This thread has more posts accusing people of being mind readers than any thread i’ve seen!
and just how do you know that??? are you a mind reader too???
I was just about to say that. You must have been reading my mind!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**And neither did any of the Republicans condemn Arnie, so your accusation of hypocrisy against Republicans is spurious as well.
*Originally posted by wring *
**and just how do you know that??? are you a mind reader too??? **
I’m reading your mind right now! and—:eek: OMG! The whole coconut?
- NotMrKnowItAll *
I was just about to say that. You must have been reading my mind!
How do you know it wasn’t just you reading my mind reading your mind reading my mind that i read? Or is that what you just want me to think? (after reading your mind again, yes, yes it is!)
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**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 **
Who said Republicans were condemning Arnie? And how would that be hypocritical anyway? The hypocrisy is that the GOP is now supporting someone who has a history of behavior that is typically condemned as profligate by moralistic conservatives (pot smoking, sexual promiscuity, posing for dirty pictures). If Reublicans were to now condemn Arnie they would be showing conistency, not hypocrisy.
Let me reiterate, though, that us liberals don’t think there’s a damn thing wrong with Arnie’s past escapades. We just think it’s highly entertaining to watch the GOP have to support him.
Careful, all of this mind reading is going to slow down our mind hamsters. I haven’t been able to load up my knowledge of the alphabet for ten minutes.
Arnie: I am a Republican.
Indigo Montoya: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
Inigo Inigo, I knew that… Damn.
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.
Sex outside of marriage is immoral why? Because you say so? If his wife doesn’t care, why do you care?
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
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.
Well, firstly, you might wanna tell the loony Christian right, many of whom were such big critics of Clinton and are such big supporters of the GOP, that morality has nothing to do with nude pictures. I’m sure they’d be rather surprised to hear it.
Secondly, you seem to be making the common and idiotic assumption, about elucidator in particular and about liberals and leftists in general, that anyone who criticizes a Republican must ipso facto be a huge fan of Bill Clinton. I, like many leftists on this board and in American society, was strongly opposed to many of Clinton’s policies, as well as to his outrageous abuse of his position in having sex with his subordinates. So can we please put that old canard to bed, once and for all?
**Yes, I remember. You told me my interpretation was wrong. Quite emphatically so. This means you believe 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? **
Give me a break.
My assertion about your own statement was no more or less emphatic than your own assertion about the OP. The fact that it was emphatic makes it no more or less of an interpretation than your own assertion. Why are you allowed to interpret the OP, but want me to wait for more information before interpreting your interpretation?
And you claim that you admitted that the OP’s intent might be different; this is true, but you’re being a bit cute. You never made such an admission until people called you on your original unfounded allegation, which was, if you will recall:
Ah, I see. Clinton’s little escapades with his female employees and others is properly none of the people’s business. But pictures of Schwarzenegger’s dick are indications of his suitabilty for public office. I call TLH on this one - Transparent Liberal Hypocrisy.
Quite emphatic, and containing no admission that you might have misunderstood the intent of the OP.
You’re almost as good as your President at spinning your own previous statements.
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**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. **
Or, perhaps, you should have waited for somebody to claim that the existance of the picts made him unfit for office before you claimed that liberals think this and that therefore liberals are hypocrits.
-lv
*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**Here is a blog with the photo in it. Advance warning: it’s about as titillating as John Ashcroft’s Giant Aluminum Boob of Justice.Mod Notes:
But it does contain full frontal male nudity, so beware when opening it.Thank you. **
Thank you…
My my my.
Maybe I should just link to this thread from now on whenever I call something “Republican porn.”
Arnie isn’t really a Republican. He’s a Libertarian who knows the Libertarian ticket would get him absolutely nowhere fast. So he’s picked the side he wants to suck up to the most, sucked up to them, and now he’s gotten on their ticket.
Enjoy,
Steven
*Originally posted by Ferret Herder *
I thought the reference was to Jesse Ventura (large, bald head, Minnesota), though I was trying to figure out where the Nazi thing came in.
Ding! That is correct. It was a reference to Ventura… from this past Saturday’s Mystery Science Theater 3000 in which a character says, “I’m from Minnesota” and someone from the peanut gallery finishes with “…our governer’s a large, bald, Nazi.”
I’m guessing tha Nazi reference is to his sometimes conservative streak that can sometimes come out very forceful and very blunt.
Peace.
“It was not mine, your Highness, it was Wilde’s”
*Originally posted by jarbabyj *
**I know all of you want to see the Arnold photos to make fun of him… **
I assure you–my interest is purely prurient.
This election does not have primaries, so Arnold probably could have run as an “independent” or third party candidate with no trouble. In fact, with McClintock probably in until the finish, he might as well have done that. But he’s no Libertarian. Arnold’s afterschool program proposition or opposition to illegal immigration is out of line with a true Libertarian platform.
And if Arnold is considered underendowed, well that does little good for my ego.
I, too, want to see an official scientific poll, asking a statistically significant part of all registered GOP members whether or not posing for nudie pics constitutes immoral behaviour. Unc, c’mon, you’re quite liberal for a conservative, but I don’t think the majority of the GOP would agree.
Ack, lo siento, Coldie. I guess I just figured that since we were talking about nudity all the way through …