done.
:dubious:
Damn, they’ll let just about anyone be a Mod, won’t they?
Mind reader? I wasn’t the one drawing conclusions based on something that nobody actually said. That was you, remember?
Sure, you can appeal to his leftist track record as tenuous support for your argument, but i could just as easily appeal to his sense-of-humour track record as support for my thesis that maybe he was just having some fun.
And remember, as gobear implied, these charges of hypocrisy can go both ways. I’ll bet there are plenty of California GOPers who are supporting Arnie now, but who were slamming Clinton for his morals only a few years back.
On a tangentially related note, has any one seen this amusing little animation on Arianna Huffington’s website?
You, too, gobear, have a special ability to read the mind of the originator of this thread? Wow! Two psychics on one message board. Whoops, make that three. Elvis apparently has the ability, too. You guys have all divined the “true nature” of the OP without benefit of his explanation? Call James Randi.
I submit that the “true nature” of the OP is still open to interpretation.
Well, given the terse nature of the OP (and Elucidator’s loopy, elliptical prose even on his lucid days), I based my response not on his OP, but on the responses in the thread. As I said, not one poster said that Arnie’s nudity in any way made him unfit for office, as you contended.
it’s four, counting yourself (as was demonstrated)
And neither did any of the Republicans condemn Arnie, so your accusation of hypocrisy against Republicans is spurious as well.
Unless you have mind-reading abilities that allow you to determine that the California GOP is really thinking that “people who pose nude should never run for governor” and then changing their mind when it applies to Republicans.
Or else you are simply accusing us of doing something we haven’t done (but you wish we would).
Regards,
Shodan
Ummm, I don’t really think the issue with Arnie is one of morals. Nude pictures? Morals? I don’t fucking think so. Whereas Clinton showed his flawed moral character when engaging in sex outside his marriage - and definitely with women subordinate to him. Those acts were certainly both morally and ethically lacking. So, your argument about morality has not a damned thing to do with this.
Yes, I remember. You told me my interpretation was wrong. Quite emphatically so. This means you belive you know the correct interpretation and thought yourself qualified to make that judgement. Thus, you have somehow divined the true intent of the OP from statements that I admitted might have a meaning different than that which I initially applied to it. Now, what were you saying about drawing conclusions again?
Just for the sake of repetition, since that’s the only way some things are understood around here, I admitted that my understanding of the OP might have been incorrect; that gobear’s statements were possibly the correct option.
What are you talking about Miller? Christ, there’s a number of people around here, conservatives as well as liberals, that routinely give elucidator a hard time about his ill-thought out and blatantly biased strawman OP’s. I’m hardly the first to make that observation.
Okay. I suppose when I made my initial comments, I should have quoted something from the OP; that may have made it clearer to what they were directed.
well, if y’all are admitting to speculation, then why, fer cryin’ out loud are you on other folks back for speculating back?