Wouldn't Arnold interrupting her and overspeaking her be considered the first attack in this situation? The fist dig?
Not in this case, since Arianna, at that moment, was attempting to launch some OT tirade about "Ahhhnold's hypocracy" when he chose to overspeak. She was well out of line at that point (and there was no remaining logic to retrieving a cat back into a bag, as Arnie subsequentially demonstrated). She was cruisin' for a bruisin', and she found it.
LMAO..what are you talking about?? I was explaining to you where all the confusion(yours mainly) was coming from. Yes, it all started on a different day, on a different location. SO WHAT?
Yes, please do elaborate more on this "other discussion". Who was there, what was the general purpose of the gathering, and how did discussion of a T3 movie come about?
Quote:
One thing LEAD to the other.It lead to what was IMPLIED by Ahhnold at the debate. Don't you read/hear the news? Honestly, if you don't get it, you're ....I'll leave it at that.
Anybody else hear of this pre-event discussion? Anyone?
Quote:
I don't care why he said it. I don't want to excuse him for saying it, or Arianna for that matter.The point was establishing WHAT what he said could've meant. Seriously dude.
Let's hope you haven't taken too much liberty with the context to support your theory.
Quote:
Who cares??!!! So what if the movie does not exist?What does that have to do with anything??
If the movie doesn't exist, then there is no clear context to what particular role he had in mind for Arianna. So you are left with "filling in the blanks with your imagination"- not exactly concrete stuff to judge somebody by.
Quote:
It appears I'm not the only one "filling the blanks".
No really, it is just you.
Quote:
Again, turn the radio on, turn the TV on.
Yes, we are seeing the same material, but for some reason you are coming away with a far more inflammatory, offensive, and menacing interpretation than I am. It is actually possible to discuss this further for better clarification w/o your unnecessarily harsh tone. You seem far more interested in taking swipes and making personal attacks here than simply sharing what you know.
Quote:
I don't know about you, but I was taught to respect women,...
...and respect men, as well, I should hope. Respect and be respected for everyone. Don't just respect because she is a woman. ...and certainly no respect for a "woman" that has chosen to act completely unlike a woman. That $hit went out in the 70's.
Quote:
...and saying something like that, that even though "unspecifically menacing" MAY HAVE IMPLIED physical violence towards a woman albeit IN A MOVIE, was not very gentlemanly.
You have yet to substantiate that could be the only possible meaning. If you had a better grasp of the subject material of the movies involved, you could just as easily interpreted something to the effect of, "Your fiesty spirit would make a worthy adversary as a role in T4." I'm not saying that is any more plausible an interpretation- just that there is far too little information for anyone to jump up and down and point out with great certainty, "Well this was obviously meant that he would like to bash her head into a porcelain fixture." You should also be keen to note that in a great majority of fight scenes of T3, it was actually Ahhhnold's character that was getting beat up rather badly by the superior "female" terminator. So how do these scenes work into the context? ...or is the context simply chosen on the basis of an opportune scene that illustrates violence towards female terminators? (Never mind the fact this was a machine with feminine traits, not a human female. Hence the violence was exacted on a machine, and in no way suggests that treating a real women in same is acceptable. That makes this contextual association all the more weak and nonsensical. Did he mean Arianna was being a pain in the ass as much as a Tx unit, or that he wanted to indeed inflict violence on her via taking extreme liberty with the original context? Do real woman then resent a "female form" being portrayed as a strategically, functionally, and forcefully superior adversary to the plain jain, original-style terminator? How come no complaints of violence toward "liquid metal beings" when T2 came out? Should Arianna expand her anti-violence coverage to T1000 and TX terminators, as well, so as to be politically correct? Absurdity? Nonsense? Who knows??? It's easy to make haste assumption- especially if it falls in line with a "cause" you can run with. That's for sure.) Since politics are involved, it shouldn't be a long walk at all to realize the real agenda at work here.
Quote:
Defend your "Arnie" all you want, but Arianna was wrong to attack him personally, and "Arnie" was wrong for what could be portrayed as low class.
It is not a defense. I am simply saying your interpretation isn't as well-founded as you may think. For all you know, he may have been paying a compliment- warrior to warrior. The intent of Arnie's remark is specious at best (requiring considerable liberties to be taken to divine any context whatsoever). The intent of Arianna's remark was just plainly in bad taste (the context is rather clear).
Quote:
I am so grateful for your "observations" If it didn't matter to you either way I doubt you would've bothered to type those huge posts and even reply to a post that was CLEARLY -NOT- addressed to you.
You brought this on yourself as you chose a rather aggressive tone to get your message across, which was completely unnecessary. The length of my posts has more to do with your veracity than personal connection to the candidate (as you keep insinuating). <=== yet another example of how there may be more than one possibility than the obvious one, if you care to examine the finer points of the situation
Quote:
Why does it have to be "sinister"?
You tell me. It is you that seems to protest a bit too loudly.
Not in this case, since Arianna, at that moment, was attempting to launch some OT tirade about "Ahhhnold's hypocracy" when he chose to overspeak. She was well out of line at that point (and there was no remaining logic to retrieving a cat back into a bag, as Arnie subsequentially demonstrated). She was cruisin' for a bruisin', and she found it.
Now someone said that it was her turn to speak, correct? If it's her turn to speak then Arnold needs to shut the hell up. If he's not mature enough to do that then someone should put him in his place.
Perhaps, but there is the issue if she was to use the floor to address the appointed topic or launch a left-field personal attack on another candidate? Apparently the MC agreed that she was going out on a tangent, or he would have simply requested she restate her comment with the absense of any Arnie talkover input.
Perhaps, but there is the issue if she was to use the floor to address the appointed topic or launch a left-field personal attack on another candidate? Apparently the MC agreed that she was going out on a tangent, or he would have simply requested she restate her comment with the absense of any Arnie talkover input.
That's being rather generous I'd say. I'm not sure the rules allow for one candidate to correct another, even if the MC isn't willing to do it. I guess in this case the MC probably should have corrected her, and should have corrected Arnold too.
Arnolds reference to T4 meant that she would make a good female terminator. i thought that was obvious.
As to him interrupting her, she had been doing that ALL night long, to everyone. She didnt know when to shut up. I wish he would have bitch slapped her...............................
Seems that I wasted my time in the last couple of posts trying to explain what happened, what lead to what was said when Ahhnold said what he said, and what MOST intelligent people thought he meant. No, it isn't just me who thinks that way.Why don't you get off your posterior and do a google search. You want to bury your head in the sand for your hero "Arnie", then be my guest. LOL.
I started reading your last super long "observations" rich post, but I gave up halfway because you have ceased to make sense in your haste to defend your hero "Arnie".If you didn't get it then, even though I addressed you like I would an 8 year old, you never will. Seems to me that you have more than admiration for whom you so fondly call "Arnie" and I don't want to offend your sensibilities.
There has been talk on the radio, and even the newspapers as to what "Arnie" almost surely meant when he said what he said to Arianna.
Quote:
Originally posted by Little ArnieNo really, it is just you.
Yeah, it's just me....Are you that inept that you can't do a search to not look like a fool? Let me help you:
Given the chance to respond, Schwarzenegger said, "I have the perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4."'
Most observers heard that as a clear reference to Schwarzenegger's latest movie, "Terminator 3," in which he jammed a female robot's head into a toilet.
When Mr Schwarzenegger tried to repeatedly interrupt Ms Huffington and then just spoke over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."
Huffington said she was offended by Schwarzenegger's remarks
The remark - which pundits described as one of the sharpest during the debate - referred to much-publicised allegations of misogyny against Mr Schwarzenegger.
"I just realised I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," the movie star responded, apparently referring to a scene from his new Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines film in which his character stuffs a female robot's head into a toilet.
"I would just like to say that I just realized I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4'," Schwarzenegger said, apparently alluding to a "Terminator 3" scene in which his character pushes a female terminator's head into a toilet.
There's dozens more for when you want to get your head out of your..eh the sand.
Quote:
Originally posted by Little Arnie..and respect men, as well, I should hope. Respect and be respected for everyone. Don't just respect because she is a woman. ...and certainly no respect for a "woman" that has chosen to act completely unlike a woman. That $hit went out in the 70's.
I try to respect everyone....but especially women.If she chose to act completely "unlike a woman" like you claim, that's her business. She should deal with the consequences of her "behavior" afterwards. Ahhnold should have shown some class and not act like an angry school boy. Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what. I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
Quote:
Originally posted by Randy You tell me. It is you that seems to protest a bit too loudly
How you read my 2004 Elections "theory" as a "protest" is proof of your poor understanding of the meaning of some words including observations, clarifications and defense. May I suggest a dictionary?
It's clear for all to see that you're going out of your way to defend "arnie", your hero. I have proven how wrong you are with links. Here's the last link of my post to help further educate you:
There has been talk on the radio, and even the newspapers as to what "Arnie" almost surely meant when he said what he said to Arianna.
So what you have exhibited is a willingness to participate in mob mentality. "Everybody says it's so. That must mean it is true. I don't have to understand the steps in between that show how it is true."
Do you understand the steps in between. The logic? If so, lay'em out here...because that seems to be the missing component in all of these references. That would at least help you weed out some degree of reality vs. sensationalized news for sensationalize sake.
Given the chance to respond, Schwarzenegger said, "I have the perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4."'
Most observers heard that as a clear reference to Schwarzenegger's latest movie, "Terminator 3," in which he jammed a female robot's head into a toilet.
There's a step 1, a step 3, but no step 2. If he is referring to T4, how is he obviously referencing a specific scene in T3? If he is referencing a specific scene in T3, what makes the toilet scene the only possible scene. There were a whole bunch more scenes in the movie than that one. All of that would seem to be described in step 2, but nowhere does it seem to be elaborated upon.
The more obvious explanation- none of that $hit makes sense! If he was referring to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie T3, not T4. Logic doesn't get any more simple than that.
When Mr Schwarzenegger tried to repeatedly interrupt Ms Huffington and then just spoke over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."
Huffington said she was offended by Schwarzenegger's remarks
The remark - which pundits described as one of the sharpest during the debate - referred to much-publicised allegations of misogyny against Mr Schwarzenegger.
A media bandwagon ensues...
Quote:
"I just realised I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," the movie star responded, apparently referring to a scene from his new Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines film in which his character stuffs a female robot's head into a toilet.
"I would just like to say that I just realized I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4'," Schwarzenegger said, apparently alluding to a "Terminator 3" scene in which his character pushes a female terminator's head into a toilet.
As already explained above, there is no direct connection for referencing T4 and alluding to a scene in T3. This is forced logic. If he was alluding to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie [gasp] T3. If he was actually referencing T4 and alluding to a scene in T3, what else is there to determine which scene? The alluding is already strained and contrived at this point. What makes you believe a specific scene can be inferred w/o even further straining and contriving?
Quote:
There's dozens more for when you want to get your head out of your..eh the sand.
Numbers mean nothing if they are all simply following the same runaway, sensationalist bandwagon. Each report seems to feature that same lapse in logic- step 1, step 3 (skip step 2). What does that tell you? My guess- what you want to hear.
Quote:
I try to respect everyone....but especially women.If she chose to act completely "unlike a woman" like you claim, that's her business. She should deal with the consequences of her "behavior" afterwards. Ahhnold should have shown some class and not act like an angry school boy.
Double standards, I see? They both should have shown some class.
Quote:
Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what.
There's lengths to a woman you have evidently not seen. At some point, class gets thrown out the window. If you are so naive as to "keep your class" no matter what, you end up simply vulnerable.
Quote:
I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
Again with the premature classifications? I may no more be a troglodyte as you are naive. What you should have understood from the remark is that it is not "class" that went out in the 70's, but the idea that a woman deserves respect no matter how poorly she behaves. That one-way, pro-feminist BS went out in the 70's. The modern woman (hopefully) should be looking for equality and equal accountibility.
What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back." That is the point where respect and class is re-established both ways, not the BS "women-only" way.
Quote:
How you read my 2004 Elections "theory" as a "protest" is proof of your poor understanding of the meaning of some words including observations, clarifications and defense.
It was simply word play. The more simple explanation for you is that the number, length, and tenacity of your posts suggests that you do protest a bit too strongly.
So what you have exhibited is a willingness to participate in mob mentality. "Everybody says it's so. That must mean it is true. I don't have to understand the steps in between that show how it is true."
Yeah, everyone's wrong except for you Randy.
You said I was the only one....you were proven wrong. Period. Glad to see you're man enough to admit you were wrong.
Quote:
There's a step 1, a step 3, but no step 2. If he is referring to T4, how is he obviously referencing a specific scene in T3? If he is referencing a specific scene in T3, what makes the toilet scene the only possible scene. There were a whole bunch more scenes in the movie than that one. All of that would seem to be described in step 2, but nowhere does it seem to be elaborated upon.
LMAO. Keep spinning it, maybe, just maybe it'll make sense even to you. Or maybe not. Here, let me help you EVEN MORE:
For what feels like the TENTH bloody time. Don't you get there was a precedent leading to this? It appears that only "Arnie" fan boys like yourself don't GET IT.Or don't want to get it.
From the article: "That still doesn't solve Schwarzenegger's woman problem. In a July interview with Entertainment Weekly about his new movie, ``Terminator 3,'' Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun: ``How many times do you get away with taking a woman and burying her face in a toilet bowl?''
Quote:
The more obvious explanation- none of that $hit makes sense! If he was referring to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie T3, not T4. Logic doesn't get any more simple than that.
LMAO, you can't really be that dense? You're the one not making sense....for the 5th straight post.Here, just for you:
Ahhnold dunks female robot's head in toilet in his movie--->Ahhnold says how could he not enjoy dunking woman's head in toilet and getting away with it --->that bothers a lot of females--->during the debate Arianna H. is interrupted and talked over by Ahhnold and frustrated says that it's known that's how Ahhnold treats women--->Ahhnold gets mad and replies in kind saying he has a part for her in T4....
Quote:
Numbers mean nothing if they are all simply following the same runaway, sensationalist bandwagon. Each report seems to feature that same lapse in logic- step 1, step 3 (skip step 2). What does that tell you? My guess- what you want to hear.
Right, when you're proven wrong like that, they're just "numbers" and "lapses in logic". Everybody's wrong. Randy's right..
Quote:
Double standards, I see? They both should have shown some class.
No double standards. They BOTH should've shown some class. However Ahhnold had the chance to show that he's a better person(and that all the talk about him "disrespecting women" was rubbish)...but what does he do? He goes on to imply that he has a future role for her in his next movie along the lines of the female robot whose head he "dunked" in a toilet.The moderator got it, the crowd at the debate obviously got it, the media got it. The fan boys obviously don't want to see it that way.
Quote:
There's lengths to a woman you have evidently not seen. At some point, class gets thrown out the window. If you are so naive as to "keep your class" no matter what, you end up simply vulnerable.
You're right. I haven't seen those mysterious "lengths" you're referring to.Maybe it's because I show them respect, and it comes back to me?"Vulnerable"??...oh the poor little flower. Get a clue mate.
Quote:
Again with the premature classifications? I may no more be a troglodyte as you are naive. What you should have understood from the remark is that it is not "class" that went out in the 70's, but the idea that a woman deserves respect no matter how poorly she behaves. That one-way, pro-feminist BS went out in the 70's. The modern woman (hopefully) should be looking for equality and equal accountibility
Does your mother know you talk like that about women? "Pro-feminist BS"? Screw the **tches right?
Quote:
What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back." That is the point where respect and class is re-established both ways, not the BS "women-only" way.
Oh what a man!! That is the point where it's proven that you've been watching way too many action hero flicks.So you would actually hit a woman back? . Now we know why you just refuse to get it. Unbelievable. How about just warning her not to do it again and walking away(before you do anything regrettable)like a real man would? if you know you're that impulsive how about just walking away before you abuse your physical advantages over her?
You said I was the only one....you were proven wrong. Period. Glad to see you're man enough to admit you were wrong.
Yes, essentially everyone who has jumped on this bandwagon is wrong. They are taking a leap in logic to crucify someone over mistaken contexts. It has turned out to be an unfortunate, yet convenient, political motion, and it is a shame to see that more people cannot "step out of a crowd" and acknowledge that the meaning is as ambiguous as it is "obvious" to others who seek a political gain from the notion.
Quote:
For what feels like the TENTH bloody time. Don't you get there was a precedent leading to this?
Is it really a precedent or something taken entirely out of context?
Quote:
From the article: "That still doesn't solve Schwarzenegger's woman problem.
Is this a "real problem" or one perceived as presented by the media? Is there a criminal record showing habitual abusive offenses to women? Arguably, this was more about commentary than a real report that Arnie has specific issues.
Quote:
In a July interview with Entertainment Weekly about his new movie, ``Terminator 3,'' Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun: ``How many times do you get away with taking a woman and burying her face in a toilet bowl?''
Already you can see the article is cutting and pasting commentary, ad lib, with convenient actual quotes to sell an idea. Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun. Did he make that comment in direct connection with "the joys of dunking woman faces"? Perhaps, these 2 statements were in completely different places of the interview. Why wouldn't he say the movie was fun (for the same reasons many actors enjoy doing the work they do) vs. did he really say the movie was fun because he got to dunk a woman's face in a toilet? Furthermore, you should duely note that the structure of his statement does suggest that he acknowledges that you could NOT get away with dunking a woman's face into a toilet in real life, but you can in a movie (because it is a fantasy world). Nor does he say that the act itself was fun or pleasant to him, personally. He simply implied that you cannot get away with it anywhere, except in a fictional movie.
Do you like that spin? It makes your skin crawl, right? You should be fair to acknowledge that this spin is being exhibited on both sides, as demonstrated in your article. So both sides should make your skin crawl. Hence, you are better off morally to not take either side, at all. The statement made in the debate is too ambiguous to make any judgement in good conscience.
Quote:
LMAO, you can't really be that dense? You're the one not making sense....for the 5th straight post.Here, just for you:
Ahhnold dunks female robot's head in toilet in his movie--->Ahhnold says how could he not enjoy dunking woman's head in toilet and getting away with it...
Right there, you paraphrased to better force a desired context. He did NOT say he enjoyed it (look at your own quote from the article, where he is directly quoted). He simply asked rhetorically how can you get away with it. The notion of enjoyment is left entirely up to the reader as to whether they do/do not.
Quote:
... --->that bothers a lot of females...
They chose something to be bothered with, and were looking with baited breath if anything said later could possibly be context-warped and used for political fodder.
Quote:
...--->during the debate Arianna H. is interrupted and talked over by Ahhnold and frustrated says that it's known that's how Ahhnold treats women--->Ahhnold gets mad and replies in kind saying he has a part for her in T4....
"Talking over" equates to slamming a woman's head into a toilet? Can it be assumed that he would also enjoy raping women, too?
Also note that Arianna had done her fair share of talking over, as well. Can it also be assumed that she does not respect men? Could she be a practicing advocate for penis chopping for sport, as well? Clearly, either side taken to extreme is sheer absurdity.
Quote:
Right, when you're proven wrong like that, they're just "numbers" and "lapses in logic". Everybody's wrong. Randy's right..
You seem to feel you have the burden of information siding with you. So where is the necessity to garnish your presentation with cheap personal attacks? You are sending off self-conflicting indicators.
Quote:
No double standards. They BOTH should've shown some class. However Ahhnold had the chance to show that he's a better person(and that all the talk about him "disrespecting women" was rubbish)
First you say no double standards. Then you turn right around and judge only Arnie for not taking the higher ground? Clearly, they both showed a lapse in class. So neither one is really ahead of the game.
Quote:
...but what does he do? He goes on to imply that he has a future role for her in his next movie along the lines of the female robot whose head he "dunked" in a toilet.
You completely paraphrased his statement with your thoughts blended in. He did NOT say what her future role would entail. That is a critical element you really need to embrace. You can guess what he meant. That doesn't make it any more true. If he had said the statement exactly as you typed it, then there would be no questions asked, at all. The context would be clear, and I would be right there agreeing with you.
Quote:
The moderator got it, the crowd at the debate obviously got it,...
Has there been an official statement by either wrt what they thought the comment meant? If you are simply assessing they "got it" by their audio reaction, you could easily be mistaken that they simply thought it was a masterful comeback. How can you be sure that they "got" the same picture you "got"? There is a great deal of subjective here, and you simply cannot deny that.
Quote:
...the media got it.
Yeah, they got something, or they simply saw a juicy media opportunity. Which do you think they are more corruptible to?
Quote:
The fan boys obviously don't want to see it that way.
...and we all know the first one mentioning/declaring terms like "fan boys" in a forum discussion is often the one who is suffering from some infatuation delusion. Here's your shoe...
Quote:
You're right. I haven't seen those mysterious "lengths" you're referring to.
You are at great peril then to not have witnessed it, and still haven't the slightest inkling that it may indeed exist and be a danger to you.
Quote:
Maybe it's because I show them respect,...
You can respect them or not respect them. If they have a wish to exploit you (for being the "nice guy" or the "gullible chump"), you can bet the consequences will be severe.
Quote:
and it comes back to me?"Vulnerable"??...oh the poor little flower. Get a clue mate.
Suit yourself. Don't say you were never warned. This is not saying all woman will always do this. This is about being very careful when you encounter one that is behaving at her worst (likewise for men). "Class" and "respect" will not enter the equation in that moment.
Quote:
Does your mother know you talk like that about women?
Are all of your thoughts "mother-approved"? Nevermind the ramifications of then being a "mama's boy"... Whether or not your mother approves is hardly a conclusively meaningful criteria, IMO.
Quote:
"Pro-feminist BS"? Screw the **tches right?
Where did you get this? Pro-feminisism is all about women's rights and perogatives, with all else (including the opposite sex) coming in as a distinctly secondary consideration. That's why it went out in the 70's. It would never survive the standards of political correctness in later decades, where equal consideration is applied to both sexes.
Oh what a man!! That is the point where it's proven that you've been watching way too many action hero flicks.So you would actually hit a woman back?
It depends, but I would never rule it out entirely. Most likely not. Fair warning is certainly given. To boot, it would be pretty safe to assume that I have established the ability to successfully block her shots, anyway. So her attempts should seem pointless, and if she never lands, she won't have to worry about being hit back. So either partner can avoid being hit if they are simply willing to "not hit". Sounds extremely fair to me. The only way to move away from this would be to move towards double standards once again. You should be able to agree that very little good could come from going towards double standards wrt gender.
Quote:
Now we know why you just refuse to get it. Unbelievable. How about just warning her not to do it again and walking away(before you do anything regrettable)like a real man would?
If you don't block, that means she has hit you. If there are no consequences upon her, what makes you think she won't do it again? ...and again...and again... It's an empty warning at that point. She'll feel free to do it as long as she knows she can get away with it. A "real man" would allow himself to be taken for a chump like that? There is a time to stand up for yourself.
Quote:
if you know you're that impulsive how about just walking away before you abuse your physical advantages over her?
It has nothing to do with being impulsive. You block, you warn. If you are really indeed impulsive, then it is your own wisdom that will tell you when to and not to walk away.
Quote:
You're still a virgin aren't you?
Uh, no. ...and never have I had to hit a woman, either. See- just because you might, doesn't mean you will or have done. So keep your preconceptions and prejudice to yourself.
Randy, after reading part of your monster post I've come to the conclusion that you're such and Ahhnold fan-boy that you've thrown common sense out the window to defend him. At all costs.
In your posts I went from being the only one who interpreted Ahhnold's comment the obvious way , to being part of a much, much larger group who shared the same interpretation. Mass hysteria as you so "elegantly" put it. Way to be consistent about your arguments!
Do you really think, with all the talk in the news(that you somehow managed to miss by the way)about Ahhnold and his women "problems", that when he said "I have the perfect part for you in Terminator 4(in response to, according to you, a personal attack from Arianna) that Ahhnold meant a positive part? You're more than naive if you do. More than in "Total Denial".
I find it very interesting, what you said about your willingness to hit a woman. The women in your life can then rest assured that even though you "might" hit a woman, that "doesn't mean you will".
Do you agree with your life hero Ahhnold that women shouldn't wear pants either?
Quote:
Speaking to Playboy in 1988, Arnold made the following statement: "I hate pants. This is something I have inherited from my father. He despised pants, and my mother was never allowed to wear them at home. We're talking about a different time period now, when the man was much more the ruler of the house. But I still feel that way, and neither my mother nor Maria is allowed to go out with me in pants."
I bet you probably do. I could address your other "points", but I want to spare the innocent who might wander into this thread the pain of being subjected to another one of your pointless mega posts. This thread has more than run it's course for me. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss something further. Au revoir.
Randy, after reading part of your monster post I've come to the conclusion that you're such and Ahhnold fan-boy that you've thrown common sense out the window to defend him. At all costs.
...and you must be here to malign him at all costs? You fail to realize that my posts only reflect a yang equal in magnitude to your yin.
Quote:
In your posts I went from being the only one who interpreted Ahhnold's comment the obvious way , to being part of a much, much larger group who shared the same interpretation.
That was your own assertion. I was addressing you in singular since you were leading the charge, and if you have revealed there are more, then the same applies to them. It doesn't matter if it is one or it is many. An angry mob baying to burn a witch is still no good reason to set fire to a person. Evidently, you feel a mob is adequate validation of truth?
Quote:
Do you really think, with all the talk in the news(that you somehow managed to miss by the way)about Ahhnold and his women "problems",...
...a commentary on alleged "problems". Have you been able to supply a record of criminal abuse which would indicate an actual problem? Your article had the credibility of a gossip column appearing in some Entertainment Tonight show.
Quote:
...that when he said "I have the perfect part for you in Terminator 4(in response to, according to you, a personal attack from Arianna) that Ahhnold meant a positive part?
If you had read my posts, you would know by now that the meaning is ambiguous. Therefore you cannot truly make a judgement, though you can have as many suspicions as you wish. It could have been positive (you have been given a few plausible examples, already), negative, or just neutral.
Quote:
You're more than naive if you do. More than in "Total Denial".
This coming from someone who believes a woman is incapable of ever doing them wrong no matter how much "respect" you show? I am simply being objective, and not so willing to blindly jump on the latest media bandwagon.
Quote:
I find it very interesting, what you said about your willingness to hit a woman. The women in your life can then rest assured that even though you "might" hit a woman, that "doesn't mean you will".
You left out where I declared I would most likely not, which would place my "willingness" at a "not very willing" status. Is there a reason you failed to take that into account before slapping your statement above together?
Quote:
Do you agree with your life hero Ahhnold that women shouldn't wear pants either?
Where have I implied that? It is your assertion that he is my life hero. It is also your assertion that I must then seemingly agree with him on all issues. Both accounts are wrong, and I think it is painfully clear how prone you are to becoming mislead with the large assumptions you seem to frequently make. You should take that as an important life lesson to reconsider your ways.
Quote:
I bet you probably do.
You will then lose on that bet. What address do you want the crow delivered?
Quote:
I could address your other "points",...
Evidently, you are not equipped to do so, given your penchant for wide assumptions.
Quote:
...but I want to spare the innocent who might wander into this thread the pain of being subjected to another one of your pointless mega posts.
Ever consider that your own posts may not be exactly stellar in quality so as to justify the bandwidth?
Quote:
This thread has more than run it's course for me. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss something further. Au revoir.
Yes, please do consider your motion here as masterfully smacked-down. Do not feel welcome to come back.
Seriously all, who in their right mind would vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger considering he "admired Hitler"?
Vote ABS! (Anyone But Schwarzenegger)!
I admire Hitler. He was extremely charismatic and united a nation that was economically devastated after losing a war. He was a great leader.
He was also a dispicable person. I am disgusted by his policies. The atrocities he committed were unexcusable. Mere words cannot describe just how sick he and his policies were.
See how this works dorkus inflammatus misquotus?
Quote:
Meanwhile, criticism poured in from religious leaders and the state's top Democrats for remarks attributed to the actor in 1975 that he admired Hitler's ability to rise from humble beginnings.
What's wrong with that? That doesn't make Hitler a good pesron. That makes him someone who had the ability to rise from humble beginnings.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Wouldn't Arnold interrupting her and overspeaking her be considered the first attack in this situation? The fist dig?
Not in this case, since Arianna, at that moment, was attempting to launch some OT tirade about "Ahhhnold's hypocracy" when he chose to overspeak. She was well out of line at that point (and there was no remaining logic to retrieving a cat back into a bag, as Arnie subsequentially demonstrated). She was cruisin' for a bruisin', and she found it.
Originally posted by Gilsch
LMAO..what are you talking about?? I was explaining to you where all the confusion(yours mainly) was coming from. Yes, it all started on a different day, on a different location. SO WHAT?
Yes, please do elaborate more on this "other discussion". Who was there, what was the general purpose of the gathering, and how did discussion of a T3 movie come about?
Quote:
One thing LEAD to the other.It lead to what was IMPLIED by Ahhnold at the debate. Don't you read/hear the news? Honestly, if you don't get it, you're ....I'll leave it at that.
Anybody else hear of this pre-event discussion? Anyone?
Quote:
I don't care why he said it. I don't want to excuse him for saying it, or Arianna for that matter.The point was establishing WHAT what he said could've meant. Seriously dude.
Let's hope you haven't taken too much liberty with the context to support your theory.
Quote:
Who cares??!!! So what if the movie does not exist?What does that have to do with anything??
If the movie doesn't exist, then there is no clear context to what particular role he had in mind for Arianna. So you are left with "filling in the blanks with your imagination"- not exactly concrete stuff to judge somebody by.
Quote:
It appears I'm not the only one "filling the blanks".
No really, it is just you.
Quote:
Again, turn the radio on, turn the TV on.
Yes, we are seeing the same material, but for some reason you are coming away with a far more inflammatory, offensive, and menacing interpretation than I am. It is actually possible to discuss this further for better clarification w/o your unnecessarily harsh tone. You seem far more interested in taking swipes and making personal attacks here than simply sharing what you know.
Quote:
I don't know about you, but I was taught to respect women,...
...and respect men, as well, I should hope. Respect and be respected for everyone. Don't just respect because she is a woman. ...and certainly no respect for a "woman" that has chosen to act completely unlike a woman. That $hit went out in the 70's.
Quote:
...and saying something like that, that even though "unspecifically menacing" MAY HAVE IMPLIED physical violence towards a woman albeit IN A MOVIE, was not very gentlemanly.
You have yet to substantiate that could be the only possible meaning. If you had a better grasp of the subject material of the movies involved, you could just as easily interpreted something to the effect of, "Your fiesty spirit would make a worthy adversary as a role in T4." I'm not saying that is any more plausible an interpretation- just that there is far too little information for anyone to jump up and down and point out with great certainty, "Well this was obviously meant that he would like to bash her head into a porcelain fixture." You should also be keen to note that in a great majority of fight scenes of T3, it was actually Ahhhnold's character that was getting beat up rather badly by the superior "female" terminator. So how do these scenes work into the context? ...or is the context simply chosen on the basis of an opportune scene that illustrates violence towards female terminators? (Never mind the fact this was a machine with feminine traits, not a human female. Hence the violence was exacted on a machine, and in no way suggests that treating a real women in same is acceptable. That makes this contextual association all the more weak and nonsensical. Did he mean Arianna was being a pain in the ass as much as a Tx unit, or that he wanted to indeed inflict violence on her via taking extreme liberty with the original context? Do real woman then resent a "female form" being portrayed as a strategically, functionally, and forcefully superior adversary to the plain jain, original-style terminator? How come no complaints of violence toward "liquid metal beings" when T2 came out? Should Arianna expand her anti-violence coverage to T1000 and TX terminators, as well, so as to be politically correct? Absurdity? Nonsense? Who knows??? It's easy to make haste assumption- especially if it falls in line with a "cause" you can run with. That's for sure.) Since politics are involved, it shouldn't be a long walk at all to realize the real agenda at work here.
Quote:
Defend your "Arnie" all you want, but Arianna was wrong to attack him personally, and "Arnie" was wrong for what could be portrayed as low class.
It is not a defense. I am simply saying your interpretation isn't as well-founded as you may think. For all you know, he may have been paying a compliment- warrior to warrior. The intent of Arnie's remark is specious at best (requiring considerable liberties to be taken to divine any context whatsoever). The intent of Arianna's remark was just plainly in bad taste (the context is rather clear).
Quote:
I am so grateful for your "observations"
You brought this on yourself as you chose a rather aggressive tone to get your message across, which was completely unnecessary. The length of my posts has more to do with your veracity than personal connection to the candidate (as you keep insinuating). <=== yet another example of how there may be more than one possibility than the obvious one, if you care to examine the finer points of the situation
Quote:
Why does it have to be "sinister"?
You tell me. It is you that seems to protest a bit too loudly.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Not in this case, since Arianna, at that moment, was attempting to launch some OT tirade about "Ahhhnold's hypocracy" when he chose to overspeak. She was well out of line at that point (and there was no remaining logic to retrieving a cat back into a bag, as Arnie subsequentially demonstrated). She was cruisin' for a bruisin', and she found it.
Now someone said that it was her turn to speak, correct? If it's her turn to speak then Arnold needs to shut the hell up. If he's not mature enough to do that then someone should put him in his place.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Perhaps, but there is the issue if she was to use the floor to address the appointed topic or launch a left-field personal attack on another candidate? Apparently the MC agreed that she was going out on a tangent, or he would have simply requested she restate her comment with the absense of any Arnie talkover input.
That's being rather generous I'd say. I'm not sure the rules allow for one candidate to correct another, even if the MC isn't willing to do it. I guess in this case the MC probably should have corrected her, and should have corrected Arnold too.
As to him interrupting her, she had been doing that ALL night long, to everyone. She didnt know when to shut up. I wish he would have bitch slapped her...............................
Originally posted by Randycat99
Agreed! (This has got to be a major precedence of some sort!
I better go back and edit my last post quick!
Seems that I wasted my time in the last couple of posts trying to explain what happened, what lead to what was said when Ahhnold said what he said, and what MOST intelligent people thought he meant. No, it isn't just me who thinks that way.Why don't you get off your posterior and do a google search. You want to bury your head in the sand for your hero "Arnie", then be my guest. LOL.
I started reading your last super long "observations" rich post, but I gave up halfway because you have ceased to make sense in your haste to defend your hero "Arnie".If you didn't get it then, even though I addressed you like I would an 8 year old, you never will. Seems to me that you have more than admiration for whom you so fondly call "Arnie" and I don't want to offend your sensibilities.
There has been talk on the radio, and even the newspapers as to what "Arnie" almost surely meant when he said what he said to Arianna.
Originally posted by Little ArnieNo really, it is just you.
Yeah, it's just me....
http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2512188/detail.html
Given the chance to respond, Schwarzenegger said, "I have the perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4."'
Most observers heard that as a clear reference to Schwarzenegger's latest movie, "Terminator 3," in which he jammed a female robot's head into a toilet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3138620.stm
From the BBC article: 'Comedy Central'
When Mr Schwarzenegger tried to repeatedly interrupt Ms Huffington and then just spoke over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."
Huffington said she was offended by Schwarzenegger's remarks
The remark - which pundits described as one of the sharpest during the debate - referred to much-publicised allegations of misogyny against Mr Schwarzenegger.
"I just realised I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," the movie star responded, apparently referring to a scene from his new Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines film in which his character stuffs a female robot's head into a toilet.
http://nynewsday.com/news/printediti...c-nynews-print
"I would just like to say that I just realized I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4'," Schwarzenegger said, apparently alluding to a "Terminator 3" scene in which his character pushes a female terminator's head into a toilet.
There's dozens more for when you want to get your head out of your..eh the sand.
Originally posted by Little Arnie..and respect men, as well, I should hope. Respect and be respected for everyone. Don't just respect because she is a woman. ...and certainly no respect for a "woman" that has chosen to act completely unlike a woman. That $hit went out in the 70's.
I try to respect everyone....but especially women.If she chose to act completely "unlike a woman" like you claim, that's her business. She should deal with the consequences of her "behavior" afterwards. Ahhnold should have shown some class and not act like an angry school boy. Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what. I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
Originally posted by Randy You tell me. It is you that seems to protest a bit too loudly
How you read my 2004 Elections "theory" as a "protest" is proof of your poor understanding of the meaning of some words including observations, clarifications and defense. May I suggest a dictionary?
It's clear for all to see that you're going out of your way to defend "arnie", your hero. I have proven how wrong you are with links. Here's the last link of my post to help further educate you:
http://www.dictionary.com Use it wisely Baby.
Originally posted by Gilsch
There has been talk on the radio, and even the newspapers as to what "Arnie" almost surely meant when he said what he said to Arianna.
So what you have exhibited is a willingness to participate in mob mentality. "Everybody says it's so. That must mean it is true. I don't have to understand the steps in between that show how it is true."
Do you understand the steps in between. The logic? If so, lay'em out here...because that seems to be the missing component in all of these references. That would at least help you weed out some degree of reality vs. sensationalized news for sensationalize sake.
http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2512188/detail.html
Given the chance to respond, Schwarzenegger said, "I have the perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4."'
Most observers heard that as a clear reference to Schwarzenegger's latest movie, "Terminator 3," in which he jammed a female robot's head into a toilet.
There's a step 1, a step 3, but no step 2. If he is referring to T4, how is he obviously referencing a specific scene in T3? If he is referencing a specific scene in T3, what makes the toilet scene the only possible scene. There were a whole bunch more scenes in the movie than that one. All of that would seem to be described in step 2, but nowhere does it seem to be elaborated upon.
The more obvious explanation- none of that $hit makes sense! If he was referring to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie T3, not T4. Logic doesn't get any more simple than that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3138620.stm
From the BBC article: 'Comedy Central'
When Mr Schwarzenegger tried to repeatedly interrupt Ms Huffington and then just spoke over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that."
Huffington said she was offended by Schwarzenegger's remarks
The remark - which pundits described as one of the sharpest during the debate - referred to much-publicised allegations of misogyny against Mr Schwarzenegger.
A media bandwagon ensues...
"I just realised I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4," the movie star responded, apparently referring to a scene from his new Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines film in which his character stuffs a female robot's head into a toilet.
http://nynewsday.com/news/printediti...c-nynews-print
"I would just like to say that I just realized I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4'," Schwarzenegger said, apparently alluding to a "Terminator 3" scene in which his character pushes a female terminator's head into a toilet.
As already explained above, there is no direct connection for referencing T4 and alluding to a scene in T3. This is forced logic. If he was alluding to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie [gasp] T3. If he was actually referencing T4 and alluding to a scene in T3, what else is there to determine which scene? The alluding is already strained and contrived at this point. What makes you believe a specific scene can be inferred w/o even further straining and contriving?
There's dozens more for when you want to get your head out of your..eh the sand.
Numbers mean nothing if they are all simply following the same runaway, sensationalist bandwagon. Each report seems to feature that same lapse in logic- step 1, step 3 (skip step 2). What does that tell you? My guess- what you want to hear.
I try to respect everyone....but especially women.If she chose to act completely "unlike a woman" like you claim, that's her business. She should deal with the consequences of her "behavior" afterwards. Ahhnold should have shown some class and not act like an angry school boy.
Double standards, I see? They both should have shown some class.
Sorry Randy, class doesn't "go out". Class is respecting women no matter what.
There's lengths to a woman you have evidently not seen. At some point, class gets thrown out the window. If you are so naive as to "keep your class" no matter what, you end up simply vulnerable.
I'm sorry there's troglodytes like you around who think otherwise. What would you do if a woman slapped you? Kick her ass cause " that shit went out n the 70's"???
Again with the premature classifications? I may no more be a troglodyte as you are naive. What you should have understood from the remark is that it is not "class" that went out in the 70's, but the idea that a woman deserves respect no matter how poorly she behaves. That one-way, pro-feminist BS went out in the 70's. The modern woman (hopefully) should be looking for equality and equal accountibility.
What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back." That is the point where respect and class is re-established both ways, not the BS "women-only" way.
How you read my 2004 Elections "theory" as a "protest" is proof of your poor understanding of the meaning of some words including observations, clarifications and defense.
It was simply word play. The more simple explanation for you is that the number, length, and tenacity of your posts suggests that you do protest a bit too strongly.
Originally posted by Randycat99
So what you have exhibited is a willingness to participate in mob mentality. "Everybody says it's so. That must mean it is true. I don't have to understand the steps in between that show how it is true."
Yeah, everyone's wrong except for you Randy.
You said I was the only one....you were proven wrong. Period. Glad to see you're man enough to admit you were wrong.
There's a step 1, a step 3, but no step 2. If he is referring to T4, how is he obviously referencing a specific scene in T3? If he is referencing a specific scene in T3, what makes the toilet scene the only possible scene. There were a whole bunch more scenes in the movie than that one. All of that would seem to be described in step 2, but nowhere does it seem to be elaborated upon.
LMAO. Keep spinning it, maybe, just maybe it'll make sense even to you. Or maybe not. Here, let me help you EVEN MORE:
For what feels like the TENTH bloody time. Don't you get there was a precedent leading to this? It appears that only "Arnie" fan boys like yourself don't GET IT.Or don't want to get it.
Here's what started it.Try to think this time.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...ng/6791474.htm
From the article: "That still doesn't solve Schwarzenegger's woman problem. In a July interview with Entertainment Weekly about his new movie, ``Terminator 3,'' Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun: ``How many times do you get away with taking a woman and burying her face in a toilet bowl?''
The more obvious explanation- none of that $hit makes sense! If he was referring to a scene in T3, he would have referenced the movie T3, not T4. Logic doesn't get any more simple than that.
LMAO, you can't really be that dense? You're the one not making sense....for the 5th straight post.Here, just for you:
Ahhnold dunks female robot's head in toilet in his movie--->Ahhnold says how could he not enjoy dunking woman's head in toilet and getting away with it --->that bothers a lot of females--->during the debate Arianna H. is interrupted and talked over by Ahhnold and frustrated says that it's known that's how Ahhnold treats women--->Ahhnold gets mad and replies in kind saying he has a part for her in T4....
Numbers mean nothing if they are all simply following the same runaway, sensationalist bandwagon. Each report seems to feature that same lapse in logic- step 1, step 3 (skip step 2). What does that tell you? My guess- what you want to hear.
Right, when you're proven wrong like that, they're just "numbers" and "lapses in logic". Everybody's wrong. Randy's right..
Double standards, I see? They both should have shown some class.
No double standards. They BOTH should've shown some class. However Ahhnold had the chance to show that he's a better person(and that all the talk about him "disrespecting women" was rubbish)...but what does he do? He goes on to imply that he has a future role for her in his next movie along the lines of the female robot whose head he "dunked" in a toilet.The moderator got it, the crowd at the debate obviously got it, the media got it. The fan boys obviously don't want to see it that way.
There's lengths to a woman you have evidently not seen. At some point, class gets thrown out the window. If you are so naive as to "keep your class" no matter what, you end up simply vulnerable.
You're right. I haven't seen those mysterious "lengths" you're referring to.Maybe it's because I show them respect, and it comes back to me?"Vulnerable"??...oh the poor little flower. Get a clue mate.
Again with the premature classifications? I may no more be a troglodyte as you are naive. What you should have understood from the remark is that it is not "class" that went out in the 70's, but the idea that a woman deserves respect no matter how poorly she behaves. That one-way, pro-feminist BS went out in the 70's. The modern woman (hopefully) should be looking for equality and equal accountibility
What do I do if a woman slaps me? The answer is, "she would never get far enough to make contact". I'd catch it, lock her hand in mid-air, stare assertively into her eyes, and say, "Don't ever do that again unless you are ready to take some of it back." That is the point where respect and class is re-established both ways, not the BS "women-only" way.
You're still a virgin aren't you?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, everyone's wrong except for you Randy.
You said I was the only one....you were proven wrong. Period. Glad to see you're man enough to admit you were wrong.
Yes, essentially everyone who has jumped on this bandwagon is wrong. They are taking a leap in logic to crucify someone over mistaken contexts. It has turned out to be an unfortunate, yet convenient, political motion, and it is a shame to see that more people cannot "step out of a crowd" and acknowledge that the meaning is as ambiguous as it is "obvious" to others who seek a political gain from the notion.
Quote:
For what feels like the TENTH bloody time. Don't you get there was a precedent leading to this?
Is it really a precedent or something taken entirely out of context?
Quote:
From the article: "That still doesn't solve Schwarzenegger's woman problem.
Is this a "real problem" or one perceived as presented by the media? Is there a criminal record showing habitual abusive offenses to women? Arguably, this was more about commentary than a real report that Arnie has specific issues.
Quote:
In a July interview with Entertainment Weekly about his new movie, ``Terminator 3,'' Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun: ``How many times do you get away with taking a woman and burying her face in a toilet bowl?''
Already you can see the article is cutting and pasting commentary, ad lib, with convenient actual quotes to sell an idea. Schwarzenegger said the movie was fun. Did he make that comment in direct connection with "the joys of dunking woman faces"? Perhaps, these 2 statements were in completely different places of the interview. Why wouldn't he say the movie was fun (for the same reasons many actors enjoy doing the work they do) vs. did he really say the movie was fun because he got to dunk a woman's face in a toilet? Furthermore, you should duely note that the structure of his statement does suggest that he acknowledges that you could NOT get away with dunking a woman's face into a toilet in real life, but you can in a movie (because it is a fantasy world). Nor does he say that the act itself was fun or pleasant to him, personally. He simply implied that you cannot get away with it anywhere, except in a fictional movie.
Do you like that spin? It makes your skin crawl, right? You should be fair to acknowledge that this spin is being exhibited on both sides, as demonstrated in your article. So both sides should make your skin crawl. Hence, you are better off morally to not take either side, at all. The statement made in the debate is too ambiguous to make any judgement in good conscience.
Quote:
LMAO, you can't really be that dense? You're the one not making sense....for the 5th straight post.Here, just for you:
Ahhnold dunks female robot's head in toilet in his movie--->Ahhnold says how could he not enjoy dunking woman's head in toilet and getting away with it...
Right there, you paraphrased to better force a desired context. He did NOT say he enjoyed it (look at your own quote from the article, where he is directly quoted). He simply asked rhetorically how can you get away with it. The notion of enjoyment is left entirely up to the reader as to whether they do/do not.
Quote:
... --->that bothers a lot of females...
They chose something to be bothered with, and were looking with baited breath if anything said later could possibly be context-warped and used for political fodder.
Quote:
...--->during the debate Arianna H. is interrupted and talked over by Ahhnold and frustrated says that it's known that's how Ahhnold treats women--->Ahhnold gets mad and replies in kind saying he has a part for her in T4....
"Talking over" equates to slamming a woman's head into a toilet? Can it be assumed that he would also enjoy raping women, too?
Also note that Arianna had done her fair share of talking over, as well. Can it also be assumed that she does not respect men? Could she be a practicing advocate for penis chopping for sport, as well? Clearly, either side taken to extreme is sheer absurdity.
Quote:
Right, when you're proven wrong like that, they're just "numbers" and "lapses in logic". Everybody's wrong. Randy's right..
You seem to feel you have the burden of information siding with you. So where is the necessity to garnish your presentation with cheap personal attacks? You are sending off self-conflicting indicators.
Quote:
No double standards. They BOTH should've shown some class. However Ahhnold had the chance to show that he's a better person(and that all the talk about him "disrespecting women" was rubbish)
First you say no double standards. Then you turn right around and judge only Arnie for not taking the higher ground? Clearly, they both showed a lapse in class. So neither one is really ahead of the game.
Quote:
...but what does he do? He goes on to imply that he has a future role for her in his next movie along the lines of the female robot whose head he "dunked" in a toilet.
You completely paraphrased his statement with your thoughts blended in. He did NOT say what her future role would entail. That is a critical element you really need to embrace. You can guess what he meant. That doesn't make it any more true. If he had said the statement exactly as you typed it, then there would be no questions asked, at all. The context would be clear, and I would be right there agreeing with you.
Quote:
The moderator got it, the crowd at the debate obviously got it,...
Has there been an official statement by either wrt what they thought the comment meant? If you are simply assessing they "got it" by their audio reaction, you could easily be mistaken that they simply thought it was a masterful comeback. How can you be sure that they "got" the same picture you "got"? There is a great deal of subjective here, and you simply cannot deny that.
Quote:
...the media got it.
Yeah, they got something, or they simply saw a juicy media opportunity. Which do you think they are more corruptible to?
Quote:
The fan boys obviously don't want to see it that way.
...and we all know the first one mentioning/declaring terms like "fan boys" in a forum discussion is often the one who is suffering from some infatuation delusion. Here's your shoe...
Quote:
You're right. I haven't seen those mysterious "lengths" you're referring to.
You are at great peril then to not have witnessed it, and still haven't the slightest inkling that it may indeed exist and be a danger to you.
Quote:
Maybe it's because I show them respect,...
You can respect them or not respect them. If they have a wish to exploit you (for being the "nice guy" or the "gullible chump"), you can bet the consequences will be severe.
Quote:
and it comes back to me?"Vulnerable"??...oh the poor little flower. Get a clue mate.
Suit yourself. Don't say you were never warned. This is not saying all woman will always do this. This is about being very careful when you encounter one that is behaving at her worst (likewise for men). "Class" and "respect" will not enter the equation in that moment.
Quote:
Are all of your thoughts "mother-approved"? Nevermind the ramifications of then being a "mama's boy"... Whether or not your mother approves is hardly a conclusively meaningful criteria, IMO.
Quote:
"Pro-feminist BS"? Screw the **tches right?
Where did you get this? Pro-feminisism is all about women's rights and perogatives, with all else (including the opposite sex) coming in as a distinctly secondary consideration. That's why it went out in the 70's. It would never survive the standards of political correctness in later decades, where equal consideration is applied to both sexes.
It depends, but I would never rule it out entirely. Most likely not. Fair warning is certainly given. To boot, it would be pretty safe to assume that I have established the ability to successfully block her shots, anyway. So her attempts should seem pointless, and if she never lands, she won't have to worry about being hit back. So either partner can avoid being hit if they are simply willing to "not hit". Sounds extremely fair to me. The only way to move away from this would be to move towards double standards once again. You should be able to agree that very little good could come from going towards double standards wrt gender.
Quote:
Now we know why you just refuse to get it. Unbelievable. How about just warning her not to do it again and walking away(before you do anything regrettable)like a real man would?
If you don't block, that means she has hit you. If there are no consequences upon her, what makes you think she won't do it again? ...and again...and again... It's an empty warning at that point. She'll feel free to do it as long as she knows she can get away with it. A "real man" would allow himself to be taken for a chump like that? There is a time to stand up for yourself.
Quote:
if you know you're that impulsive how about just walking away before you abuse your physical advantages over her?
It has nothing to do with being impulsive. You block, you warn. If you are really indeed impulsive, then it is your own wisdom that will tell you when to and not to walk away.
Quote:
You're still a virgin aren't you?
Uh, no. ...and never have I had to hit a woman, either. See- just because you might, doesn't mean you will or have done. So keep your preconceptions and prejudice to yourself.
In your posts I went from being the only one who interpreted Ahhnold's comment the obvious way , to being part of a much, much larger group who shared the same interpretation. Mass hysteria as you so "elegantly" put it. Way to be consistent about your arguments!
Do you really think, with all the talk in the news(that you somehow managed to miss by the way)about Ahhnold and his women "problems", that when he said "I have the perfect part for you in Terminator 4(in response to, according to you, a personal attack from Arianna) that Ahhnold meant a positive part? You're more than naive if you do. More than in "Total Denial".
I find it very interesting, what you said about your willingness to hit a woman. The women in your life can then rest assured that even though you "might" hit a woman, that "doesn't mean you will".
Do you agree with your life hero Ahhnold that women shouldn't wear pants either?
Speaking to Playboy in 1988, Arnold made the following statement: "I hate pants. This is something I have inherited from my father. He despised pants, and my mother was never allowed to wear them at home. We're talking about a different time period now, when the man was much more the ruler of the house. But I still feel that way, and neither my mother nor Maria is allowed to go out with me in pants."
I bet you probably do.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Randy, after reading part of your monster post I've come to the conclusion that you're such and Ahhnold fan-boy that you've thrown common sense out the window to defend him. At all costs.
...and you must be here to malign him at all costs? You fail to realize that my posts only reflect a yang equal in magnitude to your yin.
Quote:
In your posts I went from being the only one who interpreted Ahhnold's comment the obvious way , to being part of a much, much larger group who shared the same interpretation.
That was your own assertion. I was addressing you in singular since you were leading the charge, and if you have revealed there are more, then the same applies to them. It doesn't matter if it is one or it is many. An angry mob baying to burn a witch is still no good reason to set fire to a person. Evidently, you feel a mob is adequate validation of truth?
Quote:
Do you really think, with all the talk in the news(that you somehow managed to miss by the way)about Ahhnold and his women "problems",...
...a commentary on alleged "problems". Have you been able to supply a record of criminal abuse which would indicate an actual problem? Your article had the credibility of a gossip column appearing in some Entertainment Tonight show.
Quote:
...that when he said "I have the perfect part for you in Terminator 4(in response to, according to you, a personal attack from Arianna) that Ahhnold meant a positive part?
If you had read my posts, you would know by now that the meaning is ambiguous. Therefore you cannot truly make a judgement, though you can have as many suspicions as you wish. It could have been positive (you have been given a few plausible examples, already), negative, or just neutral.
Quote:
You're more than naive if you do. More than in "Total Denial".
This coming from someone who believes a woman is incapable of ever doing them wrong no matter how much "respect" you show? I am simply being objective, and not so willing to blindly jump on the latest media bandwagon.
Quote:
I find it very interesting, what you said about your willingness to hit a woman. The women in your life can then rest assured that even though you "might" hit a woman, that "doesn't mean you will".
You left out where I declared I would most likely not, which would place my "willingness" at a "not very willing" status. Is there a reason you failed to take that into account before slapping your statement above together?
Quote:
Do you agree with your life hero Ahhnold that women shouldn't wear pants either?
Where have I implied that? It is your assertion that he is my life hero. It is also your assertion that I must then seemingly agree with him on all issues. Both accounts are wrong, and I think it is painfully clear how prone you are to becoming mislead with the large assumptions you seem to frequently make. You should take that as an important life lesson to reconsider your ways.
Quote:
I bet you probably do.
You will then lose on that bet. What address do you want the crow delivered?
Quote:
I could address your other "points",...
Evidently, you are not equipped to do so, given your penchant for wide assumptions.
Quote:
...but I want to spare the innocent who might wander into this thread the pain of being subjected to another one of your pointless mega posts.
Ever consider that your own posts may not be exactly stellar in quality so as to justify the bandwidth?
Quote:
This thread has more than run it's course for me. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss something further. Au revoir.
Yes, please do consider your motion here as masterfully smacked-down. Do not feel welcome to come back.
Seriously all, who in their right mind would vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger considering he "admired Hitler"?
Vote ABS! (Anyone But Schwarzenegger)!
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=511&ncid=716
Seriously all, who in their right mind would vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger considering he "admired Hitler"?
Vote ABS! (Anyone But Schwarzenegger)!
I admire Hitler. He was extremely charismatic and united a nation that was economically devastated after losing a war. He was a great leader.
He was also a dispicable person. I am disgusted by his policies. The atrocities he committed were unexcusable. Mere words cannot describe just how sick he and his policies were.
See how this works dorkus inflammatus misquotus?
Meanwhile, criticism poured in from religious leaders and the state's top Democrats for remarks attributed to the actor in 1975 that he admired Hitler's ability to rise from humble beginnings.
What's wrong with that? That doesn't make Hitler a good pesron. That makes him someone who had the ability to rise from humble beginnings.
Gah.