Originally posted by Northgate So, when a liberal leaning newspaper (who sells newspapers to a liberal leaning city-shock, gasp!) reports something contrary to the constant, daily morning drone of the Schwarzy love affair on AM radio, its considered a SCANDAL! Please!
Northgate, you COMPLETELY missed my point. It's not significant when right-wing talk show hosts complain about supposed media bias... that's par for the course. The left wing complains about Fox News and calls them "lying liars." Whatever. Tit for tat.
My point was that a far-left leaning alternative newspaper who otherwise DESPISES Arnold was willing to do further research on the stories, which uncovered DIRECT links between the Democratic party machinery and the allegations against Arnold. Are you telling me that not only that discovery, but the fact it was reported by an openly left-wing paper, isn't significant?
Isn't curious that the Democrats had TV ads detailing the allegations ready to air *later that day* when the information supposedly was released only that morning? It was because the pro-Gray Davis forces were informed in advance of when the stories would run, and what would be contained in them, according to the L.A. Weekly. If you don't believe me, go there and read the stories for yourself.
On top of that, local Democratic columnist Jill Stewart reported that the Times has sat on stories of Gray Davis physically assaulting female assistants for FIVE YEARS and has never bothered to explore that further. Even when the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times did a major investigation on this issue which would have made it easy for the Times to follow up. I mean, they contacted the author of the Premiere article that talked about the same Arnold allegations a year prior, seeking his assistance to craft the new story. (He declined, insulted.)
Look, every media outlet is biased one way or another. But when even Democratic sources are complaining about "puke politics" from their own party, THAT'S significant. To that end, Democrat columnist Susan Estrich said the nature and timing of the allegations leaves a bigger black mark on the Los Angeles Times' claims of objectivity and fair journalism than it does in hurting Arnold. Which it clearly didn't.
This time, "puke politics" was seen for what it was by the voters, whether you agree with Arnold's political views or not. And the Los Angeles Times has admitted that they have already lost well more than a thousand subscriptions as a result. (Probably much more.) So yeah, that's significant.
BR, the problem with Prop 54 is that if a race-related problem arises, such as a university professor systematically forcing out black students by holding them to higher standards than the rest of the class, we would never know about it. Court cases against racist businesses could never be brought up. Basically, racism could run rampant as long as it's not documented, which it wouldn't be. It's not just about health care.
Wrong.
Quote:
Quote from prop 54:
(i) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to comply with federal law, or establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
Such records could be kept to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.
What scares me is that with Schwarzneggaar the tendency in modern democracies to elect the most populistic candidates regardles of their proposals has received a further boost.
Arnold is not dumb, but he is an actor, he know zero about how to run a state.
For the first point you are right, the most popular (understand charismatic) people are elected.
For the secund point, i don't think it's a great deal : most of the politicians do not have any clues how to run a state or even a countrie ... There is no college studies for such a job.
Democratie is built upon equal human rights and legitimacy.
Because we are equal, everyone has the right to present him (or her) regardless of his (her) education or his skills. Because we elect them, we legitimate them, until the next election.
Democratia has limit, and this limit is us. A governement in a democratia cannot govern against his public opinion, but he has to show the way, even if this way is in opposition with the current public opinion.
Most of the problems of democratia come from here : moving public opinion. Some gov lacks the courage to do that while it's needed, others cheat in order to do this. I am sure that many members here will find tons of examples about this ...
But unlike you, Arnold didn't use the term "not ready yet". There is a vast difference there. His answer was an unequivocal "no" to gay marriage, and once again, that sends out the wrong message.
As far as "separate but equal", there can be no equality without full-fledged recognition. One of the main points of marriage is international recognition. There is no such recognition for domestic partnership. Also, there is no protection for gay couples form businesses such as insurance companies ignoring their partnership completely. What about taxes? Can a gay couple in California claim joint assessment? Can they claim joint assessment for federal taxes?
We're not talking about "American society as a whole" either. We're talking about California. Californians are ready to discuss the issue more clearly than "gay marriage is wrong".
Domestic partnerships (or civil unions) do grant all of legal benefits of marriage( at least they do so in Vermont ).
I would prefer the government to use civil union or domestic partnerships when dealing with any life partnered couple -- heterosexual or homosexual. Marriages are based in religion, and the government bestowing special privileges onto people based on a religious ceremony just doesn't seem to fit in well with the separation of church and state. But that's a different topic.
This only applies to places where federal law mandates that racial information be collected. Are business owners mandated to record such information about their staff? Are sports associations mandated to collect this information about their participants? Is the Boy Scouts of America mandated by federal law to record this information? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think so. And as such, how do we check, through records, that racism is not being practiced in one of those organizations when charges are made? We can't, so the case would be dropped. There would be no protection of any person from racism except in cases where federal law mandates that records be kept. Blanket federal laws against discrimination don't have anything to do with this.
It's as if there were laws against speeding, but the police were prohibited from recording any information relating to the speed of a vehicle. Under this proposition, federal and state anti-discrimination law would lose any semblance of being enforceable.
Boy Scouts are a private organization. Leave them out of it.
As far as businesses...yes. Ever heard of Title VII? Ever heard of the civil rights amendments?
But I imagine the folks around here are too partisan to admit what you've pointed out, tonton.
Hey you and Tonton can claim you aren't "partisan" but the point is that recalling the recall would be a stupid move. I said I hope they do it because I would vote no against it and waste their time and money. I didn't say I hoped they would do it because it would damage a candidate or even damage the party itself.
I posted a thread earlier about the recall actually representing a truer form of Democracy which both you and Tonton, spoke against. We have had millions of additional voter registrations, lots of them independent. We were treated to a debate that didn't just include two candidates from two parties, but included an independent candidate and the green party candidate.
It was claimed by others that this recall was a Republican ploy. Well if it was then their "ploy" gave the Green Party exposure, registered millions of independents and still achieved a result that tons of moderates are very happy with.
You show me how a revenge recall could do that. Hoping that a party shows their true motives isn't necessarily partisan. It is more like enjoying the fact that people would get to see the truth.
I find it interesting you would say someting like this when it is a point in fact that Los Angeles AM & FM Radio is/was completely dominated with pro Schwarzenegger propaganda. Every show from Howard Stern to KFI's John & Ken to Bill Handle to the usual suspects of Limbaugh and Hannity paraded Schwarzy around, constantly and continuously hammering anti-Davis/pro-Schwarzy sound bites.
So, when a liberal leaning newspaper (who sells newspapers to a liberal leaning city-shock, gasp!) reports something contrary to the constant, daily morning drone of the Schwarzy love affair on AM radio, its considered a SCANDAL! Please! More right-wing propaganda that crams the idea that right-wing leaning media is noble and just (ie Fox) and left leaning media is dangerous and reviled (LA Times). Now they're going to boycott the newspaper! Imagine if the Dems decried that they were going to boycott AM talk radio....
I listen to KFI a bit. I think you have it about half right. John and Ken try to play independent but just couldn't hold back their glee at Arnold having a chance to get rid of Davis. You say they were very-pro Arnold but you fail to mention how hard they hit on McClintock supportors when it looked like he might be a spoiler. Bill Handel strikes me as very Arnold-like in his stances. I know for a fact he is a very vocal support of abortion rights for example. Handel is socially liberal and fiscally conservative so of course he supports Arnold. Phil Henry, when actually being serious strikes me as having very much the views of Handel as well.
Rush Limbaugh is of course conservative, so is Dr. Laura. I don't listen to either of them since I can't have the radio on at work during the time they are on. However I do catch a little bit of Bill in the morning and sometimes listen to John and Ken on the way home. Mostly though I listen to music.
Likewise talk radio doesn't purport to be an unbiased news organization. They present an issue and everyone "talks" about it. That isn't what the LA Times does. It presents the news and does so with a level of detail that cable news and other outlets cannot match. I get my news from the Times and other papers, not from TV or radio.
The timing of that article was just too suspicious. They hurt their credibility with it. If they were going to investigate and drop a story on a candidate they should have made sure the charges were contemporary and dropped early enough to not look like dirty tricks.
Damn... I typed up a masterpiece but didn't have cookies enabled and lost it all
to paraphrase myself:
we'll have to see about his politics
But, I can't help but have a bad taste if the Leader of the state that I were to live in were someone that I would not, in any way, want my son to look up to, and someone who I would be afraid to have near my daughter
Also bad is the fact that his career thrives off people's basest desires: violent hyper-masculine (laughably distorted awkward male ideal) spectacle that capitalizes on idiotic stereotypes and cliches . . . the notions of power exhibited by all of Swarzenegger's films would not indicate a political mindset that I would recommend to any state . . . except maybe to Carthage before the third Punic war . . .
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
its dissapointing that there were not better alternatives
Oh the AGONY! Stop it Doc, ya killin' me!!! What a MA-RROOON!
I know it's all about money and media visibility in the end (which is WRONG!), but if EVER there was proof a low collective IQ in a state... but hey, at least they're smart enough to remove the CHAD.
Take a look at the businesses he owns/operates ... the guy seems to know quite a bit about running a business, how is running a state any different ?
You can leverage your image as an action star to make a business venture a success (esp. a restaurant brand), but you can hardly do this as governator.
Damn... I typed up a masterpiece but didn't have cookies enabled and lost it all
to paraphrase myself:
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
its dissapointing that there were not better alternatives
What does this mean fship? . . . . in English please
pfflam, with all due honor and respect I just had the scene in my head from the "Grinch who stole Christmas" where by the Grinch just can't stand all the joy and happiness in the hearts of the town folk. He would scheme and repeat to himself in negative ways about how they acted and lived via joy of many sorts. This was just repulsive to the Grinch. How dare they "this or that" how disgusting.
In your post where you itemize the "sorts" of voters who voted because it was "cool" you just seem to step into the shoes of the Grinch.
That was all I was getting at.
Fellowship
To refresh your memory you said:
Quote:
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
Do you actually think that people have 'their hearts filled with joy' because the Terminator . . . the 'Barbarian' was voted to the position of the most serious responsibility in their state?
Do you actually think that people have 'their hearts filled with joy' because the Terminator . . . the 'Barbarian' was voted to the position of the most serious responsibility in their state?
"Iraq's top gym changed its name Wednesday to "The Arnold Classic" to honor former bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger's win in the California governor's race.
Before anything he is a champion. He is above anything," Mehdi told Reuters at his gym, where the country's top weightlifters and other athletes have long trained.
"He was a champion in sport. He was a star of the movies. So it is no surprise that he is a champion politician. I am renaming my gym 'The Arnold Classic' from today," Mehdi said. "We need a strongman, a leader like him, in our country at this moment."
Northgate, you COMPLETELY missed my point. It's not significant when right-wing talk show hosts complain about supposed media bias... that's par for the course. The left wing complains about Fox News and calls them "lying liars." Whatever. Tit for tat.
My point was that a far-left leaning alternative newspaper who otherwise DESPISES Arnold was willing to do further research on the stories, which uncovered DIRECT links between the Democratic party machinery and the allegations against Arnold. Are you telling me that not only that discovery, but the fact it was reported by an openly left-wing paper, isn't significant?
Isn't curious that the Democrats had TV ads detailing the allegations ready to air *later that day* when the information supposedly was released only that morning? It was because the pro-Gray Davis forces were informed in advance of when the stories would run, and what would be contained in them, according to the L.A. Weekly. If you don't believe me, go there and read the stories for yourself.
On top of that, local Democratic columnist Jill Stewart reported that the Times has sat on stories of Gray Davis physically assaulting female assistants for FIVE YEARS and has never bothered to explore that further. Even when the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times did a major investigation on this issue which would have made it easy for the Times to follow up. I mean, they contacted the author of the Premiere article that talked about the same Arnold allegations a year prior, seeking his assistance to craft the new story. (He declined, insulted.)
Look, every media outlet is biased one way or another. But when even Democratic sources are complaining about "puke politics" from their own party, THAT'S significant. To that end, Democrat columnist Susan Estrich said the nature and timing of the allegations leaves a bigger black mark on the Los Angeles Times' claims of objectivity and fair journalism than it does in hurting Arnold. Which it clearly didn't.
This time, "puke politics" was seen for what it was by the voters, whether you agree with Arnold's political views or not. And the Los Angeles Times has admitted that they have already lost well more than a thousand subscriptions as a result. (Probably much more.) So yeah, that's significant.
GTSC
These allegations are NOT new. Not by a long shot. ALL of these allegations were revealed over a year ago in a Premiere Magazine expose detailing Arnold's "loose spirit." What surprised me was the shocked bewilderment Schwarzy's campaign portrayed when they already KNEW about these allegations loooooong before Schwarzy ever decided to run for goobernor. I was amazed when his campaign manager screamed into a microphone, "it is fundamentally unfair to make these type of allegations this late in the game." Come on! How stupid were they to NOT have a game plan for when this story re-broke. Pointing the finger at the LA Times is just as equally a political move as printing the story in the first place.
So, the LA Times decides to do their own investigation into these allegations and now the world is coming to an end? If the Davis allegations were bulletproof then I'm convinced they would've run the story. Heck, if there is any inklinig of a story about Davis here, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to assume that Fox News, or the Weekly Standard would've taken the story and run like a b*tch with it. They didn't. So, I don't really put any credence behind these rumors.
But, hey, I understand that what you're saying is that "puke politics" is supposedly a liberal media thing. No one cried foul when Drudge reported exit poll data even though the media agreed to refrain from this until all the polls closed? No one's boycotting Fox News because they setup their central election coverage at Schwarzy's campaign HQ. There's no "interal investigation" into the agregious conservative bias piped into morning commuter's cars on the drive to work. So, to scream and pout about the LA Times is disengenous at best.
In the end, who cares? Schwarzy's the new goobernor and for me, today is the official "hold my head down in shame to be a Californian day". So we replaced an incompetent governor with an incompetent bafoon who tries to put the word "back" into every stupid catch phrase of his. Shame.
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate So, when a liberal leaning newspaper (who sells newspapers to a liberal leaning city-shock, gasp!) reports something contrary to the constant, daily morning drone of the Schwarzy love affair on AM radio, its considered a SCANDAL! Please!
Northgate, you COMPLETELY missed my point. It's not significant when right-wing talk show hosts complain about supposed media bias... that's par for the course. The left wing complains about Fox News and calls them "lying liars." Whatever. Tit for tat.
My point was that a far-left leaning alternative newspaper who otherwise DESPISES Arnold was willing to do further research on the stories, which uncovered DIRECT links between the Democratic party machinery and the allegations against Arnold. Are you telling me that not only that discovery, but the fact it was reported by an openly left-wing paper, isn't significant?
Isn't curious that the Democrats had TV ads detailing the allegations ready to air *later that day* when the information supposedly was released only that morning? It was because the pro-Gray Davis forces were informed in advance of when the stories would run, and what would be contained in them, according to the L.A. Weekly. If you don't believe me, go there and read the stories for yourself.
On top of that, local Democratic columnist Jill Stewart reported that the Times has sat on stories of Gray Davis physically assaulting female assistants for FIVE YEARS and has never bothered to explore that further. Even when the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times did a major investigation on this issue which would have made it easy for the Times to follow up. I mean, they contacted the author of the Premiere article that talked about the same Arnold allegations a year prior, seeking his assistance to craft the new story. (He declined, insulted.)
Look, every media outlet is biased one way or another. But when even Democratic sources are complaining about "puke politics" from their own party, THAT'S significant. To that end, Democrat columnist Susan Estrich said the nature and timing of the allegations leaves a bigger black mark on the Los Angeles Times' claims of objectivity and fair journalism than it does in hurting Arnold. Which it clearly didn't.
This time, "puke politics" was seen for what it was by the voters, whether you agree with Arnold's political views or not. And the Los Angeles Times has admitted that they have already lost well more than a thousand subscriptions as a result. (Probably much more.) So yeah, that's significant.
GTSC
Originally posted by tonton
BR, the problem with Prop 54 is that if a race-related problem arises, such as a university professor systematically forcing out black students by holding them to higher standards than the rest of the class, we would never know about it. Court cases against racist businesses could never be brought up. Basically, racism could run rampant as long as it's not documented, which it wouldn't be. It's not just about health care.
Wrong.
Quote from prop 54:
(i) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to comply with federal law, or establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
Such records could be kept to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.
Originally posted by Smircle
What scares me is that with Schwarzneggaar the tendency in modern democracies to elect the most populistic candidates regardles of their proposals has received a further boost.
Arnold is not dumb, but he is an actor, he know zero about how to run a state.
For the first point you are right, the most popular (understand charismatic) people are elected.
For the secund point, i don't think it's a great deal : most of the politicians do not have any clues how to run a state or even a countrie ... There is no college studies for such a job.
Democratie is built upon equal human rights and legitimacy.
Because we are equal, everyone has the right to present him (or her) regardless of his (her) education or his skills. Because we elect them, we legitimate them, until the next election.
Democratia has limit, and this limit is us. A governement in a democratia cannot govern against his public opinion, but he has to show the way, even if this way is in opposition with the current public opinion.
Most of the problems of democratia come from here : moving public opinion. Some gov lacks the courage to do that while it's needed, others cheat in order to do this. I am sure that many members here will find tons of examples about this ...
Originally posted by tonton
But unlike you, Arnold didn't use the term "not ready yet". There is a vast difference there. His answer was an unequivocal "no" to gay marriage, and once again, that sends out the wrong message.
As far as "separate but equal", there can be no equality without full-fledged recognition. One of the main points of marriage is international recognition. There is no such recognition for domestic partnership. Also, there is no protection for gay couples form businesses such as insurance companies ignoring their partnership completely. What about taxes? Can a gay couple in California claim joint assessment? Can they claim joint assessment for federal taxes?
We're not talking about "American society as a whole" either. We're talking about California. Californians are ready to discuss the issue more clearly than "gay marriage is wrong".
Domestic partnerships (or civil unions) do grant all of legal benefits of marriage( at least they do so in Vermont ).
I would prefer the government to use civil union or domestic partnerships when dealing with any life partnered couple -- heterosexual or homosexual. Marriages are based in religion, and the government bestowing special privileges onto people based on a religious ceremony just doesn't seem to fit in well with the separation of church and state. But that's a different topic.
Originally posted by tonton
This only applies to places where federal law mandates that racial information be collected. Are business owners mandated to record such information about their staff? Are sports associations mandated to collect this information about their participants? Is the Boy Scouts of America mandated by federal law to record this information? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think so. And as such, how do we check, through records, that racism is not being practiced in one of those organizations when charges are made? We can't, so the case would be dropped. There would be no protection of any person from racism except in cases where federal law mandates that records be kept. Blanket federal laws against discrimination don't have anything to do with this.
It's as if there were laws against speeding, but the police were prohibited from recording any information relating to the speed of a vehicle. Under this proposition, federal and state anti-discrimination law would lose any semblance of being enforceable.
Boy Scouts are a private organization. Leave them out of it.
As far as businesses...yes. Ever heard of Title VII? Ever heard of the civil rights amendments?
Originally posted by Smircle
Arnold is not dumb, but he is an actor, he know zero about how to run a state.
Take a look at the businesses he owns/operates ... the guy seems to know quite a bit about running a business, how is running a state any different ?
Originally posted by bunge
But I imagine the folks around here are too partisan to admit what you've pointed out, tonton.
Hey you and Tonton can claim you aren't "partisan" but the point is that recalling the recall would be a stupid move. I said I hope they do it because I would vote no against it and waste their time and money. I didn't say I hoped they would do it because it would damage a candidate or even damage the party itself.
I posted a thread earlier about the recall actually representing a truer form of Democracy which both you and Tonton, spoke against. We have had millions of additional voter registrations, lots of them independent. We were treated to a debate that didn't just include two candidates from two parties, but included an independent candidate and the green party candidate.
It was claimed by others that this recall was a Republican ploy. Well if it was then their "ploy" gave the Green Party exposure, registered millions of independents and still achieved a result that tons of moderates are very happy with.
You show me how a revenge recall could do that. Hoping that a party shows their true motives isn't necessarily partisan. It is more like enjoying the fact that people would get to see the truth.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
I find it interesting you would say someting like this when it is a point in fact that Los Angeles AM & FM Radio is/was completely dominated with pro Schwarzenegger propaganda. Every show from Howard Stern to KFI's John & Ken to Bill Handle to the usual suspects of Limbaugh and Hannity paraded Schwarzy around, constantly and continuously hammering anti-Davis/pro-Schwarzy sound bites.
So, when a liberal leaning newspaper (who sells newspapers to a liberal leaning city-shock, gasp!) reports something contrary to the constant, daily morning drone of the Schwarzy love affair on AM radio, its considered a SCANDAL! Please! More right-wing propaganda that crams the idea that right-wing leaning media is noble and just (ie Fox) and left leaning media is dangerous and reviled (LA Times). Now they're going to boycott the newspaper!
I listen to KFI a bit. I think you have it about half right. John and Ken try to play independent but just couldn't hold back their glee at Arnold having a chance to get rid of Davis. You say they were very-pro Arnold but you fail to mention how hard they hit on McClintock supportors when it looked like he might be a spoiler. Bill Handel strikes me as very Arnold-like in his stances. I know for a fact he is a very vocal support of abortion rights for example. Handel is socially liberal and fiscally conservative so of course he supports Arnold. Phil Henry, when actually being serious strikes me as having very much the views of Handel as well.
Rush Limbaugh is of course conservative, so is Dr. Laura. I don't listen to either of them since I can't have the radio on at work during the time they are on. However I do catch a little bit of Bill in the morning and sometimes listen to John and Ken on the way home. Mostly though I listen to music.
Likewise talk radio doesn't purport to be an unbiased news organization. They present an issue and everyone "talks" about it. That isn't what the LA Times does. It presents the news and does so with a level of detail that cable news and other outlets cannot match. I get my news from the Times and other papers, not from TV or radio.
The timing of that article was just too suspicious. They hurt their credibility with it. If they were going to investigate and drop a story on a candidate they should have made sure the charges were contemporary and dropped early enough to not look like dirty tricks.
Nick
to paraphrase myself:
we'll have to see about his politics
But, I can't help but have a bad taste if the Leader of the state that I were to live in were someone that I would not, in any way, want my son to look up to, and someone who I would be afraid to have near my daughter
Also bad is the fact that his career thrives off people's basest desires: violent hyper-masculine (laughably distorted awkward male ideal) spectacle that capitalizes on idiotic stereotypes and cliches . . . the notions of power exhibited by all of Swarzenegger's films would not indicate a political mindset that I would recommend to any state . . . except maybe to Carthage before the third Punic war . . .
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
its dissapointing that there were not better alternatives
I know it's all about money and media visibility in the end (which is WRONG!), but if EVER there was proof a low collective IQ in a state... but hey, at least they're smart enough to remove the CHAD.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
Take a look at the businesses he owns/operates ... the guy seems to know quite a bit about running a business, how is running a state any different ?
You can leverage your image as an action star to make a business venture a success (esp. a restaurant brand), but you can hardly do this as governator.
Originally posted by pfflam
Damn... I typed up a masterpiece but didn't have cookies enabled and lost it all
to paraphrase myself:
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
its dissapointing that there were not better alternatives
pfflam you are something else....
To sum up this post by pfflam look below:
People in California after election: 8)
Then in some dark cave,,,,
pfflam:
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
pfflam you are something else....
To sum up this post by pfflam look below:
People in California after election: 8)
Then in some dark cave,,,,
pfflam:
Fellows
What does this mean fship? . . . . in English please
Originally posted by pfflam
What does this mean fship? . . . . in English please
pfflam, with all due honor and respect I just had the scene in my head from the "Grinch who stole Christmas" where by the Grinch just can't stand all the joy and happiness in the hearts of the town folk. He would scheme and repeat to himself in negative ways about how they acted and lived via joy of many sorts. This was just repulsive to the Grinch. How dare they "this or that" how disgusting.
In your post where you itemize the "sorts" of voters who voted because it was "cool" you just seem to step into the shoes of the Grinch.
That was all I was getting at.
Fellowship
To refresh your memory you said:
also, bad taste leaving is that I gaurantee that the majority who voted for him did so because of the coolness factor: screaming frat boys in crimped-bill baseball caps with clenched fists aloft and agog-mouth gaping and yelling "ahhhnooooould"; middle management geeks in windbreakers and khakis getting vicarious maleness; masochistic feminists who secretly want to be groped by a buffed "star," prefferably in jackboots, etc etc
If that is not like the Grinch what is?
Originally posted by pfflam
Do you actually think that people have 'their hearts filled with joy' because the Terminator . . . the 'Barbarian' was voted to the position of the most serious responsibility in their state?
pfflam take or leave my analogy. I stand with it.
Fellowship
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
Take a look at the businesses he owns/operates ... the guy seems to know quite a bit about running a business, how is running a state any different ?
Because it's not a business.
Take schools for example.
Originally posted by giant
Because it's not a business.
Take schools for example.
When you say something like that, you're supposed to follow it up with an example.
Name change in Iraq
"Iraq's top gym changed its name Wednesday to "The Arnold Classic" to honor former bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger's win in the California governor's race.
Before anything he is a champion. He is above anything," Mehdi told Reuters at his gym, where the country's top weightlifters and other athletes have long trained.
"He was a champion in sport. He was a star of the movies. So it is no surprise that he is a champion politician. I am renaming my gym 'The Arnold Classic' from today," Mehdi said. "We need a strongman, a leader like him, in our country at this moment."
Fellowship
Originally posted by Gandalf the Semi-Coherent
Northgate, you COMPLETELY missed my point. It's not significant when right-wing talk show hosts complain about supposed media bias... that's par for the course. The left wing complains about Fox News and calls them "lying liars." Whatever. Tit for tat.
My point was that a far-left leaning alternative newspaper who otherwise DESPISES Arnold was willing to do further research on the stories, which uncovered DIRECT links between the Democratic party machinery and the allegations against Arnold. Are you telling me that not only that discovery, but the fact it was reported by an openly left-wing paper, isn't significant?
Isn't curious that the Democrats had TV ads detailing the allegations ready to air *later that day* when the information supposedly was released only that morning? It was because the pro-Gray Davis forces were informed in advance of when the stories would run, and what would be contained in them, according to the L.A. Weekly. If you don't believe me, go there and read the stories for yourself.
On top of that, local Democratic columnist Jill Stewart reported that the Times has sat on stories of Gray Davis physically assaulting female assistants for FIVE YEARS and has never bothered to explore that further. Even when the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times did a major investigation on this issue which would have made it easy for the Times to follow up. I mean, they contacted the author of the Premiere article that talked about the same Arnold allegations a year prior, seeking his assistance to craft the new story. (He declined, insulted.)
Look, every media outlet is biased one way or another. But when even Democratic sources are complaining about "puke politics" from their own party, THAT'S significant. To that end, Democrat columnist Susan Estrich said the nature and timing of the allegations leaves a bigger black mark on the Los Angeles Times' claims of objectivity and fair journalism than it does in hurting Arnold. Which it clearly didn't.
This time, "puke politics" was seen for what it was by the voters, whether you agree with Arnold's political views or not. And the Los Angeles Times has admitted that they have already lost well more than a thousand subscriptions as a result. (Probably much more.) So yeah, that's significant.
GTSC
These allegations are NOT new. Not by a long shot. ALL of these allegations were revealed over a year ago in a Premiere Magazine expose detailing Arnold's "loose spirit." What surprised me was the shocked bewilderment Schwarzy's campaign portrayed when they already KNEW about these allegations loooooong before Schwarzy ever decided to run for goobernor. I was amazed when his campaign manager screamed into a microphone, "it is fundamentally unfair to make these type of allegations this late in the game." Come on! How stupid were they to NOT have a game plan for when this story re-broke. Pointing the finger at the LA Times is just as equally a political move as printing the story in the first place.
So, the LA Times decides to do their own investigation into these allegations and now the world is coming to an end? If the Davis allegations were bulletproof then I'm convinced they would've run the story. Heck, if there is any inklinig of a story about Davis here, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to assume that Fox News, or the Weekly Standard would've taken the story and run like a b*tch with it. They didn't. So, I don't really put any credence behind these rumors.
But, hey, I understand that what you're saying is that "puke politics" is supposedly a liberal media thing. No one cried foul when Drudge reported exit poll data even though the media agreed to refrain from this until all the polls closed? No one's boycotting Fox News because they setup their central election coverage at Schwarzy's campaign HQ. There's no "interal investigation" into the agregious conservative bias piped into morning commuter's cars on the drive to work. So, to scream and pout about the LA Times is disengenous at best.
In the end, who cares? Schwarzy's the new goobernor and for me, today is the official "hold my head down in shame to be a Californian day". So we replaced an incompetent governor with an incompetent bafoon who tries to put the word "back" into every stupid catch phrase of his. Shame.