Anyone Else Notice This?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-08-2003, 03:25 PM
DJSapp

Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by DJSapp
Hey, Arnold getting elected is actually a blessing in disguise for a few reasons.

1. My degree will be signed by a movie star

2. Since the state is going to hell no matter who is govenor, at least now it will be going to hell with a funny accent

3. No Terminator 4

4. That dickhead will finally stop parking his hummer on top of my truck and poaching my pow at Kirkwood

Originally posted by KQ
California has how many electoral votes? 54? No I don't think this is "just a California thing."

ummmmm, I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Did you quote the right post?
10-08-2003, 03:31 PM
KQ

Quote:

Originally posted by DJSapp
ummmmm, I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Did you quote the right post?

I was actually thinking about this part of your post. I was thinking out loud more than anything - wondering how this whole thing will play out in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

Hey, Arnold getting elected is actually a blessing in disguise for a few reasons.
10-08-2003, 03:34 PM
DJSapp

Ah, ok, that makes sense. But I don't think there's any way in hell that CA would reelect GWB in '04. Hell, I lean slightly right and I can't stand him anymore.

edit: by reelect I mean throw 54 electoral votes his way
10-08-2003, 03:38 PM
Telenater

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/staff/rot...r_sticker2.jpg
This version created by a coworker of mine.

And I think the last census may have pushed CA to 55 or 56 electoral votes.
10-08-2003, 03:44 PM
grrrr

http://store6.yimg.com/I/yque3_1756_1305340
10-08-2003, 04:33 PM
bigAK

http://hem1.passagen.se/muntz/nelhaha.gif http://www.csun.edu/finaid/images/california.gif

ha ha

best quote i read today about the whole deal:
"If you were concerned that our country might run low on morons, California has just demonstrated that it has plenty to spare.

And they vote."
10-08-2003, 04:34 PM
mtbakerskier

Well I hate all politicians and all the politicle crap that goes with it, but come on, an he really be that bad? Hell he is the only politician that I know of that has his own promodel ski.
10-08-2003, 04:59 PM
bigAK

Quote:

Originally posted by mtbakerskier
, an he really be that bad?

a person? yeah. sexual assault should not be laughed off. regardless of his politics, he's not a decent guy, period.
10-08-2003, 05:56 PM
Arty50

Quote:

Originally posted by DJSapp
4. That dickhead will finally stop parking his hummer on top of my truck and poaching my pow at Kirkwood

DJ, think for a minute. Arnie's going to be living in Sactown now. So we'll be seeing that damn thing a lot more often. Luckily, I have a solution for this...

http://arty50.home.mindspring.com/pictures/loader02.jpg

Oh, and we won't be seeing a foreign born president ever. This would require a Constitutional Ammendment. If the government couldn't pass an Ammendment outlawing flag burning, what makes you think this stands a chance.
10-09-2003, 12:14 PM
Telenater

Arnie can't be all bad...

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.p...niepothead.avi

Whoops, I think he inhaled. :D
10-09-2003, 12:23 PM
EPSkis

Yeesh - my, how the tables have turned.

At last check, it was overwhelmingly clear that any sort of sexual impropriety was acceptable for ANY elected official.

Or was that only if YOU voted for him?

:rolleyes:
10-09-2003, 12:28 PM
Lumpy

He stood in line in front of me one day at SV...thought he looked shorter than what he appears on the big-screen...is that a common phenomena?
10-09-2003, 12:29 PM
KevinDineen

Yup, we're fucked. At least according to the guys at Fat Wreck Cords:

http://forum.powdermag.com/cgi-bin/u...c;f=1;t=022573
10-09-2003, 12:35 PM
KQ

Quote:

Originally posted by Lumpy
He stood in line in front of me one day at SV...thought he looked shorter than what he appears on the big-screen...is that a common phenomena?

He's only 5'11" (probably closer to 5'9"). It's that way with most leading me. Robert DeNero is 5'8" - always looks tall in the movies.

DeNiro - SNL Skit :D
10-09-2003, 01:31 PM
Viva

We trained at the same gym for a while (World Gym, Santa Monica). Arnold was almost always super nice and very charismatic. He had a knack for remembering people and giving out stoke, so I guess he's always been good at the political game. Based on a couple of things I witnessed, it's not at all hard to believe the sexual harassment accusations against him (you didn't that from me).
10-09-2003, 02:29 PM
bigAK

Quote:

Originally posted by EPSkis
Yeesh - my, how the tables have turned.

At last check, it was overwhelmingly clear that any sort of sexual impropriety was acceptable for ANY elected official.

Or was that only if YOU voted for him?

:rolleyes:

i love this arguement. if you can't understand the difference between consensual sexual acts and unwanted sexual assault, educate yourself...
10-09-2003, 02:40 PM
EPSkis

Quote:

Originally posted by bigAK
i love this arguement. if you can't understand the difference between consensual sexual acts and unwanted sexual assault, educate yourself...

Please don't insult your own OR my intelligence. The slander started a couple weeks ago, yet only got to a boiling point a week before he was elected.

Yet there wasn't so much as a WHISPER about it for 30 years. Stellar career in Hollywood, active in Community & Kids programs... Then they come out of the woodwork.

I guess if there was a team of LA Times reporters rooting around for trash on YOU, they might be able to find someone in YOUR past whom you made "uncomfortable". (For Christ KNOWS what reason.) Does that make you a sexual predator? Well, it MUST, right?

Educate this.

...Oh yeah: :D
10-09-2003, 02:59 PM
bigAK

Quote:

Originally posted by EPSkis
Please don't insult your own OR my intelligence. The slander started a couple weeks ago, yet only got to a boiling point a week before he was elected.

Yet there wasn't so much as a WHISPER about it for 30 years. Stellar career in Hollywood, active in Community & Kids programs... Then they come out of the woodwork.

I guess if there was a team of LA Times reporters rooting around for trash on YOU, they might be able to find someone in YOUR past whom you made "uncomfortable". (For Christ KNOWS what reason.) Does that make you a sexual predator? Well, it MUST, right?

changing the subject, but oh well. i wouldn't vote for a guy who has the following pattern of behavior: violating women, laughing it off when they object. but that's just me.

if a team of journalists went digging through my past, they could probably find some dirt (perhaps i've said to much already ;)) but then again, i'm not running for governor.

arg, i hate arguing about politics, no one changes their minds anyway. i think it's just funny that a state elected a guy that was running on an completely tenuous platform...

edit: hey, what happened to my nelson in my other post?
10-09-2003, 03:08 PM
KQ

Quote:

Originally posted by EPSkis
The slander started a couple weeks ago

Slander? Really? I don't see Arnie filing suit.
10-09-2003, 03:22 PM
EPSkis

bigAK ~ Err, no. The subject wasn't changed. Nor was I aware you had personal & firsthand knowledge of any improprieties. Until & unless you do, enjoy your bandwagon ride. Please read below.

Ditto ~ I despise the "politics" of Politics. I've gone MONTHS without uttering a word in a political thread. It was time.

Quote:

Originally posted by KQ
Slander? Really? I don't see Arnie filing suit.

Slander:
A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.

**No, but he did say that these issues would be addressed. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than castigating him over allegations. But clearly, you think differently. And the world moves on.**

"Whether we speak evil of a man to his face or behind his back; the former way, indeed, seems to be the most generous, but yet is a great fault, and that which we call ``reviling;'' the latter is more mean and base, and that which we properly call ``slander'', or ``Backbiting.'' --Tillotson. - I only added this because it sums it up rather nicely.
10-09-2003, 03:30 PM
KQ

EP - you really think all those women are lying? I wasn't there so I don't know and frankly I don't really care but one would think if Arnie were innocent he would do something about it. Didn’t he himself say something to the effect of “those were things that happened 20 years ago” when the first allegations came out?

In any case I think a more accurate description of the timing of the confessions would be "smear campaign."

P.S. I didn't need you to define "slander" for me, but thanks just the same. In looking it up, realizing that it requires a "knowingly false statement" do you still want to call it that? Are they just a bunch of "Anita Hills?"
10-09-2003, 03:48 PM
bigAK

Quote:

Originally posted by EPSkis
bigAK ~ Err, no. The subject wasn't changed.

eh.
you were equating clinton (implied) with arnold.
i pointed out they're two differents nuts.
you say, 'i think the women are lying anyway.'
it's a question of semantics, but who cares? can i register myself as an existentialist (independent doesn't feel right anymore)?
10-09-2003, 03:52 PM
EPSkis

Quote:

Originally posted by KQ
EP - you really think all those women are lying?
P.S. I didn't need you to define "slander" for me, but thanks just the same. In looking it up, realizing that it requires a "knowingly false statement" do you still want to call it that? Are they just a bunch of "Anita Hills?"

Follow along with me:

1. Lying? Depends on what their Publishers are offering. If they felt they were violated in ANY way, they would have said and/or done something about it LONG before now. It ain't brain surgery here.
2. You're welcome, and yes. False? We don't know that yet. But it IS a malicious utterance of defamatory report with the intent to cause injury to another's character. Mr. Webster and I stand by that definition.
3. Anita Hills? It's "Hill". No. I'm sure Arnold is JUST like Clarence Thomas. And please remember her case against Mr. Thomas was pretty shoddy after admitting to the fact that, even after she was able to "escape" from him, she continued to initiate contact over a period of time and even followed him to another job when he moved on from the EEOC.

BOOyah!

:rolleyes:
10-09-2003, 03:56 PM
KQ

Quote:

Originally posted by EPSkis

3. Anita Hills? It's "Hill". No. I'm sure Arnold is JUST like Clarence Thomas. And please remember her case against Mr. Thomas was pretty shoddy after admitting to the fact that, even after she was able to "escape" from him, she continued to initiate contact over a period of time and even followed him to another job when he moved on from the EEOC.

EP as much as you seem to dislike women and feel the need to keep posting in a manner that whispers you think I'm stupid the least you could do is to read more carefully. I KNOW it's 'Hill" but I was making it plural (right or wrong grammatically) since I was lumping all the woman together. I suppose I could have said "Are they just like Anita Hill" but I didn't.

:rolleyes: right back at cha
10-09-2003, 04:01 PM
EPSkis

Quote:

Originally posted by KQ
EP as much as you seem to dislike women and have to keep posting in a manner that whispers you think I'm stupid please read more carefully. I KNOW it's 'Hill" but I was making it plural (right or wrong grammatically) since I was lumping all the woman together. I suppose I could have said "Are they just like Anita Hill" but I didn't.

:rolleyes: right back at cha

And there we have it. Now I dislike women. It was only a matter of time.

:rolleyes:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 PM.