Exact-a-mundo. Looks like I got out just in the nick of time (1998). If I was still living there, this whole recall fiasco would have me very upset. Now that I live in Texas, I can just point my finger and giggle. At least it takes the spotlight away from our own ridiculous state legislature.
Thats funny, I felt the same way about the Limbaugh deal with ESPN. The biggest problem with stuff like this is its difficult to understand the context of use of something like this. You can't tell if he's just joking, serious etc. But I am interested in how such a large media outlet like ABC news would report something as obscure as this days before the recall election.
Schwarzenegger: "I'm going to win." Davis: "I'm going to lose". Let's try some more realistic quotes, Batman.
Schwarzenegger's response: I'm not an Arnie Apologist, but coming on the heels of the LA Times article, this strikes me as just another illustation of the democrats "win at all costs" mentality. Conceived by Bill Clinton, refined by Al Gore, god help us, but i'm sure that the sunday before election day next year the NY Times will run a "report" alleging GWB has the numbers "666" tattooed on his scalp...
Are you kidding me? The LA Times article, if you read it; was not planted by Davis, Bustamante, the DNC, or anybody, it specifically said so. This is the same LA Times that had a FULL TIME staff reporter covering Clinton's sex scandal. It's hollywood. Sex sells, that's what they do. And to hear you take the moral high ground and say that democrats are "win at all costs" after the last few years is a joke, especially given that we are debating an election that is only happening because a republican congressman paid $2m for it to happen so that a republican, who could never win a majority, can become governor of California with a small plurality. I wish they did have that mentality, then they would win more. But they don't;
you really think every bad thing that comes out about a Republican is just fabricated by Democrats? But all the bad things Republicans fabricated about Clinton (whitewater for example) are legit? i call BS
Time doesn't hand this out as an award its based on the person who had the most effect on the world in a given year. They considered giving Osama Bin Laden man of the year do to his effect on the world in 2001.
the same LA Times that buried an allegation of rape against then-president Clinton in 1995 on page 13. Why was the Arnie article on page 1, and then spilled over onto most of 2 additional pages? I'm not defending Arnold, or questioning the article's veracity- i'm questioning the article's timing, placement, and prominence, given what the did w/ more serious allegations against Clinton, who it cannot be emphasized strongly enough, was then a sitting president. why the double standard? in the last election davis won with around 40% of the vote. schwarzenager is now polling at close to those numbers, so it'll be interesting to see if he can become at least as "legitimate" a govenor as his successor.
not sure where you got that i said everything bad ever said by a republican about a democrat was true, and the reverse was false. all i said was that the "hitler admirer" allegation seemed particularly suspect, and its timing (the story's been around ofr decades, it stems from a book proposal, that was never published, back in the '70s), in conjuntion w/ the LA Times article, seems less like an attempt to get at the truth, and more like the work of a paper w/ an agenda to discredit a republican that threatens to win the election. if McClintock's and Schwarzenager's numbers were reversed, do you think we'd be seeing these stories now?
Double standard? The LA Times reported on Clinton's sex scandals on HUNDREDS, or even thousands of occassions. THey had a fulltime reporter covering Clinton sex scandals BEFORE Lewinsky. Second, the LA TImes evidently ran its own investigative report on this; and broke the story themselves; of course they gave it more Coverage than the Juanitia Broderick story, which came from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It wasn't their story, what were they supposed to do? Run a 3 page story on a one paragraph editorial from the WSJ? They had no interview with her, no nothing; she was one of legions of Arkansans trotted out by the Clinton's arkansas enemies, and she had previously filed an affidavit denying that she ever had any sexual contact with Clinton. Way to divert the subject, you made the stupid statement that it is Democrats who try to win at all costs and implied that Republicans, the party of the Starr investigation, Willie Horton, watergate, Texas redistricting, The Joseph Wilson scandal, were "above the fray"; Only a complete naif or a moron would make such a statement.
Hey, Nomar, before you post stuff like that, I suggest you read what I actually post. Where did I say, ever that? Answer: I didn't. I was responding to basso's silly contentions. In fact this is what I posted in the other thread about the substance of the issue Ooops!
Hey, Nomar, before you post stuff like that, I suggest you read what I actually post. Where did I say, ever that it was a big deal? Answer: I didn't. I was responding to basso's silly contentions. In fact this is what I posted in the other thread about the substance of the issue Ooops!
Oooops! You are using it as part of your belief that he is a "bad guy" and that he would harm the people of California if he was elected.
excellent, so now we're resorting to name calling? for the record, i'm not a complete naif...and i consider the moron charge to be a slur against true morons everywhere...Sam, seriously, are you like, 17 years old or something? i think i'm too old to be arguing with you...
Using it for what? I already knew he was a jerk. I'm not using it for anything. What does this have to do with me fishing for information? I already told you the information being fished for was ultimately irrelevant?
