# Republicans: Explain this to me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 7, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080 "2003-10-07T16:07:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/81 "2003-10-10T13:11:10Z")
Starr’s brief, pal. A political document. Not the same as fact. But those who _know_ the truth, and don’t need facts, will believe it anyway. People such as yourself, that is. Now, do what you’re told and look up the meaning of “consensual”. Then explain to us your understanding of it significance. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/82 "2003-10-10T13:39:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > Now then: > Leaving aside the “lying under oath”**(that would be like focussing on the license plate that hit you instead of the truck it was attached to)** for the moment (because, if there is any honesty on the other side of this discussion, it will be acknowledged that the howls for the head of Bill Clinton started > _well_ before he was under oath)**(then why didn`t he tell the truth if the heat was already on?)** bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/83 "2003-10-10T15:16:15Z")
Bolding yours, and **dodging the fucking point** yours too, jackass. The point of my post was to compare the _sexual_ aspects of the two cases. I’m going to assume that you were too stupid to understand that, because if you did understand it then that would mean that you deliberately distorted the portion of my post you did quote in order to avoid addressing the actual substantive portion of it. I’d rather think you were stupid than dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/84 "2003-10-10T15:33:55Z")
> [@](#): > > And to use the term “Sexual Battery” to define what Arnold did? > Might be stretching it a bit… [California Penal Code section 234.4 (e)](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=80074019356+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) > [@](#): > > 1. Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. \ > (2) As used in this subdivision, “touches” means physical contact > with another person, whether accomplished directly, through the > clothing of the person committing the offense, or through the > clothing of the victim. So, no, based on the descriptions of the alleged victims, I don’t think “sexual battery” is overstating the case at all. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/85 "2003-10-10T15:54:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*Starr’s brief, pal. A political document. Not the same as fact. > > But those who _know_ the truth, and don’t need facts, will believe it anyway. People such as yourself, that is. > > Now, do what you’re told and look up the meaning of “consensual”. Then explain to us your understanding of it significance. \*\* Do what I`m told? You`re a funny man. The _consensual_ part of the problem only lasted for five minutes or so. He had to drag the thing out for several months because he was afraid to admit to it. If it was such a harmless act then why the major cover-up? [This is what Clinton was prepared to do to prevent the impeachment hearings.](http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/05news.html) **Otto** relax, if anyone wanted to read your entire post they could have done so. I attacked the portion of your post that I felt was stupid. Usually when someone feels an argument doesn`t hold water, they resort to anger and emotionalism and name calling rather than a level-headed discussion. I realize this is the pit, but try to contain yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/86 "2003-10-10T15:58:27Z")
**Otto** , then place the word _misdemeanor_ in front of the phrase from now on. So we don`t think you intend to mean a Criminal act, like Purjury. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/87 "2003-10-10T16:56:55Z")
A very appropriate user name you have, there, **whuckfistle** / Why the major cover-up, you ask? Well, why the major _investigation_? Answer that, and the answer to the first will become obvious. Perhaps I can save you some time - it was the latest round of a Get Him For Something campaign. He had no obligation to help it. But to your other “point”, where was the nonconsensual activity? Where was the assault, and on what _facts_ (not paid allegations) is it based? What crime was committed, and how do we know? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you on that, though. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/88 "2003-10-10T18:41:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Otto relax, if anyone wanted to read your entire post they could have done so. I attacked the portion of your post that I felt was stupid. Um, no, what you did was _ignore_ the part of the post which dealt with the direct comparison between Arnold and Clinton. The thread’s about why Clinton’s _sexual misconduct_ was treated by Republicans so much more seriously than Arnold’s _sexual misconduct_. Since the right-wing apologists have been squawking in unison “CLinton lied under oath” and since Clinton’s lying under oath is not the topic of this thread, I posted a comparison of the conduct of the two minus the “lying under oath” part since his lying under oath is not germane to a discussion of a comparison of the _sexual misconduct_ of the two men. > [@](#): > > Usually when someone feels an argument doesn`t hold water, they resort to anger and emotionalism and name calling rather than a level-headed discussion. I realize this is the pit, but try to contain yourself. And sometimes, when one’s argument is completely sound and some jackass distorts and ignores it for his own purposes, said distorting person is rightfully tagged a jackass. In other words, whuck off. > [@](#): > > Otto, then place the word misdemeanor in front of the phrase from now on. So we don`t think you intend to mean a Criminal act, like Purjury. _Perjury_. And last I heard, misdemeanors were criminal acts. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/89 "2003-10-10T19:11:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Knorf \* > \*\*Look, Republicans were frothing with statements about Clinton’s lack of fitness for public office LONG BEFORE he lied under oath about an affair with Lewinsky. A whole witch-hunt industry was created to find a way to get rid of Clinton, long, LONG before the lie. The accusations were enough, no matter how incredible the source. \*\* Naw man, it’s more of a “whatever sticks” attitude. If someone kills 47 people and they are able to get him on one murder that they can prove, it’s good enough. If they couldn’t bust Al Capone for being a gangster but were able to put him away on tax evasion, it was good enough. If Clinton lying under oath was able to get him impeached, that’s good enough. When there are lots of crimes (at least in the minds of people) any one that gets justice is…good enough. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/90 "2003-10-10T20:17:41Z")
The only reason partisan Democrats are trashing “der gropenfuhrer”, because he ran as a Republican. There’s absolutely nothing in AS’s declared agenda that Dems can possibly be against: he is pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-you-name-it and pro-fiscal-responsibility, as every politician is going to be in post-Davis US, at least for the time being. Q. How many of AS-bashing Dems will shut up like clams if he were to switch to DNC tomorrow? A. 100% Q. How many will start hailing him to the skies the day after tomorrow, if he were to do that? A. 100% ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/91 "2003-10-10T22:38:43Z")
Arnold is not pro-gay. He is tolerant _at best_, but calling him _pro_ is a stretch. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/92 "2003-10-11T07:15:06Z")
**Otto** , sorry, I got carried away. I forgot that the topic was strictly relating to the sexual allegations, and not the post drama that ensued. Forgive me for going over the top. I`ll watch myself. If the topic is strictly the acts themselves, and not how the men handled the aftermath, then Arnold may have been the worse of the two. However the extenuating circs. and the atmosphere which the men engaged in the sexual wrongdoings must be taken into account here. If Arnold`s acts were truely in the party atmosphere and in plain view of others and mixed in with other playful banter then it becomes harder to say this. Clinton was more direct, probably, in his ways- and who really knows what went on behnd those doors. We`ll never know who was the worse offender, we can only speculate. I do think, however, that we can judge the men by how they handled the aftermath. That is the point I was chasing earlier. Sorry I got you all flustered. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/93 "2003-10-13T11:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*Arnold is not pro-gay. He is tolerant _at best_, but calling him _pro_ is a stretch. > > Esprix \*\* Isn`t that all we can ask for? When it comes to these fringe issues, isn`t tolerance what those in favor of the cause are looking for? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/94 "2003-10-13T17:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **whuckfistle** _ > > Isn’t that all we can ask for? When it comes to these fringe issues, isn’t tolerance what those in favor of the cause are looking for? Actually I was hoping for equality. Am I allowed for that, or do I have to sit at the back of the bus? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/95 "2003-10-13T17:21:51Z")
So, is he going to talk about it now, as he said he would during the election? I’m _waiting_ here. Still waiting.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/96 "2003-10-13T18:29:24Z")
Personally I like how Arnold has [called](http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-california-governor,0,7000192.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines) upon Davis not to exercise his constitutionally-appointed duties for the remainder of his administration. > [@](#): > > Schwarzenegger on Thursday also called on Davis not to make any more appointments or sign legislation in the waning days of his administration, although Schwarzenegger acknowledged it is Davis’ right to do so. > > “I would like it really if he doesn’t sign any more bills, as far as that goes,” Schwarzenegger said. “But we will be working on that, and I’m absolutely convinced that when the governor says that he wants to have a smooth transition, that we will in fact have a smooth transition. And I am looking forward to that and the process has already begun.” > > Davis spokesman Steven Maviglio said Davis will continue to make appointments and act on legislation. He added, “The governor-elect might be interested in learning that bills that Gov. Davis does not act on before October 13th automatically become law.” Congratulations California. Your incoming chief executive doesn’t understand how a bill becomes a law. Will somebody be getting Schoolhouse Rock DVDs for Christmas? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/97 "2003-10-13T19:54:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*Actually I was hoping for equality. Am I allowed for that, or do I have to sit at the back of the bus? > > Esprix \*\* I`m thinking tolerance leads to equality. You can`t put the cart in front of the horse. It`ll happen in due time. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/98 "2003-10-13T20:22:37Z")
> [@](#): > > fringe issues Gotta love the equal treatment of millions of people being dismissed as a “fringe issue”… ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/99 "2003-10-13T21:36:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **whuckfistle** _ > > I`m thinking tolerance leads to equality. You can`t put the cart in front of the horse. It`ll happen in due time. Really? Could you let me know when? I’ve been waiting for some time now, and I never realized there was a timeline for equal protection under the law. You think I might be able to get that before I die? “Now sit down, you uppity negro, and maybe if you toe the line someday you might be able to sit in the _next to last_ back seat of the bus.” :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080/100 "2003-10-14T12:47:00Z")
**Otto** , it is a fringe issue. When a small minority of the people are affected by it and when politicians don`t run on it then I consider it a fringe issue. Not that it isn`t an important issue, I never said that. **Esprix** , I`m not trying to debate wether or not you should have more rights as a gay person, I`m just being honest about the nature at which these things evolve. To you it might seem like forever. You have to change the mindset of millions of people. To those millions, it may seem like a sudden change - one that came about rather recently at that. One of my best friends is a lesbian. I`ve worked with her for two years now. I accept her lifestyle, but I wouldn`t say that I am Pro-Gay (as a straight person, I`m not sure what that would mean). I`m indifferent. If everyone had the same feelings as me there wouldn`t be any pressure on the gay community. If you`re looking for everyone to be Pro-Gay, then I think the bar is set too high. I`m willing to discuss this further if you think that one of us needs to clarify our thougts more. Hope that helps. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-explain-this-to-me/206080.md?page=6)