• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Where's the Outrage Now?

B

BOBDN

Banned
From a Republic attack on a president over consentual relations to a governor who assaulted women the Republic Party shows their true colors again.

Hypocrites.

I hope the women Arnold assaulted bring charges against him.

From the Washington Post.

Where's the Outrage Now?
 
I'm outraged....at the women who accused him and at the L.A. Times for their left-wing witch hunt. That good enough for you?
 
I'll be outraged when it does it on the tax-payers' dime and then swears, under oath, that he didn't; until then, go read the NYT and see where you stand on the next liberal attack platform.
 
Let me see if I understand, if Arnold had raped these women would you still direct your ire towards the accusers or the LA Times? Anybody that's familiar with the bodybuilding scene would know that Arnold was boorish (but no evidence that he was a rapist). These accounts are quite consistent with his tenure as a bodybuilder and an actor (Kindergarten Cop notwithstanding).

Clinton cheated on his wife with a subordinate (although she begged him for it) and then he lied on multiple occasions trying to cover it up until he finally relented. Arnold physically assaulted these women (per their account and the definition of assault) or as Arnold put it "I've been on rowdy movie sets and done things that I shouldn't have . . . and if I've offended anyone I apologize." His general account is that he does remember some episodes as portrayed by some of the women but doesn't remember others. He has not been forthcoming with the details (although he claimed he would after the election) about which assaults he can confirm and the ones of which he has no recollection.

I'm not outraged b/c Gov-elect Schwarzenegger isn't my governor and Davis/CA dems did this to themselves. But aside from the Broadhurst (?) allegations against Clinton there's a qualitative difference between Clinton's misbehavior and what Arnold is accused of (and to some extent has acknowledged).

One account is as recent as 2000 so it will be interesting to see if Arnold decides to come clean about what he "remembers" or tries to sweep his indiscretions under the rug ala GWB.
 
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).

 
Interestingly enough I woke up thinking about this just a few minutes ago. One of the last things I saw before going to sleep was Arnold leaving a speech and being asked about his sex thingi, he said he would clarify and saying, "Old News". He might as well have said F*ck You in the manner in which he said it. The clear impression I got was that he was angry, very angry to be reminded of that, and the whole circumstance for what it implies. He was charged with acts that are illegal and for which you can do jail time. My feeling was that as hard as Clinton tried to avoid the public truth, Arnold will work even harder. And remember, we were never really angry at Clinton because he had consensual sex with Monica, but that he lied about it under oath. I would, and perhaps will be interesting to see what Arnold says under oath in a court of law.

The question I was puzzling over as I awoke was whether the politics of destruction that the Republicans have brought to the level of an art form, and which they are screaming about now that they have won, will in fact be set aside by the Democrats, or whether they will find their own Richard Mellon Slimeball, and fund these Arnold Gropees to bring him to trial.

At any rate, it is truly amazing to witness the ease with which Arnold was given a pass by Republicans compared with Clinton. It tells you one thing, it was never about lying or sex. It was about how inferior Republicans felt in the hands of the Great Politician. They hated him because he beat them at every turn, sometimes while actually getting a blow job. Oh man, THAT WOULD PISS YOU OFF, especially if inwardly, and outside your consciousness, you felt like a piece of sh!t already.

Nope, the key to understanding isn't in morality. Just look to who a person has identified with as a surrogate source of self respect and see if that source is promoted or under attack. Everything in the world is about struggling to maintain some false sense of personal worth and preventing being overwhelmed by the feelings of worthlessness it masks.
 
Yes hypocrisy indeed.

Clinton had consensual sex, and denied it. He got impeached, now Arnold has sexually assaulted women in the past, freely admits it and now gets elected governor.

Not to mention Bush Co. lied about the War in Iraq, lied about Iraq trying to get nukes, lied about Iraq-Al-qeada ties, commited treason by exposing an CIA operative. If he were a democrat he would be impeached to hell.
 
Originally posted by: Lucky
I'm outraged....at the women who accused him and at the L.A. Times for their left-wing witch hunt. That good enough for you?
Click to expand...

Right... It's the women's fault that Arnold groped them.
rolleye.gif
and the LA times fault for doing their jobs as investigative reporters.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Yes hypocrisy indeed.

Clinton had consensual sex, and denied it. He got impeached, now Arnold has sexually assaulted women in the past, freely admits it and now gets elected governor.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I say it's not about what it's claimed to be about. Republicans aren't moral leapers, they just don't know what they really feel. If Arnold was a Democrat that wanted to raise taxes to balance the budget they would be digging up groped women by the millions. It' about superficial stuff like personal identity. Arnold is a Republican. Everything is OK. Please oh please let everything be OK. I can't take more pain. Please don't hurt my self image.

 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Yes hypocrisy indeed.

Clinton had consensual sex, and denied it. He got impeached, now Arnold has sexually assaulted women in the past, freely admits it and now gets elected governor.
Click to expand...


In other words, you are saying Arnold is the bad guy for being honest; Clinton is your hero for telling lies under oath, right?



 
Originally posted by: tk149
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).
Click to expand...
true but to get to the point of him having the possibility of lying on national tv we need to have a stupid witch hunt, right?
 
Give me a break..."let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There isn't a political figure in either party that HASN'T groped someone in the past 25 years.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Yes hypocrisy indeed.

Clinton had consensual sex, and denied it. He got impeached, now Arnold has sexually assaulted women in the past, freely admits it and now gets elected governor.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I say it's not about what it's claimed to be about. Republicans aren't moral leapers, they just don't know what they really feel. If Arnold was a Democrat that wanted to raise taxes to balance the budget they would be digging up groped women by the millions. It' about superficial stuff like personal identity. Arnold is a Republican. Everything is OK. Please oh please let everything be OK. I can't take more pain. Please don't hurt my self image.
Click to expand...

I've lost all respect for you, Moonbeam.

Oh, and it is "If Arnold were..." 🙂





 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Yes hypocrisy indeed.

Clinton had consensual sex, and denied it. He got impeached, now Arnold has sexually assaulted women in the past, freely admits it and now gets elected governor.
Click to expand...


In other words, you are saying Arnold is the bad guy for being honest; Clinton is your hero for telling lies under oath, right?
Click to expand...

Did I say anyone is a bad guy? Nice of you to pull that out of your own ass, and say it was mine.

Whats worse lying about sex or sexually assaulting women? Both were bad things... gee whiz I thought conservatives were suppose to be "moral".

I see the hypocrisy in attacking Clinton relentless for his sexual adventures, but defending Arnold in his sexual assaults. Clinton and Arnold both apologized for it. But obviously, Republicans have were alot more forgiving to Arnold.
 
Yes, lying to the people... that's just wrong.

In all seriousness, though.... to answer BOBDN's question, I think that politics and politicians of both parties have gradually sucked away our ability to be properly outraged by much of anything anymore. We've seen an administration that seems to have misled the public about the reasons for going to war and has gradually been taking away people's civil liberties; we've seen a president lie, under oath, when questioned about possible sexual harrassment (democrats and republicans, alike, need to be reminded that that was his "crime," by the way... if there was one. So let's stop painting it in simple terms of it being specifically about what he lied about); we saw a president whose saying he smoked marijuana, but didn't inhale, "outrage" the opposing party, followed by one whose best possible claim about his own drug use was that he would have tested clean for cocaine use for the past seven years; we've seen two presidents whose entire administrations somehow managed to completely forget their having involved in illicit trading of arms, drugs, etc. to foreign powers; we've been lied to so much by just about anyone of any party with political aspirations who've decided that "truth" can be changed to fit context, as needed to ensure political survival, that we're not just not outraged at hypocrisy, lies, and double-standards... we've come to accept and expect them as part of the natural order of being.

At the end of the day, Schwarzenegger is no better, nor worse, than what we've come to think of as the 'typical politician.' It's sad... it's unfortunate... but it's true. And that's where "the outrage" is, BOBDN. There hasn't been much genuine outrage, I'm afraid, in quite some time; just some folks who've gotten good at faking it.

cumhail

Originally posted by: tk149
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: cumhail
Yes, lying to the people... that's just wrong.

In all seriousness, though.... to answer BOBDN's question, I think that politics and politicians of both parties have gradually sucked away our ability to be properly outraged by much of anything anymore. We've seen an administration that seems to have mislead the public about the reasons for going to war and has gradually been taking away people's civil liberties; we've seen a president lie, under oath, when questioned about possible sexual harrassment (democrats and republicans, alike, need to be reminded that that was his "crime," by the way... if there was one. So let's stop painting it in simple terms of it being specifically about what he lied about); we saw a president whose saying he smoked marijuana, but didn't inhale, "outrage" the opposing party, followed by one whose best possible claim about his own drug use was that he would have tested clean for cocaine use for the past seven years; we've seen two presidents whose entire administrations somehow managed to completely forget their having involved in illicit trading of arms, drugs, etc. to foreign powers; we've been lied to so much by just about anyone of any party with political aspirations who've decided that "truth" can be changed to fit context, as needed to ensure political survival, that we're not just not outraged at hypocrisy, lies, and double-standards... we've come to accept and expect them as part of the natural order of being.

At the end of the day, Schwarzenegger is no better, nor worse, than what we've come to think of as the 'typical politician.' It's sad... it's unfortunate... but it's true. And that's where "the outrage" is, BOBDN. There hasn't been much genuine outrage, I'm afraid, in quite some time; just some folks who've gotten good at faking it.

cumhail

Originally posted by: tk149
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:beer:
 
Voters voted in Anurled knowing full well the allegations (except the absentee voters, perhaps) so the outrage should be directed at the folks who elected him despite their moral reservations about the alleged and admitted acts. That is, if they feel that those alleged and admitted acts are disqualifies for holding the public trust in elected office.
I, being aware of massive fiscal problems would accept a repugnant Orangutan if I thought it could get the state back to fiscal responsibility... and I think only a Orang can do it... so Go Arnold..
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: tk149
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).
Click to expand...
true but to get to the point of him having the possibility of lying on national tv we need to have a stupid witch hunt, right?
Click to expand...
And does this somehow justify his lying?

 
Originally posted by: tk149
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: tk149
Clinton lied under oath, lied to his staffers, and lied on national TV to the American people, not for national security, not to aid the country in any way, but to cover his own a$$. That's why I'm mad at Clinton.

Arnold has not been proven to have done any of these things. If he does, you can be sure I'll be mad at him too. Until then, BOBDN, you're just launching YAPAWNS (Yet Another Partisan Attack With No Substance).
Click to expand...
true but to get to the point of him having the possibility of lying on national tv we need to have a stupid witch hunt, right?
Click to expand...
And does this somehow justify his lying?
Click to expand...

Theres NO justification for his lying.... Fast forward to present day, the same people who accuse Clinton of lying, and frolicking around with an intern are justifiying Arnold for his sexual assaults, and Bush for his many blatent lies. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


Whats worse lying about sex or sexually assaulting women?
Click to expand...


That depends on the definition of "assault." What exactly did Arnie do to these women? I heard the female reporter talk about how he touched her leg...not sure what other allegations are out there...care to enlighten us on the facts?





 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Voters voted in Anurled knowing full well the allegations (except the absentee voters, perhaps) so the outrage should be directed at the folks who elected him despite their moral reservations about the alleged and admitted acts. That is, if they feel that those alleged and admitted acts are disqualifies for holding the public trust in elected office.
I, being aware of massive fiscal problems would accept a repugnant Orangutan if I thought it could get the state back to fiscal responsibility... and I think only a Orang can do it... so Go Arnold..
Click to expand...


Well-said, Ray. If, however, Arnie pulled these stunts while in office, I would call for head, if I were a voter in CA...
 
In other words, you are saying Arnold is the bad guy for being honest; Clinton is your hero for telling lies under oath, right?
Click to expand...

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
From a Republic attack on a president over consentual relations to a governor who assaulted women the Republic Party shows their true colors again.

Hypocrites.

I hope the women Arnold assaulted bring charges against him.

From the Washington Post.

Where's the Outrage Now?
Click to expand...

Uhhhh....what about the Hypocrites of Clinton? Sexual Conduct shouldn't matter right??? He was only messing around like Clinton did. He set the standard and the Democrates allowed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top