Un mas.
http://www.ergogenics.org/arnold11.html
Damn, I’d really like to see video now.
Where were all these concerned citizens when there was a seemingly credible woman accusing the POTUS of sexual assault in the Oval Office?
This righteous indignation (looks up) from Clinton’s biggest butt lickers is hilarious.
Although I will agree with some that our Governor-elect hasn’t technically outright admitted any criminal wrongdoing, I will agree with others that he has implied he has, and that I believe he’s guilty as all get-out.
My observation is, when Bill Clinton has an extramarital affair the Republicans call for his blood, but when Arnold Schwarzenegger does it they support his run for office. And they say us Democrats are hypocrites? :rolleyes:
Esprix
You’re off on a separate issue other than what the OP started.
Was Arnold actually guilty of what he was accused of? Maybe.
Does this have anything to do with whether or not CA was stupid for voting him in?
I don’t see how. In this day and age, when our politicians are either out boffing half the female population of their state, and/or driving drunk, partying it up, BARELY inside what’s officially condoned, on the people’s money etc. Hell, Arnold appears to be pretty tame next to a lot of politicians. The late great Clinton just to name one.
If this sort of behaviour DOES, in fact, have some bearing on the politician in question’s ability to do the job, then we, as Americans need to go back and recall about half the politicians at work for us now (okay, I exaggerate).
Sorry, I digress. My point is, I’m sorry that you’ve been sexually harrassed, and it’s a shame if it’s true about Arnold but…this is different from normal politics because…???
As a person who has worked in male dominated fields for most of my career, I have to agree with weirddave, and others here.
The first thing one has to do is define “inappropriate” insofar as sexual harrassment is concerned.
Of COURSE we don’t want to go back to the days where a woman could be forced to dress sexily, or perform sexual favors or risk getting fired. I think that goes (or should go) without saying.
But in this day and age of frivilous lawsuits and an OH so easily offended populace, what passes for “sexual harrassment” can be something as innocent as a man smiling (she could claim he was leering) at a woman, or complimenting her on her business suit (he might merely be commenting on her professional attire, she could take it as a comment on her person).
IMHO, some so-called harrassment is just a waste of the court’s time.
With THAT in mind, what a virile (albeit assholish) star considers “all in good fun” would likely be considered “sexual assault or harrassment” by someone who would prefer to work in a pristine Romper Room work atmosphere.
IMHO, THAT is what ole Arnie meant by his statements. That is, that he was conducting what, at the time, he considered innocent fun, and didn’t realize (based on the atmosphere, and quite possibly the attitudes with which his behaviour was recieved), at the TIME that it was offensive.
After all, like another poster described, if everyone’s at a wrap party, and someone gives someone else a friendly pat on the butt (or whatever) and said recipient just laughs it off at the time, how is the person to know he/she acted “inappropriately”??
ESPECIALLY given the slightly more sexually free atmosphere of hollyweird.
Also, I too think that the timing of the accusations is EXTREMELY suspect.
I haven’t looked this up on a website, but on yesterday’s afternoon radio news, at least ONE of the women has been debunked as having lied about what happened. Turns out she OFFERED to bare her breasts for photos, and it was a stuntman, NOT Arnold himself who did the shooting. The stuntman stated that Arnold wasn’t even present at the time.
Arnold is now on record as saying he’s going to ask Bush for advice on the California economy.
I forget. What’s Bush’s record on the National economy?
Not good, I suspect.
Hmmm…was that really the issue? I thought Davis was mainly criticized for being beholden to labor unions, not being proactive during the energy crisis, and giving raises to government employees - not for social programs. The main expenditures were for schools, but Schwarzenegger is a strong advocate of school funding, so the 2 parties don’t actually differ on that issue. I’m curious as to exactly which “government programs” the Republican party plans to do away with, that the Democratic party wanted to keep. And let’s not forget that spending was just as much out of control under Wilson as it was under Davis. The Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but in actual practice it’s just not true.
Well it’s my understanding that states HAVE to balance the budget. We can’t run a defecit like the federal government does. Arnold’s plan is to balance the budget by “eliminating waste”, but it’s been my observation that many, many politicians promise that, but few are able to make good on that promise. It’s a wonderful idea, but it’s simply easier said than done. My predicition is that he will make some effort towards that goal, will realize the futility of the effort, and end up raising taxes somewhere. But hey, I hope I’m wrong. Oh, and also notice that Arnold’s first move appears not to be cutting waste, but hitting up the federal government for money. Yeah, they’ve got money coming out of their ears, right?
Dunno about anyone else, but I was saying “Let’s put the evidence out there and see what floats.” Same thing I’m saying now – if Arnold did sexually assault someone, I want to see the evidence in a court of law.
(And IIRC, the “seeingly credible woman” you referred to suddenly looked a lot less credible when the case went forward, and eventually settled quietly out of court. But when have the Clinton-bashers been dissuaded by facts? 
)
He won every county of the state other than those in the immediate Bay Area (south to Santa Cruz), Marin, Sonoma and Mendocino. He won in Humboldt (although Humboldt did come out against the recall). Here’s a pdf with the map. The votes for Arnold and Cruz, by county, are shown on the middle map. It still looks to me like the California divide is not so much North/South (other than on water issues, maybe, I’ll grant you) but Bay Area/Everywhere Else.
I thought Warren Buffett was his economic advisor.
Originally posted by shelbo:
It would take sutstantially more than this particular three-ring cluster-fuck to convince me of that as a general trend. Untill then, I cling to my hopes that this was just an isolated incident of someone putting acid in the circus peanuts.
Jodi, first of all, if you don’t want to get into a pissing match about who has the most credentials in “political doublespeak”, then I’d suggest that you not bring it up in the first place. I’m not impressed that you’re an attorney, either, as it’s completely irrelevant to the the issue at hand and does not make you “more experienced” than I.
Additionally, it became easier and more expeditious for me to use caps for emphasis rather than trying to insert all that coding. If you don’t like that, then I’d recommend that you stop using ALL CAPS every time you address posters here, making it seem as though you’re SCREAMING their name at them, you hypocrite.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I’d be laughing if it weren’t so frightening that you accuse me of “interpreting” Arnold’s words, when it’s you who has repeatedly made up scenarios out of whole cloth and played medium and “channelled” his thoughts.
Journalist: Mr. Schwartzenegger, several women have come forward and accused you of groping them and touching them inappropriately in their work environment. How do you respond to those allegations?
Arnold: Wherever there is smoke, there is fire… I have behaved badly sometimes. Yes, it is true that I… have done things that were not right.
That’s how it went down. He wasn’t answering to a charge of making off-color jokes. He wasn’t answering to an accusation of saying something someone could’ve taken the wrong way. He wasn’t answering an accusation of getting carried away at a Christmas party.
So stop making shit up out of the thin blue sky. Stop professing to be able to read his mind. Stop pretending that he was only vaguely admitting that he might have done something bad, but certainly not what he was accused of. It was not “something vague enough to be maybe this, maybe something else, maybe nothing at all.”
That is the spin he put on it so people like you would buy into his game! Feel free to remove the “Yes, mommy” entirely from my example. Replace it with, “Where there are crumbs, there are cookies.” It’s still the exact same thing.
And since you are clearly married to your partisan politics, I’m completely done going around in circles with you on this. However, while I’m done with you here, if you want me to fuck off, you’ll have to either stop engaging me in threads I’m participating in or use the handy-dandy ignore button at the bottom of my post.
Have a nice day.
I voted absentee ballot since I was in Oahu for the last week. I did see the news about our election (I would like to apologize to all the citizens of Hawai’i for inflicting our politics upon you 
). An interview I saw on one fo the local news, Arnold said that he had grabbed a few women’s ass but did not raise their shirts and grab their breasts as some had claimed he had.
I have never voted for Davis, I dislike the man enough to vote YES on the recall. I did so because of his handling of the electric crisis. He has left us with paying hefty prices for electricity for some time in the future. But I also will not vote for Bush and doubly would never vote for Cheney since both are associated with businesses that benefited from the profiteering (I actually think it came close to racketeering) of our crisis, which I personally believe was done with smoke and mirrors and wasn’t a real crisis at all. I also don’t like how Davis runs a dirty campaign. The nasty stuff he said about Reardon still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But don’t blame me for Arnold, I voted green (Canejo). (But I also voted for Nader cause I felt he would be the most sincere person for the job. I think I am register Democrat.)
SHAYNA –
Except that it’s obvious you are claiming experience your posts indicate you do not have. You are either not a political consultant, or you are the worst excuse for a political consultant I’ve ever seen.
You fail to see that someone who is asked “Did you do this thing?” and replies “I did things I’m not proud of . . . people were offended . . . I apologize” has not actually answered the question in any meaningful, direct way and certainly hasn’t admitted to anything concrete. There is not a political consultant on this earth who would not recognize that as a statement that, while not amounting to a “no,” sure as hell doesn’t amount to a “yes.” So you’re right – it doesn’t matter how much experience you have in political consulting, because however much that is, you suck at it.
I don’t have a problem with you using all-caps for emphasis, I have a PROBLEM with you FEELING you have to EMPHASIZE every OTHER word in your POST, because it’s ANNOYING to READ. And MAKES it SEEM like you’ve EITHER lost your PERSPECTIVE TOTALLY, or have a strange TOURETTE’S-LIKE speech DISORDER. But feel free to ignore the gratuituous critique of your posting style; I assure you I’m ignoring yours.
Y’know, I don’t actually think you’re as dense as you currently appear to be. Maybe I’m giving you too much credit, I don’t know. Here’s the deal: We are both interpreting him. Both of us. You. And me. You are saying that by saying “people were hurt, where there’s smoke there’s fire, so sorry” he has admitted to sexual assault. That is an intepretation of his words. I am pointing out that what he said doesn’t actually support that interpretation. That is in turn also an interpretation. And “making up scenarios out of whole cloth” is also known as “using hypothetical examples.” Since you did this yourself with your “cookies” example, you might want to make a note of what it’s called. Then, when someone drops by to accuse you making up scenarios out of whole cloth, you can call them a moron.
He didn’t directly answer any accusation at all. You tiresomely parrot yes he did yes he did yes he did, but he simply didn’t. In your world, “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is the same as “yes, I sexually assaulted these women”? Because that’s what you have said – here let me remind you – “I think an admission of guilt by the perpetrator is enough ‘EVIDENCE for this accusation [of sexual assault],’ don’t you?” And the answer is, no; I don’t. Because he simply never said what you insist and insist and insist that he did. I’m kind of amazed at the insistence, actually; this isn’t really all that hard a point to grasp, and I never thought you were as stupid as you currently appear to be.
“People like me”? What, left-handed native-Montanan short-haired female cocker-spaniel owning lawyers? Anyway, it’s still not the exact same thing: In your example, you ask the child about cookies, and even in your new improved all-temperature response, the child is talking about cookies. So the parallel to that would be if Ahnold was asked “Did you grope these women?” and replied “where there’s squeezing of boobies, there’s groping.” Now, I don’t want to confuse you, so please take note that this is an example. I am not channelling Arnold. I did in fact make it up out of whole cloth, just like the cookies, which I hope we can agree are fictional.
Actually, what I’m married to is precision of legal terms like “sexual assault.” I also don’t like faulty logic. I freely admit these things can make me a bit of a pain in the ass on occasions, probably especially around the Boards. But it bothers me to see people look at things like this: “George, did you cut down the cherry tree?” “I cannot tell a lie, father; I have behaved badly in the past and for that I apologize” and immediately go postal, screaming “DID YOU HEAR WHAT THAT DIRTY ROTTEN TREE ASSAULTER ADMITTED TO???” (Note: Tree, George, and father in proceeding example are “shit I just made up.” Any resemblance to any tree, George, or father, living or dead, is completely coincidental. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.) As far as “partisan politics” are concerned – I couldn’t give a shit about the Governator. I’ve already gone on record in other threads that I would have voted against the recall because I think it’s basically bogus for political/legal reasons. I certainly would not have voted for an actor with no political experience to try to pull California out of the shithole it’s currently in. I am by philosophy a Republican, but I do not vote the straight ticket; I vote for the best candidate. So if you think I’m the one who’s come across as a partisan in this exchange, you’re dreaming.
Would you promise to fuck off then, if I asked? Actually, I don’t particularly want you to fuck off. What I wanted was for you to stop calling me an IDIOT because it was pissing me off. Which you’ve done. As to the other, the truth is, you frequently – well, until recently – have pretty good points to make, and you used to be able to make them in a way that wasn’t quite so strident and didn’t reflect such an absolute, willful refusal to even recognize that a legitimate opinion other than your own even exists. It’d be nice if you could get back to that place, but I’m not holding my breath.
But with a sincerity matching your own, I hope you have a nice day too.
*Originally posted by blowero *
Hmmm…was that really the issue? I thought Davis was mainly criticized for being beholden to labor unions,
Well, thats redundant.
But yes, though its not necessarily specific to just this race, that is an issue that has/is been around for some while, and underlies much of the anger towards Sac.
The main expenditures were for schools, but Schwarzenegger is a strong advocate of school funding, so the 2 parties don’t actually differ on that issue. I’m curious as to exactly which “government programs” the Republican party plans to do away with, that the Democratic party wanted to keep.
But this isnt an issue of what one party wants, what the other wants; this is an issue of how to achieve the same results in a far more efficient way. And there are many ways to do that, by consolidating redundant agencies into fewer ones, and yes renegotiating union contracts, etc.
I have a close family member who works for the state in Santa Barbera County. Two months ago, in the middle of the budget crisis, all 447 employees in her office got new screens for their computers; 19" flat screen LCDs at $900 a pop. Just one tiny example of what we all see happening and all know goes on, because we all know/have known someone who works for/with the gov. We all know waste is extravagant, so when anyone says things cant be cut without hurting services, we know its all BS.
Just because a program gets cut does not mean a service gets cut. The same service can be provided by other programs.
And let’s not forget that spending was just as much out of control under Wilson as it was under Davis. The Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but in actual practice it’s just not true.
I agree, the repubs are just as screwed as the dems. I am proudly niether. But Arnie didnt run as a platform repub, McKlintock did, and thats why McKlintock had no chance in hell.
Well it’s my understanding that states HAVE to balance the budget. We can’t run a defecit like the federal government does.
Yes they can; we dont have a balanced budget now, unless youre one of the ones whose eyes lost track of which shell had the pebble.
**Arnold’s plan is to balance the budget by “eliminating waste”, but it’s been my observation that many, many politicians promise that, but few are able to make good on that promise. **
Well, if he cant, than there will be an even greater anti-establishment reaction at some point in the future. It would be in the assemblies interest to work with him, not because of any threat he himself may be but because of the sentiment that put him in office.
**Oh, and also notice that Arnold’s first move appears not to be cutting waste, but hitting up the federal government for money. Yeah, they’ve got money coming out of their ears, right? **
Well, since Cal has paid more into the Fed gov than it has got back from it for the past 15 years, since we have the largest economy in the union, it seems only natural that a governer would press/ask the feds for some of the money back. The amount to which we subsidize the rest of the nation is also a very sore point with many, including myself, especially when our governers consistantly lay back and let it happen. Its very nice to have a governer willing to go to the feds and say ‘hey, we need our money back now’.
If on the other hand, hes asking for some kind of loan, that I wouldnt agree with; screw the loan crap, its our money, give it to us now. We can be nice and not charge interest.
If what we get back from the Feds is more than what we are owed, or if what we get from the feds is seen as some kind of ‘loan’, I would disagree with and oppose both, yes. But I see nothing wrong with first asking for what we are owed, and if it is not forthcoming, demanding it or withholding any future payments. We are 1/4 - 1/3 the US economy; money talks, bullshit walks.
If other states want to have medieval economic policies, then other states can pay the price of such. We are subsidizing other states scewball economic policies to a large extent. We arent here to have yokes thrown on our backs to carry everyone else along. Screw em.
*Originally posted by Jerrybear *
Oh, please! Let’s not get started with that crap again. Nader was the best candidate in 2000, and he (or whoever the Greens nominate) will be the best in 2004.
Well, if by best, you mean the most self righteous, pompous, condescending, and blinded by his own opinion of himself, Id have to agree.
The American public needs to make a choice. Either keep voting for the lesser of two evils that keeps getting lesser and more evil, or vote for a true alternative…the Greens.
Thats like saying the US needs to choose the frying pan, the fire, or the toilet.
**There is nothing stopping a majority of Americans from voting Green. **
Except their ability to spot snake oil salesmen when they see them.
Nothing except cowardice, apathy, and laziness.
And that attitude, which is pretty typical Greeny. You fucking moron, in one sentence you wonder why no one votes Green, in the next you answer yourself.
Oh, and the Greens (including Ralph Nader) have been working hard for reforms to the electoral system such as instant runoff voting and campaign finance reform.
Translation; the Greens have been working hard to get a system in place in which the Greens wouldnt have to actually get more than 5% of the vote, as well as trying to get the government to take peoples money from them and give it to the Greens because not nearly enough people are willing to give the Greens their money voluntarily. This is because the voters are (see above; cowards, apathetic, and lazy). But the Greens know whats best for people, its irresponsible to think otherwise, and so ‘reforms’ are needed.
All of this is necessary of course because the Greens are the Morally Superior party; just ask them, theyll tell you. How could they not be, just look at the face of their guru, er, leader, Nader and is poor tortured soul. Like a fucking Jesuit, a martyr for the Cause.
The Greens are bunch of fucking idiots who seem to think human behavior is motivated by cultural beliefs, rather than biology. The Greens cant seem to comprehend that the amount of wealth created is directly related to how it is apportioned; people wont perform labor for anyone but themselves or their loved ones, no matter how hard some self righteous prick tries to make them feel guilty for it. That is Nature with a capital N motherfucker.
The Greens want people to feel guilty for that which is natural; pursuing their own self interest. The Greens ideology is based on more fucking psuedo-religous beliefs than half the fucking religons in the world, and they wonder why no one but gullible fucking college kids or burnt out acid heads vote for them.
Oh yes its all the greedy corporate masters fault that you guys are bunch of fucking modern day wannabe inquisition fucks. The fact that you sons a bitches cant get a foothold anywhere is testament to americans ability to recognize a pile of shit when they see it.
Who do Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon see when they stand shoulder to shoulder and look in the mirror? Ralph Nader and Nome Chompsky. All you self righteous we-know-best-what-everyone-should value pieces of shit are two sides to the same coin.
Green is the color of mold, rot, and decay. Not to mention envy.
Don’t change the subject; union contracts are not social programs. You characterized this recall as pitting social programs against fiscal responsibility; you called it the “commoners against the elitists”. I want to know specifically what programs you’re talking about.
Like I said, it’s a great idea in theory. I just know from experience that many have tried to “cut waste” and have failed. Maybe Arnold will be the one to pull it of, but I rather doubt it. So back to the subject at hand, specifically WHICH social programs is Arnold going to cut? You still haven’t answered the question.
That doesn’t mean much without any specifics.
I have no idea what “Arnie didn’t run as a platform repub” means. As far as fiscal responsibility goes, both Republican candidates were singing the same song; if anything, McClintock was singing it even louder than Schwarzenegger. What I’m saying is that Republicans always sing that song, but they invariably seem to forget the words once they get in office.
Ha - you don’t think the sentiment will be directed against Arnold? In case you haven’t noticed, the Governor appears to be the one who takes the blame for the state’s fiscal woes. But you’re saying if he blows it, he’ll just blame it on the legislature, huh? That sounds pretty stupid.
Oh, so the Feds have our money, and we just need to ask for it back, and they will gladly oblige? Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Is this the same Federal govt. who basically told us to take a hike when we asked them for energy price caps? Dream on, baby.
WTF are you talking about? What payments?
Well, that depends on what the definition of “it” is.
Haven’t I heard something like that before somewhere?
He made a statement that certainly sounds like an admission of guilt and an apology, one that would show him taking the high road and owning up to past indiscretions, while not actually saying anything that would hold up in a court of law as an admission of guilt. He will make a fine politician.
That last sentence was not a compliment.
And, as we all know, politicians not only respond to journalists’ questions with non-answers but they also have a habit of switching topics in mid-sentence. At this time, there is only one person who knows exactly what Arnold was referring to and that’s Arnold himself. All anyone else can provide is conjecture.
You know, you can use the nifty vBcode buttons in the reply window. Just a suggestion.