It's not exactly intense political debate, but some of you might like to check out this link for a bit of a giggle.


http://www.funforwards.com/flash/august03/wannabe_governor.swf

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bravus:
Clinton and Arnold aren't comparable on this one, because of the issue of consent. Ms Lewinsky was clearly in a much lowere position of power, etc, but she was in her mid-20s and quite old enough to make her own decision, and allegedly at least made some of the first moves. Arnold's actions were a pure use of his physical power and star power to touch women sexually *against their will*, and to me that is *much* more worrying. It's offensive to even passs judgement on the women's attractiveness, and utterly beside the point. If their claims are true - and Arnold seems to have acknowledged that they are - then they show a pattern, lasting several decades and continuing pretty much right up to the present, of someone who uses his power to coerce those much less powerful in the most humiliating and offensive ways he can. Is that not an issue that's worrying in the leader of perhaps the world's 5th largest economy?

---

bravus, you could take much of what you say against Arnold and apply it to American forigen policy. Now cant you?
I am not trying to say I am a fan of Arnold at all its just that people in power (alpha dogs) tend to attract groupies just dying to be taken advantage of. Sometimes they cry foul sometimes not. If these women felt that violated they should have and could have complained sooner.

quote:

---

still, having oral sex with an intern, doesn't even touch stealing a Presidential Election, misleading your country about the case for war, creating an American Gulag in Gutumano Bay, and putting a serving CIA officer at risk to score some cheap political points.

---

True, but the former is a specific charge, backed up by DNA evidence, the latter are all interpretations of events that are themselves subject to debate. And in that sense, they are not comparable.

Speaking of comparability, I'm operating on the assumption that the comparisons between Clinton and Arnold don't involve Monica Lewinsky, so much as the women who have claimed Clinton forced himself upon them sexually. As such, the issue of consent would be comparable, whether or not the credibility, timeliness, etc. differs.

So yes, I find the political machinations on both sides of the Arnold issue make me similarly nauseous when considering the tactics employed by both sides. Given the notorious difficulty evaluating claims of sexual harrassment, and the notorious degree to when vile cads rely on that very fact to continue their behavior, I think we're all free to assign demerits where the think they are deserved.

But political amorality bothers me more than personal amorality (tho I suspect a correlation), and on that score, at least so far, Clinton's was the greater misbehavior, no? And if the charges against Bush made by the progressive camp are valid in their claims and interpretation, then Bush would be worse than Clinton.

But as yet, I am not convinced of the charges made by the Bush haters. I may not have voted for him, but I don't hate him. Which of course, qualifies me for hatred by the Bush haters. Can't win for losing.

Bellham

"These people are nothing without an Austrian to lead them"

ew. look at that hair.

Just not to be left out, I'd like to say that a Presenter at the BBC also alleges that Mr. Schwarzenegger touched her in the upper body area.

jaydee

"still, having oral sex with an intern, doesn't even touch stealing a Presidential Election, misleading your country about the case for war, creating an American Gulag in Gutumano Bay, and putting a serving CIA officer at risk to score some cheap political points.
Clinton just fucked a few women, Bush fucked an entire country."

Just to dissent. Bush didnt steal the election, the Dems lost it. Bush didnt mislead the country about the war, he made a good case based on the availiable evidence, and it was the right one, the American "Gulag" contains some of the most dangerous men in the world who if now free would certainly be waging war for Al-Qeada and the Taliban, so imo a gulag is the best place for such terrorist scum, and the CIA officer is playing poltical games for the Dems.

As for fucking over a country, George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, is on record as saying that he repeatedly warned Clinton about the Al-Qaeda threat but Clinton didnt want to know. His eyes would "glaze over whenever I tried to bring the subject up", in Tenet's own words. Add to that the fact that the Clintons had the FBI spying on and monitoring mainstream conservative Christian and anti-abortion groups instead of focusing on the Islamic militants who were holding conferences calling for Jihad right here in the U.S. And the stretched armed forces we now have are a direct result of Clintons massive cuts in the military.

So as far as I'm concerned Clitnon not only fucked over the entire country, the blood of every single 911 victim is on his hands. Give me a Pres with the balls to do something about America's enemies than a man more interested in fucking interns any day.

On a different note, looking at that picture of the next Governor of Mexifornia, I often wonder if having muscles like that is actually physically comfortable.

I wonder if that state of buffness interferes with, er, attending to yourself while on the toilet.

---
Fighting causes injury

Some odd things about President Clinton. He instituted Welfare Reform, signed free trade agreements and prosecuted war with nary a sign of asking the UN or anyone else to approve. In fact his warmaking was of the extreme sort of "Bullets before men". he had Serbia bombed for 78 days IIRC. He would in fact blow things up on mere suspicion. Now this isn't the most effective way to wage a war but it does work I suppose. If Mr. Clinton were still President I suspect he would be handling Iraq in this fashion, he's be making the rubble of Baghdad bounce. The Iraqis' would have no infrastucture and when it was over he'd let the UN take control. The UN would set up their own puppet government and no one would be asking for an exit strategy because there would be none.

"Yet only Davis and Bustamante are taking direct against to get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of the state by Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Company and the other Texas bandits who squeezed the state by the bulbs.


But if Arnold is selected, it's 'hasta la vista' to the $9 billion. When the electricity emperors whistle, Arnold comes -- to the Peninsula Hotel or the Governor's mansion. The he-man turns pussycat and curls up in their lap."

article by Greg Palast

[This message was edited by stonebird on October 04, 2003 at 01:39 PM.]

I was 20 years old, drunk, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's hands were on my breasts.

As a general rule, I am opposed to men defending themselves against charges of sexual harrasment by claiming that, given the way the woman was dressed, she was really just asking for it.

In this case, I might be persuaded to make an exception.

Bellham

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fashionpolice:
I was 20 years old, drunk, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's hands were on my breasts.

http://www.fashionpolice.dk/wgb/arnie2.gif

---

Well, now, seee, he really did only go after the hotties!!
The 'do, FP, the 'do...

More trouble...

Fashionpolice, I'm in the uncomfortable position of wanting to call you on yourself. That's some kind of 'do indeed.

Note that I refrain from posting a picture of myself at 20...

"Ms Lewinsky was clearly in a much lowere position of power..."
---------------------------

getting nasty visual from that sentence...*yuck*.

Was FP trying to copy Arnold's 'do from Terminator? Actually, what I want to know is how much hair you had in back. Is that a spiky femme-mullet?

You are a brave woman to cop to that. I'm gonna go burn all pictures of myself from the 80's, so I don't do the same in a moment of weakness.

---------------------------
"When the fight gets too big, they don't bother with coffins." -- the coffin-maker, YOJIMBO

The hair was very short in the back, probably about 9mm.

The picture was taken at the Chicago Blues Festival in 1987, and the name tag I was wearing read "Spike Jones". My friend who is cropped out sported a name tag reading "Ethel Mertz". These were given to us by a guy whose name tag read "Jim Ignatowzski"

People were constantly asking me if they could touch my hair, and on that particular evening a guy with the name tag "Popeye" asked if he could lick it.

[This message was edited by Fashionpolice on October 08, 2003 at 12:00 PM.]

yikes - ultrashort in the back and standing tall in front. I forgot that, but I did it in -82. And I have curly hair and a flat neck. I'm for shredding all documents.....
You don't have to be ashamed of that smile though, do you

Ashamed of my haircut...never!

I often revert to a modification of the same style. Last year I sported the Beckham World Cup Mohawk for a couple of months. After a while I decided that Robbie William's do suited me better.

In fact I'm going to get my hair cut any day now, and I hear that hair that stands up and says "Hello" is where it is at!

P.S. I sported the curly hair on top, short straight sides in 1985