PDA

View Full Version : Arnold Rapes Retarded Children


David Cohen
October 3rd 03, 04:17 PM
Nah. Not really.

I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
Democrat.

Gotta' go shower now.

David

Brux Brule
October 3rd 03, 04:23 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
. net...
> Nah. Not really.
>
> I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> Democrat.
>
> Gotta' go shower now.
>
> David

LMAO!! Gee you had me there.....

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Brux Brule

"Quit your whining, shut up and train."

David
October 3rd 03, 04:27 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
. net...
> Nah. Not really.
>
> I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> Democrat.
>
> Gotta' go shower now.

must be Friday
>

David Cohen
October 3rd 03, 04:33 PM
"David" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
> > Nah. Not really.
> >
> > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
California
> > Democrat.
> >
> > Gotta' go shower now.
>
> must be Friday

True, but this is an EXTRA shower, not my routine weekly shower.

David
me, not you, not Winters

Donovan Rebbechi
October 3rd 03, 04:45 PM
In article >, David Cohen wrote:
> Nah. Not really.
>
> I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> Democrat.

If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't Arnold unequivocaly
denied it ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David
October 3rd 03, 05:00 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "David" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> > > Nah. Not really.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
> California
> > > Democrat.
> > >
> > > Gotta' go shower now.
> >
> > must be Friday
>
> True, but this is an EXTRA shower, not my routine weekly shower.
>
> David
> me, not you, not Winters
>
LOL!

Steve Freides
October 3rd 03, 05:06 PM
The entire state is going to fall off into the ocean, anyway (*big*
shower for all Californians), so what does it matter who wins the
election?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

David Cohen wrote:
>
> Nah. Not really.
>
> I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> Democrat.
>
> Gotta' go shower now.
>
> David

Proton Soup
October 3rd 03, 06:35 PM
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:17:45 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>Nah. Not really.
>
>I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
>Democrat.
>
>Gotta' go shower now.
>
>David
>

I didn't realize Arnold had kids.

Maybe some bizarre Kennedy family initiation ritual?

Proton Soup

gps
October 3rd 03, 07:50 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> In article >, David Cohen wrote:
> > Nah. Not really.
> >
> > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> > Democrat.

If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with budget
problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as opposed to
one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we (no,
I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on issues)
could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.

> If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't Arnold unequivocaly
> denied it ?
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just in
case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I don't
remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
ps

OmegaZero2003
October 3rd 03, 08:22 PM
It is a change in leadership that is needed with a general direction
different than extent that counts. Specifics on anything can be worked out
later.

It's the leadership!


"gps" > wrote in message
...
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > In article >, David
Cohen wrote:
> > > Nah. Not really.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> > > Democrat.
>
> If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with budget
> problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as opposed to
> one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we (no,
> I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on issues)
> could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
>
> > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't Arnold
unequivocaly
> > denied it ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Donovan Rebbechi
> > http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
>
> Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just in
> case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I don't
> remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
> ps

David Cohen
October 4th 03, 12:23 AM
"Steve Freides" > wrote
> The entire state is going to fall off into the ocean, anyway (*big*
> shower for all Californians), so what does it matter who wins the
> election?

It matters to those of us in Las Vegas! I'd have to buy more swimsuits
and a nice little boat.

And if you top-post again, kettlebells will be hung from your
testicles.

David
not by me
>
> David Cohen wrote:
> >
> > Nah. Not really.
> >
> > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
California
> > Democrat.
> >
> > Gotta' go shower now.
> >
> > David

David Cohen
October 4th 03, 12:28 AM
"gps" > wrote
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > David Cohen wrote:
> > > Nah. Not really.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
California
> > > Democrat.
>
> If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
budget
> problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
opposed to
> one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
(no,
> I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
issues)
> could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.

A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
They are almost never the same.

But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
desperate Democrats.
>
> > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
Arnold unequivocaly
> > denied it ?
> >
>
> Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
in
> case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
don't
> remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."

I think that may be truthful.

David

gps
October 4th 03, 01:16 AM
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
>
> It is a change in leadership that is needed with a general direction
> different than extent that counts. Specifics on anything can be worked out
> later.

Might be nice if a leader or potential leader could clearly and
intelligently articulate what they believe the problems are and how they
mean to solve them rather than mouth empty sound bites better suited for
an action film.

> It's the leadership!

Really?
ps

> "gps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >, David
> Cohen wrote:
> > > > Nah. Not really.
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> > > > Democrat.
> >
> > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with budget
> > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as opposed to
> > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we (no,
> > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on issues)
> > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
> >
> > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't Arnold
> unequivocaly
> > > denied it ?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > --
> > > Donovan Rebbechi
> > > http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
> >
> > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just in
> > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I don't
> > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
> > ps

gps
October 4th 03, 01:17 AM
David Cohen wrote:
>
> "gps" > wrote
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > David Cohen wrote:
> > > > Nah. Not really.
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
> California
> > > > Democrat.
> >
> > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
> budget
> > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
> opposed to
> > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
> (no,
> > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
> issues)
> > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
>
> A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
> strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
> They are almost never the same.
>
> But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
> desperate Democrats.
> >
> > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
> Arnold unequivocaly
> > > denied it ?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
> in
> > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
> don't
> > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
>
> I think that may be truthful.
>
> David

But hardly unequivocal.
ps

whit
October 4th 03, 05:53 AM
"gps" > wrote in message
...
> David Cohen wrote:
> >
> > "gps" > wrote
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > David Cohen wrote:
> > > > > Nah. Not really.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
> > California
> > > > > Democrat.
> > >
> > > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
> > budget
> > > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
> > opposed to
> > > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
> > (no,
> > > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> > > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
> > issues)
> > > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
> >
> > A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
> > strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
> > They are almost never the same.
> >
> > But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
> > desperate Democrats.
> > >
> > > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
> > Arnold unequivocaly
> > > > denied it ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
> > in
> > > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
> > don't
> > > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> > > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
> >
> > I think that may be truthful.
> >
> > David
>
> But hardly unequivocal.
> ps


some points.

first of all, i saw a poll that said his ratings actually went UP after this
speech. wow. if honesty can make your polls go up, maybe even clinton
would try it.

second of all, note arnold's no bullsh*t approach. compare it to clinton's.
arnold admitted to smoking hash and mj. clinton said he didn't inhale.

arnold admitted he did some untoward things, basically, as a younger man he
was a bit of a boor and a frisky guy. clinton, otoh, admitted none of
that,and in fact denied everything, until the damning semen stains showed
him to be a bald faced liar, in a courtroom proceeding nonetheless.

arnold did this stuff as a young buck actor and bb'er, not as a public
office holder, or a public servant.

4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously, and one of these complaints is
from the frigging 1970's. as maria said in an interview, literally
THOUSANDS of women who have worked with arnold or met him have nothing but
wonderful things to say, and that must be taken into account. if he grabbed
a woman's ass on a movie set 25 years ago... whatEver.

this is pure and unadulterated smear, timed perfectly to try to sabotage the
man. he is handling it with dignity and davis is stooping to the lowest
bowels of the marianis trench to try to save his governorship.

whit

Carnivore269
October 4th 03, 07:07 AM
Proton Soup > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:17:45 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >Nah. Not really.
> >
> >I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate California
> >Democrat.
> >
> >Gotta' go shower now.
> >
> >David
> >
>
> I didn't realize Arnold had kids.
>
> Maybe some bizarre Kennedy family initiation ritual?
>
> Proton Soup


Damn, that has yet to be the funniest post in this thread yet! ;-D

C.

Lee Michaels
October 4th 03, 08:02 AM
"whit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > David Cohen wrote:
> > >
> > > "gps" > wrote
> > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > David Cohen wrote:
> > > > > > Nah. Not really.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
> > > California
> > > > > > Democrat.
> > > >
> > > > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
> > > budget
> > > > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
> > > opposed to
> > > > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
> > > (no,
> > > > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> > > > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
> > > issues)
> > > > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
> > >
> > > A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
> > > strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
> > > They are almost never the same.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
> > > desperate Democrats.
> > > >
> > > > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
> > > Arnold unequivocaly
> > > > > denied it ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
> > > in
> > > > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
> > > don't
> > > > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> > > > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
> > >
> > > I think that may be truthful.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > But hardly unequivocal.
> > ps
>
>
> some points.
>
> first of all, i saw a poll that said his ratings actually went UP after
this
> speech. wow. if honesty can make your polls go up, maybe even clinton
> would try it.
>
> second of all, note arnold's no bullsh*t approach. compare it to
clinton's.
> arnold admitted to smoking hash and mj. clinton said he didn't inhale.
>
> arnold admitted he did some untoward things, basically, as a younger man
he
> was a bit of a boor and a frisky guy. clinton, otoh, admitted none of
> that,and in fact denied everything, until the damning semen stains showed
> him to be a bald faced liar, in a courtroom proceeding nonetheless.
>
> arnold did this stuff as a young buck actor and bb'er, not as a public
> office holder, or a public servant.
>
> 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously, and one of these complaints
is
> from the frigging 1970's. as maria said in an interview, literally
> THOUSANDS of women who have worked with arnold or met him have nothing but
> wonderful things to say, and that must be taken into account. if he
grabbed
> a woman's ass on a movie set 25 years ago... whatEver.
>
> this is pure and unadulterated smear, timed perfectly to try to sabotage
the
> man. he is handling it with dignity and davis is stooping to the lowest
> bowels of the marianis trench to try to save his governorship.
>
> whit
>

Which directly support the point I made about Arnold while back. WHAT ever
and WHO ever Arnold is, he is right there, in your face. And he is honest
about it. And if there is some sordidness about him, well bodybuilding and
movie acting ARE sordid professions. And Arnold is not lieing about it
either.

I tell you one thing about Arnold that scares the hell out of folks. He
isn't bought and paid for. He isn't OWNED!! How good a governnor will he
make? I don't know. But California is in a mess. And an outsider who does
really want to make a difference can't do it any worse than Davis did.

And my understanding of Davis is that he is the worst negative campaigner
there is. He destroys people's lives. And this makes him a more qualified
candidate. All this bull**** about about qualifications. Arnold has more
dignity and class than a whole roomful of crybaby whiny little bitches.

The governor is a horrendous job. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. The
biggest problem is that whoever is elected, will be deaaling with a surly
legislature. They may very well prevent any real change from taking place.
I think they out to recall the whole bunch and only let new blood in

Lee Michaels

John HUDSON
October 4th 03, 09:34 AM
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:17:15 GMT, gps > wrote:

>David Cohen wrote:
>>
>> "gps" > wrote
>> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > > David Cohen wrote:
>> > > > Nah. Not really.
>> > > >
>> > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
>> California
>> > > > Democrat.
>> >
>> > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
>> budget
>> > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
>> opposed to
>> > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
>> (no,
>> > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
>> > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
>> issues)
>> > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
>>
>> A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
>> strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
>> They are almost never the same.
>>
>> But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
>> desperate Democrats.
>> >
>> > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
>> Arnold unequivocaly
>> > > denied it ?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
>> in
>> > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
>> don't
>> > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
>> > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
>>
>> I think that may be truthful.
>>
>> David
>
>But hardly unequivocal.

"Unequivocal"? Great word Pat!

So that there is no doubt or misunderstanding, and to be quite
unambiguous,absolute, apparent, categorical, certain, clear,
clear-cut, decided, decisive, direct, distinct, downright, evident,
explicit, flat out, incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable,
indubitable, manifest, obvious, palpable, patent, plain, positive,
straight, straightforward, uncontestable, undeniable, undisputable,
univocal, unmistakable, unquestionable - what does it mean? ;o)

Have a great week-end Pat - I'm going to!

jh

<before 'little Hoffy' wanks on about "attribution", I got the above
list from www.dictionary.com>

>ps

Kobe AnyHoleWillDo Bryant
October 4th 03, 10:38 AM
Arnold: "Let me tell you something, let me tell you something. A lot of those
that you see in the stories is not true, but at the same time, I have to tell
you that I always say, that wherever there is smoke, there is fire. That is
true.

So I want to say to you, yes, that I have raped retarded children sometimes.
Yes, it is true that I was in rowdy special ed classes and I have done things
that were not right which I thought then was playful but now I recognize that I
have raped retarded children.

And to those retards that I have raped, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry
about that and I apologize because this is not what I'm trying to do.

When I'm governor, I want to prove to the retards that I will be a champion for
the retards, a champion for all children.

And I hope that you will give me the chance to prove that."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I measure success by the degree to which I ruin other people's lives."

Donovan Rebbechi
October 4th 03, 08:51 PM
In article >, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "whit" > wrote in message

> Which directly support the point I made about Arnold while back. WHAT ever
> and WHO ever Arnold is, he is right there, in your face. And he is honest
> about it. And if there is some sordidness about him, well bodybuilding and
> movie acting ARE sordid professions. And Arnold is not lieing about it
> either.

His answer to the allegations was a total dodge.

It's interesting to note that he didn't outright deny the allegations, and the
very same types who were crimson with rage over Clinton are conspicuously
silent over Arnold.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

whit
October 4th 03, 08:55 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Lee
Michaels wrote:
> >
> > "whit" > wrote in message
>
> > Which directly support the point I made about Arnold while back. WHAT
ever
> > and WHO ever Arnold is, he is right there, in your face. And he is
honest
> > about it. And if there is some sordidness about him, well bodybuilding
and
> > movie acting ARE sordid professions. And Arnold is not lieing about it
> > either.
>
> His answer to the allegations was a total dodge.
>

no it wasn't.

the allegations were vague, 4 out of 6 were anonymous, and they were
regarding acts that occurred up to 30 friggin years ago.

> It's interesting to note that he didn't outright deny the allegations, and
the
> very same types who were crimson with rage over Clinton are conspicuously
> silent over Arnold.
>
> Cheers,

wrong. personally, i never even though clinton should have been subject to
civil lawsuit while in office.

however, given that, he had a duty to be truthful in courtroom proceedings.
he did not.

clinton completely LIED until there was incontrovertible evidence - the
semen.

there is no doubt about that.

arnold is not doing that. and his answer was not a dodge. these
allegations were vague, and over a very long time period.

it is very likely (more than not) that he is not even gonna remember
everything that happened on a film set 10, 20, 30 years ago

at best, also, the allegations are of a misdemeanor variety, even if true.
big frigging deal.

he is not accused of, for example, rape, as clinton was.

whit

> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
October 4th 03, 08:58 PM
In article >, whit wrote:

> some points.
>
> first of all, i saw a poll that said his ratings actually went UP after this
> speech. wow. if honesty can make your polls go up, maybe even clinton
> would try it.
>
> second of all, note arnold's no bullsh*t approach. compare it to clinton's.
> arnold admitted to smoking hash and mj. clinton said he didn't inhale.

Arnold waffled in response to the allegations.

> arnold admitted he did some untoward things,

Again, on the simple question "are the allegatiojns true or false", he just
waffled.

I recall you being one of the people who made snide remarks about Clinton being
some sort of sex offender. I suppose when there are such allegations about a
Republican , your sense of moral outrage takes a holiday ?

> 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously,

2 of 6 are not.

> and one of these complaints is
> from the frigging 1970's.

In other words, the other 5 are not.

> as maria said in an interview, literally
> THOUSANDS of women who have worked with arnold or met him have nothing but
> wonderful things to say, and that must be taken into account. if he grabbed
> a woman's ass on a movie set 25 years ago... whatEver.

Spin, spin, spin. Who cares if he's a sex offender -- he's a Republican with a
reasonable chance of winning -- and that's good enough, right ?

> this is pure and unadulterated smear,

But it wasn't when Clinton was in office, right ?

Actually, this is pure and unadulterated duplicity on the part of the
Republicans.

Personally, I wouldn't change my views either way as a result of these
allegations, unless they are proven true. However, a lot of the people who
were purple in the face over Clinton want to give Arnold a free pass. Again, I
suppose if he's a Republican with a reasonable chance of winning, that's good
enough.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

whit
October 4th 03, 09:08 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, whit wrote:
>
> > some points.
> >
> > first of all, i saw a poll that said his ratings actually went UP after
this
> > speech. wow. if honesty can make your polls go up, maybe even clinton
> > would try it.
> >
> > second of all, note arnold's no bullsh*t approach. compare it to
clinton's.
> > arnold admitted to smoking hash and mj. clinton said he didn't inhale.
>
> Arnold waffled in response to the allegations.
>

no, he didn't. this is stuff that happened up to 30 years ago, and 4 of the
6 complainants are anonymous, so he may not even know who they are.


> > arnold admitted he did some untoward things,
>
> Again, on the simple question "are the allegatiojns true or false", he
just
> waffled.
>

because the allegations aren't that specific and he is not going to even
remember everything that happened on movie sets 30 frigging years ago.

i don't remember a LOT of stuff in college, and that wasn't 30 years ago by
a loing shot

> I recall you being one of the people who made snide remarks about Clinton
being
> some sort of sex offender. I suppose when there are such allegations about
a
> Republican , your sense of moral outrage takes a holiday ?
>

it has nothing to do with party affiliation.

i draw a clear distinction between acts committed while a public servant
(clinton) and acts committed while a bber or actor.

BIG difference.

also, with clinton there were allegations of RAPE (none in arnold's case).

even if all the allegations are true, they are only misdemeanors under
calif. law. committed by a NON public servant, many up to 30 years ago

> > 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously,
>
> 2 of 6 are not.
>

correct. but anonymous complaints are to be taken much less seriously.

> > and one of these complaints is
> > from the frigging 1970's.
>
> In other words, the other 5 are not.
>

i did not say that. i don't KNOW when they all are. go back to analytical
reasoning 101. your conclusion does not follow

> > as maria said in an interview, literally
> > THOUSANDS of women who have worked with arnold or met him have nothing
but
> > wonderful things to say, and that must be taken into account. if he
grabbed
> > a woman's ass on a movie set 25 years ago... whatEver.
>
> Spin, spin, spin. Who cares if he's a sex offender -- he's a Republican
with a
> reasonable chance of winning -- and that's good enough, right ?
>

no, it means that an actor grabbing an ass (IF he did it) on a movie set a
decade or two ago is not a big deal. it is a misdemeanor, and he was NOT
apublic servant when he did it. IF he did it, was it wrong? absolutely.
arnold already admitted he did some boorish and wrong stuff. already.
heck, he admitted that BEFORE these allegation even came out. clinton did
not. clinton lied and denied until there was incontrovertible proof against
him

and clinton's trangressions were committed WHILE he was a public servant.
public servants are in a position of trust and have a much higher standard
of behavior.


> > this is pure and unadulterated smear,
>
> But it wasn't when Clinton was in office, right ?
>

in some cases it was. and i said as much. i said, for example, he never
should have been sued in the first place. but that doesn't excuse him lying
under oath. something arnold has not done.

> Actually, this is pure and unadulterated duplicity on the part of the
> Republicans.
>

no, it is not

> Personally, I wouldn't change my views either way as a result of these
> allegations, unless they are proven true. However, a lot of the people who
> were purple in the face over Clinton want to give Arnold a free pass.
Again, I
> suppose if he's a Republican with a reasonable chance of winning, that's
good
> enough.
>

it's not a free pass. i readily accept that arnold did some boorish things
as a young, single actor.

that is entirely different than doing them as a married public servant
(governor, president).

and arnold did not lie under oath

the lying under oath was the primary problem i had with clinton.

because it obstructs justice. arnold has done no such thing. he says
"yeah, i did some stuff on movie sets"

big deal. misdemeanors, IF true,that occurred while he was a private
citizen. just oike his admissions vis a vis hash and mj

because he is honest.

whit

> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David Cohen
October 4th 03, 09:20 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote
> whit wrote:
> > some points.
> >
> > first of all, i saw a poll that said his ratings actually went UP
after this
> > speech. wow. if honesty can make your polls go up, maybe even
clinton
> > would try it.
> >
> > second of all, note arnold's no bullsh*t approach. compare it to
clinton's.
> > arnold admitted to smoking hash and mj. clinton said he didn't
inhale.
>
> Arnold waffled in response to the allegations.
>
> > arnold admitted he did some untoward things,
>
> Again, on the simple question "are the allegatiojns true or false",
he just
> waffled.
>
> I recall you being one of the people who made snide remarks about
Clinton being
> some sort of sex offender. I suppose when there are such allegations
about a
> Republican , your sense of moral outrage takes a holiday ?
>
> > 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously,
>
> 2 of 6 are not.
>
> > and one of these complaints is
> > from the frigging 1970's.
>
> In other words, the other 5 are not.
>
> > as maria said in an interview, literally
> > THOUSANDS of women who have worked with arnold or met him have
nothing but
> > wonderful things to say, and that must be taken into account. if
he grabbed
> > a woman's ass on a movie set 25 years ago... whatEver.
>
> Spin, spin, spin. Who cares if he's a sex offender -- he's a
Republican with a
> reasonable chance of winning -- and that's good enough, right ?
>
> > this is pure and unadulterated smear,
>
> But it wasn't when Clinton was in office, right ?
>
> Actually, this is pure and unadulterated duplicity on the part of
the
> Republicans.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't change my views either way as a result of
these
> allegations, unless they are proven true. However, a lot of the
people who
> were purple in the face over Clinton want to give Arnold a free
pass. Again, I
> suppose if he's a Republican with a reasonable chance of winning,
that's good
> enough.

Wow! You don't even make a pretense of objectivity. James Carville
would be proud.

Billary was the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United
States when he did what he did. The women were identified, and, in a
number of cases, passed polygraphs. Additional evidence, such as
testimony of state troopers, was present.The timing of their
revelations were unconnected to an election.

Arnold was a professional bodybuilder and movie star when he is
alledged to do what he did. Most of the accusers are anonymous. No
polygraphs are available. No corroborating evidence is available. The
accusations come out after years, or decades, in the week before an
election.

Yeah, Donovan. Same situations. Obviously.

David

Donovan Rebbechi
October 4th 03, 10:53 PM
In article et>, David Cohen wrote:

> Wow! You don't even make a pretense of objectivity.

Not objective, merely "Fair and Balanced".

> Billary was the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United
> States when he did what he did.

Completely beside the point, IMO. The reason Clinton's conduct as governor was
brought up and considered newsworthy was because he was president at the time
of the allegations.

> The women were identified, and, in a
> number of cases, passed polygraphs. Additional evidence, such as
> testimony of state troopers, was present.

This is certainly a good argument that the two situations are not equivalent,
but I never claimed that they were. I don't believe that the difference in
reaction to the two cases has anything to do with the amount of evidence. In
Clinton's case, the allegations were not proven (even though there was more
evidence). I doubt that many of the people who are dismissing this would change
their mind if more evidence came to the surface on this one.

> The timing of their revelations were unconnected to an election.

The accusations were exploited for political purposes.

> Yeah, Donovan. Same situations. Obviously.

This is a straw man argument. I didn't say that the situations were the same.
But I don't think that the differences you've pointed out explain the
differences in the way the Republicans and their supporters are reacting.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

gps
October 5th 03, 12:21 AM
John HUDSON wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:17:15 GMT, gps > wrote:
>
> >David Cohen wrote:
> >>
> >> "gps" > wrote
> >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> > > David Cohen wrote:
> >> > > > Nah. Not really.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a desperate
> >> California
> >> > > > Democrat.
> >> >
> >> > If he would address issues, propose his plans for dealing with
> >> budget
> >> > problems, and debate the other candidates in an open forum as
> >> opposed to
> >> > one he's been supplied the questions for ahead of time, perhaps we
> >> (no,
> >> > I'm not a CA dem, just a frustrated CA voter who is extremely
> >> > disappointed in the way Arnold has avoided taking a position on
> >> issues)
> >> > could discuss his plans to address the budget deficit, etc.
> >>
> >> A totally valid complaint. I suspect it has to do with political
> >> strategy to win an election vs the ideal honorable way to campaign.
> >> They are almost never the same.
> >>
> >> But it doesn't excuse the nonsense coming out every freakin' hour from
> >> desperate Democrats.
> >> >
> >> > > If the accusations were as frivelous as you claim, why hasn't
> >> Arnold unequivocaly
> >> > > denied it ?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Oh, he did. I saw him last night say, "I don't remember, but just
> >> in
> >> > case I apologize." Reporter, "So did you do it or not?" "Well, I
> >> don't
> >> > remember what I did 20 or 30 years ago, but I've been on some pretty
> >> > rowdy movie sets and so if I've offended anyone, I apologize."
> >>
> >> I think that may be truthful.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> >But hardly unequivocal.
>
> "Unequivocal"? Great word Pat!
>
> So that there is no doubt or misunderstanding, and to be quite
> unambiguous,absolute, apparent, categorical, certain, clear,
> clear-cut, decided, decisive, direct, distinct, downright, evident,
> explicit, flat out, incontestable, incontrovertible, indisputable,
> indubitable, manifest, obvious, palpable, patent, plain, positive,
> straight, straightforward, uncontestable, undeniable, undisputable,
> univocal, unmistakable, unquestionable - what does it mean? ;o)
>
> Have a great week-end Pat - I'm going to!
>
> jh

Thanks, I'll try.
ps

Donovan Rebbechi
October 5th 03, 01:28 AM
In article >, whit wrote:
>
> because the allegations aren't that specific and he is not going to even
> remember everything that happened on movie sets 30 frigging years ago.

Not all of the allegations are based on incidents 30 years ago.

> it has nothing to do with party affiliation.
>
> i draw a clear distinction between acts committed while a public servant
> (clinton) and acts committed while a bber or actor.
>
> BIG difference.

I disagree with this view. If Arnold were happy to remain an actor, I'd agree
with you. However, the reason such acts are cause for concern is that they
reflect on the character of the person who commits them. Unless there is some
reason to believe they have changed, they don't get a free pass.

So I'd be prepared to cut Arnold a fair bit of slack with respect to things
he said and did 30 years ago. I think his statement about the Oui interview --
that he is "a different person now" is plausible. On the other hand, I don't
think the fact that he didn't hold office at the time is an excuse.

> also, with clinton there were allegations of RAPE (none in arnold's case).

There is an allegation that he threatened to rape someone.

> even if all the allegations are true, they are only misdemeanors under
> calif. law. committed by a NON public servant, many up to 30 years ago

"Many up to 30 years ago" just means "no more than 30 years ago". It doesn't
support your case.

>> > 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously,
>>
>> 2 of 6 are not.
>
> correct. but anonymous complaints are to be taken much less seriously.

>> In other words, the other 5 are not.
>
> i did not say that. i don't KNOW when they all are. go back to analytical
> reasoning 101. your conclusion does not follow

I'm sure you see the problem with the reasoning above -- you're dismissing
*all* of the allegations based on the fact that *some* of them are anonymous,
and *one* of them is based on an incident alleged to have taken place years
ago.

> no, it means that an actor grabbing an ass (IF he did it) on a movie set a

It's clear that he did some of the things he's accused of, otherwise, why the
evasive response ?

> and clinton's trangressions were committed WHILE he was a public servant.
> public servants are in a position of trust and have a much higher standard
> of behavior.

Then better not to put a sex offender in such a position, huh ? (-;

> the lying under oath was the primary problem i had with clinton.
>
> because it obstructs justice.

If you were to hold a perjury trial for every defendent who lied about their
sex life, the courts would never do anything besides conduct perjury trials.
This doesn't justify Clinton lying, but the impeachment proceedings were a
partisan circus, and the public knew it.

> big deal. misdemeanors, IF true,that occurred while he was a private
> citizen.

I don't think the fact that they occurred when he was a private citizen excuses
him. If they occurred a long time ago, I'd consider that a mitigating factor.

Of course, I consider this all to be just noise until the claims against him
are proven.

> because he is honest.

Maybe, but he hasn't been terribly forthcoming about his plans for California.
One of the unfortunate things about all of this noise is that it pushes debate
on the real issues out of the spotlight.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

OmegaZero2003
October 5th 03, 07:01 AM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, David
Cohen wrote:
>
> > Wow! You don't even make a pretense of objectivity.
>
> Not objective, merely "Fair and Balanced".
>
> > Billary was the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United
> > States when he did what he did.
>
> Completely beside the point, IMO. The reason Clinton's conduct as governor
was
> brought up and considered newsworthy was because he was president at the
time
> of the allegations.

Context is never besides the point!


>
> > The women were identified, and, in a
> > number of cases, passed polygraphs. Additional evidence, such as
> > testimony of state troopers, was present.
>
> This is certainly a good argument that the two situations are not
equivalent,
> but I never claimed that they were.

Good!

>I don't believe that the difference in
> reaction to the two cases has anything to do with the amount of evidence.
In
> Clinton's case, the allegations were not proven (even though there was
more
> evidence).

Proof in the legal sense is almost always relative.


> I doubt that many of the people who are dismissing this would change
> their mind if more evidence came to the surface on this one.
>
> > The timing of their revelations were unconnected to an election.
>
> The accusations were exploited for political purposes.
>
> > Yeah, Donovan. Same situations. Obviously.
>
> This is a straw man argument. I didn't say that the situations were the
same.
> But I don't think that the differences you've pointed out explain the
> differences in the way the Republicans and their supporters are reacting.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

whit
October 5th 03, 10:57 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, whit wrote:
> >
> > because the allegations aren't that specific and he is not going to even
> > remember everything that happened on movie sets 30 frigging years ago.
>
> Not all of the allegations are based on incidents 30 years ago.
>
> > it has nothing to do with party affiliation.
> >
> > i draw a clear distinction between acts committed while a public servant
> > (clinton) and acts committed while a bber or actor.
> >
> > BIG difference.
>
> I disagree with this view.

fine.

i think public servants are held to a higher standard.

for example, a police candidate who smoked pot 10 years previously?

ok.

a police officer who smokes pot after a shift.

NOT ok.

If Arnold were happy to remain an actor, I'd agree
> with you. However, the reason such acts are cause for concern is that they
> reflect on the character of the person who commits them. Unless there is
some
> reason to believe they have changed, they don't get a free pass.
>

well, i think there IS a reason. arnold is a responsible family man now.
there are literally THOUSANDS of women who have had nothing but great
interaction with him, and such. maria and her family have hyoooge respect
for him.

he has also been upfront and honest about his past.

look, he was a high-test, type A, competitive athlete, "stud" guy.

he was also a #1 action hero superstar.

it doesn't EXCUSE boorish behavior, to whatever extent it happened.

but it needs to be put in perspective. just as i could not care less who
clinton schtupped in college.

> So I'd be prepared to cut Arnold a fair bit of slack with respect to
things
> he said and did 30 years ago. I think his statement about the Oui
interview --
> that he is "a different person now" is plausible. On the other hand, I
don't
> think the fact that he didn't hold office at the time is an excuse.
>

i don'[t want to use the word "excuse" because that implies no culpability.
he IS culpable for what he did.

also, i agree that the oui interview most probably was exaggerated. because
he was trying to sell bbing, and himself, by being sensational.

knowing how journalism, sensationalism, etc. works i believe him on htat.

> > also, with clinton there were allegations of RAPE (none in arnold's
case).
>
> There is an allegation that he threatened to rape someone.
>

i didn't see that one. but it is still not rape.

> > even if all the allegations are true, they are only misdemeanors under
> > calif. law. committed by a NON public servant, many up to 30 years ago
>
> "Many up to 30 years ago" just means "no more than 30 years ago". It
doesn't
> support your case.
>

it is just a fact. they are over a long period of time.

> >> > 4 of the 6 women are complaining anonymously,
> >>
> >> 2 of 6 are not.
> >
> > correct. but anonymous complaints are to be taken much less seriously.
>
> >> In other words, the other 5 are not.
> >
> > i did not say that. i don't KNOW when they all are. go back to
analytical
> > reasoning 101. your conclusion does not follow
>
> I'm sure you see the problem with the reasoning above -- you're dismissing
> *all* of the allegations based on the fact that *some* of them are
anonymous,

no, i'm not.

i'm NOT dismissing them, and i never said they should be dismissed. stop
mischaracterizing. i am saying i am taking them in context.

> and *one* of them is based on an incident alleged to have taken place
years
> ago.
>

correct.

> > no, it means that an actor grabbing an ass (IF he did it) on a movie set
a
>
> It's clear that he did some of the things he's accused of, otherwise, why
the
> evasive response ?
>

i don';t think the response is evasive. i also think it highly likely that
he doesn'[t even remember everything he did on movie sets over the last 30
years, so that is why his response was not 100% specific. i don't think it
was evasive.

> > and clinton's trangressions were committed WHILE he was a public
servant.
> > public servants are in a position of trust and have a much higher
standard
> > of behavior.
>
> Then better not to put a sex offender in such a position, huh ? (-;
>

he aint one.

> > the lying under oath was the primary problem i had with clinton.
> >
> > because it obstructs justice.
>
> If you were to hold a perjury trial for every defendent who lied about
their
> sex life, the courts would never do anything besides conduct perjury
trials.

LIED IN COURT.

that is the point.

i don't think clinton should have been sued in the first place. it does not
excuse his lying IN COURT.

THAT is the problem.

furthermore, the reason he lied was because he thought he could get away
with it. he could have settled out of court and it would have gone away.

he had hubris and he KNEW it was he said'she said. and it WOULD have been,
but for the semen stain.

> This doesn't justify Clinton lying, but the impeachment proceedings were a
> partisan circus, and the public knew it.
>

of course they were.

doesn't excuse lying in court. imo, he should not have been subject to a
civil lawsuit. period., no president should, imo. not while they are in
the office.

but IF they are placed in that arena, lying don't cut it.

see, this was a sex harassment suit. thus, his sex life WAS relevant,.
especially in regards to sex with an 'underling'.


> > big deal. misdemeanors, IF true,that occurred while he was a private
> > citizen.
>
> I don't think the fact that they occurred when he was a private citizen
excuses
> him.

never said they EXCUSED. i said that it puts it in perspective.

it was WRONG. he is not 'excusing' them. he is saying he did wrong things.

If they occurred a long time ago, I'd consider that a mitigating factor.
>
> Of course, I consider this all to be just noise until the claims against
him
> are proven.
>

i don't. if claims are made, and he admits to doing them, we don't need to
'prove them'.

because he's not playing the lie and deny game. like a certain other
politician.

> > because he is honest.
>
> Maybe, but he hasn't been terribly forthcoming about his plans for
California.
> One of the unfortunate things about all of this noise is that it pushes
debate
> on the real issues out of the spotlight.
>

i agree.

he'll win, hopefully

whit

> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elfld/

Henry H. Hansteen
October 7th 03, 01:43 AM
Ariel Sharon is a man of peace.

The Israelis have used remarkable restraint.

Saddam Hussein has WMDs and can deploy them in 45
minutes!

Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

This war has nothing to do with oil.

It never occurred to us that planes could be used as missiles.

We didn't know the Iraq/Niger report was forged.

We don't know who exposed that undercover CIA operative.

Mission accomplished!


--


http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

http://regulareverydaypeople.com/
http://www.robert-fisk.com/


http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://counterpunch.org/

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Henry H. Hansteen
October 7th 03, 01:45 AM
David Cohen wrote:

> Billary was the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United
> States when he did what he did.

Wow, this right wing extremist nut case is still lying awake
nights over Bill Clinton's private sex life! Get your own and
stop that pathetic obsessing.
I bet you're not the least concerned about the 100s of BILLIONS
of taxpayer dollars wasted on the bu$h regime's illegal, immoral,
and totally unprovoked terror attack on the innocent people of
Iraq, though. Probably don't care about the endless lies told to
"justify" that failed attack, either.
The "mind" of a gullible, brainwashed, and totally clueless right
wing extremist is a very bizarre thing.
I bet Rush Limpdick is one of your favorite heroes. He and
bu$h represent the epitome of integrity in your "mind", eh? ;->



--


http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/hhh3/

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist


http://regulareverydaypeople.com/

http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://counterpunch.org/

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

OmegaZero2003
October 7th 03, 05:35 AM
"Henry H. Hansteen" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ariel Sharon is a man of peace.

Palestinian terrorists target only military targets.


>
> The Israelis have used remarkable restraint.

Yassar Arafat is a man of Ppeace.

>
> Saddam Hussein has WMDs and can deploy them in 45
> minutes!

Saddam Hussein butchered over 100,000 innocent people.

>
> Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

Bill Clinton could have taken down OBL 14 times!


>
> This war has nothing to do with oil.

Oil is good for lots of things.

>
> It never occurred to us that planes could be used as missiles.

It never occurred to the Democrats that certain people hate democracy.

>
> We didn't know the Iraq/Niger report was forged.

We knew (as did Clinton and the whole UN) that SH had WMDs and botulinum was
found recently according to David Kay (bet you won;t hear that on the
liberal radical, leftist idiot media)


>
> We don't know who exposed that undercover CIA operative.

Everyone knew she was working for the CIA; WIlso got a rubber stamp reply
form Niger and thinks it was kosher (what a dope!)

>
> Mission accomplished!

Not until every leftist liberal socialist fool has a radical commissurotomy.

OmegaZero2003
October 7th 03, 05:38 AM
"Henry H. Hansteen" > wrote in message
...
> David Cohen wrote:
>
> > Billary was the Governor of Arkansas and President of the United
> > States when he did what he did.
>
> Wow, this right wing extremist nut case is still lying awake
> nights over Bill Clinton's private sex life! Get your own and
> stop that pathetic obsessing.

Likewise the following idiots still obsessing about the Florida votes (you
know - the ones the Democrats tried to only recount in the Democratic
precincts instead of the whole state! The one wherein the recount the
Supreme Court had to stop because of the restricted undemocratic fashion in
which the Democrats were trying to steal the election by only counting
democratic votes!))

Carol Mosely Braun
Ted Kennedy
Charles Rangle
Barbara Boxer
Michael Moore
Barbara Streisand
Hillary Clinton
Nancy Pelosi

Anyone who believes illegal aliens should:
- get welfare or free public schooling
- have their children born in US be US Citizens
- have access to driver's licenses or other id
(We can pay an extra 27 cents per meal or $10 more to get our trees cut by
legal American citizens and
eliminate millions of illegals in this country)

Jerry Nadler
Al Sharpton
Anyone who believes current residents of the US need to pay their money to
other residents for slavery
"reparations"
Charles Schumer
Katrina Vanden Huevel
Bob Mulholland CA DNC
Bob Torres Ca DNC
Elenor Holmes Norton
Al Gore
Henry H. Hansteen