nova_satori Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 .A stronger Iraq is central to the war on terror. Where a stronger Iraq is the largest terror magnet on the world, where the population is slowly starting to rise up aganist the US, where sabotoge is a daily occurance, where US soldiers die on a regular basis, where billions of US dollars are going down the drain, where alienating allies when asking for help, where sprending US troops extremely thin across the world, where hurting morale with 12 month tours, where all this is occuring is central to the war on terror? You got some seriously distorted logic. But I already knew that. Craig, does the idea of cutting revenue and spening vast amounts of money (you don't really have) at the same time sound economical to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Allies ? Who the French ? The Russians ? Apparently the Iraqi's prefer the US - see my other post on this topic. Helping Iraq financially allows the US to pull out sooner. This equates into savings in the short term. In other words buy the insurance policy pay the premium today and get out next year. I know this is too rationale for the Libs to fathom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Apparently the Iraqi's prefer the US - see my other post on this topic. Right...like they do here! Helping Iraq financially allows the US to pull out sooner. This equates into savings in the short term. If we didn't get into this mess if the first place, none of that would be needed. In other words buy the insurance policy pay the premium today and get out next year. or the next decade or two. Nice avoidance of anything relevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Sir Riff, do you actuall discuss ANYTHING ? The Marshall plan was a waste of time in your viewpoint. Defending South Korea is a waste of time. Rebuilding failed states so that they are not conduits of terror is a waste of time. If you believe in isolationism and passivity -defend with evidence why this policy makes sense. It was tried in the 1990s and it ended with 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 The Marshall plan was a waste of time in your viewpoint. We didn't cause the need for the Marshall plan. BIG difference. Defending South Korea is a waste of time. the ROK is perfectly capable of defending itself. its military is highly trained, armed with advance weapons, has good intelligence, has the upper hand on the North in every aspect except Nukes (for now), and has a stable, strong economy. 50 years ago the ROK needed help, but today is a very different situation. If anything, Japan's defense force can be called upon to help defend. Their F-16/FXs and recent purchase of F-15s will help strike at the North Koreans and aid the ROK well. Rebuilding failed states so that they are not conduits of terror is a waste of time. Your definition of failed is not the dictionary one. Stop thinking that everything you say is correct. It was tried in the 1990s and it ended with 9-11. Right, because Haiti never happened, Kosovo never happened. Bosnia never happened. Let's ignore all data that contricts our arugment eh craig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Kosovo did happen clown. So did Haiti - both contravene directly your principle of isolationism. You contradict yourself, you are very funny. As for SK no it can't defend itself. Ask a SK that question. There is a reason why the SK gov't has US military defending it. Isolationism which was enshrined in Washington and Monroe's doctrine no longer fits the global reality. Clinton was wrong not to confront terror more forcefully in the 90s. As many of my Posts outline he wanted to be considered a peace maker not a war mongerer. Kind of like Michael Jackson wanting to be a lover not a fighter. I bet Bill and Mike get on well. For many reasons. ====== Back to this post - I watched Arnie admit he groped some chicks. That a boy Arnie, get in a feel when you can. Not good behaviour but at least he admitted it. Unlike Billy Boy wagging his finger and denying he had sex with Monica, semen stained dress aside. "Six women describe in some detail unwanted advances they say Mr. Schwarzenegger made, with the oldest incident dating back to 1975 and the most recent to 2000. If the women's allegations are true, it doesn't matter if the timing of the revelations are politically motivated. That doesn't make his actions any less crude or insulting. And though Mr. Schwarzenegger did say that much of the story was not true, he confirmed the thrust of it by admitting that "wherever there is smoke, there is fire" and apologizing for having "behaved badly" toward women and "done things that were not right." But in terms of the political impact, it's possible that his candor will strike voters as a welcome contrast to the usual political stonewalling or denials." Candor is good, Eves should have watched Arnie more carefully perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Craig Read: You've got to stop lying. Greg already warned you that contiuned actions like your previous ones will get you banned. You contradict yourself, you are very funny. I can contridict my support of isolationism that I NEVER SUPPORTED. I can contridict something I NEVER SAID. Stop lying. As for SK no it can't defend itself. Ask a SK that question. There is a reason why the SK gov't has US military defending it. Ask a ROK officers. He'll tell you they can. However, he won't say they won't escape unscathed. The US forces in the area are negliable. A removal of 37,000 troops will see no change in the entire defensive structure of the ROK. The US has very, very, very little military assets in SK. Clinton was wrong not to confront terror more forcefully in the 90s. As many of my Posts outline he wanted to be considered a peace maker not a war mongerer. Perhaps, but history has seen warmongeres who fail are scorned with more fury then a angry woman. Which would you rather be, a peace maker or a war monger? Candor is good, Eves should have watched Arnie more carefully perhaps Such as his non-existance political expierence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Well then i suggest you know your topics before posting. You are not adding value just slander with arm waving and shouts that I and others are stupid. This is childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Well then i suggest you know your topics before posting. You are not adding value just slander with arm waving and shouts that I and others are stupid. This is childish. Practice what you preace. Then talk to me. Such as his non-existance political expierence? It's far too interesting how you think clear observations ANYONE can make when examing Arnold's political history is slander. You are the one who throws hundreds of mindless anti-liberal, anti-progress, pro-genocide, pro-oblivion, anti-tolerance, anti-peace, pro-fear, pro-hate, pro-intolerance, anti-freedom, anti-logic, PURE LIES, and fabrications around. Don't even try to take the higher ground from that deep swamp of immurity and hate that you are so deeply sunken into. Every one here can read the hundreds of posts that you preach hate and intolerance. Just shutup. Remember, you got warned with the threat of a ban. Not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 I have no idea why you post. You state nothing. You add nothing. What is the purpose of this post ? This thread is about Arnold being elected Gov in Cali. Are you adding anything to this thread or just slandering me to hear yourself ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 LOL. Your attempts to make yourself look like the victim are horrible. If you bothered to put the amount of effort that normally goes into your intolerant posts, perhaps you could have some resembalance of a victim, until then, stop trying. I have no idea why you post. You state nothing. You add nothing. What is the purpose of this post ? If your opinion, anyone who does not follow your beliefs is morally wrong and automatically immoral. The purpose of the post was to show your idiocy is comparing slander to political history that one lacks. Obviously, you cannot see that. This thread is about Arnold being elected Gov in Cali. Are you adding anything to this thread or just slandering me to hear yourself ? I'm disagreeing with you that he would be a good candidiate due to his severe lack of any and all political experience. You are the king of useless and hateful slander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 I'm disagreeing with you that he would be a good candidiate due to his severe lack of any and all political experience. That Nova, is one good reason to vote for him. As well, he has suceeded where others have failed. I don't know much about Hollywood but I would figure that it is an industry much like any other. You have raw material, a workforce, a product to finish under deadlines and a purchaser. Pressure, networking, budgets and all, much like running anything. Arnold has done quite well, better than Davis has done. I would see no reason to not vote for an unproven yet charismatic man who has been a resounding sucess in private industry and has nothing to gain monetarily by holding office. I have to laugh at his opponents. They are so afraid he might win that they have resorted to the extraordinary lengths to go back 28 YEARS to smear him!!!! 28 YEARS!! He was what? 18 then or something? No dirt scince, wow. He must be good. Back to the main though, so many public figures are so entrenched in apathy that they are virtually useless. Time for new blood. At the very least it is doubtful he will be in it for the padded expenses like our polititians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinger Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 You idiot republicans can't admit to anything, lets see you got Bush lying to the world about reasons of going to war, Limbaugh with his racist remarks and drug use, Gov. Janklow pleading innocent in killing the motorcyclist by running a stop sign when clearly he did it. Ah yes, good ole Schwarzenegger and his sexual harassment problems which he says he's sorry, yeah right, says sorry only after he gets busted. I don't give a damn if Schwarzenegger gets elected or not but if you "waco republicans" can cry and scream over what Clinton did then why don't you take a good hard look at your own pathetic party and use the same standards & judgements as you did with Clinton. It's ok though repubs, i'm sure your mommie will listen to you cry!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 KK, I see your point, and under other conditions, I would agree with you, but with the largest debt in the nation, large unemployment, many minority issues, and major economic downturn, I cannot agree. There is simply too much to risk on 4 years with a green politican. Perhaps if the risks were smaller, and the time more forgiving, but I simply see that the risks of another 4 years (or is it 2?) with a green is asking for disaster. I really can't believe the brought up that crap Nazi thing. Seriously people, with someone who has tried to stamp out intolerance, a NAZI? For crying out loud, please get something better. No one in the race has Davis's mug slinging abilities. leftwinger: Please, the right is making itself look like a fool by supporting Craig Reed. Please do not make yourself a left-wing Craig Reed. I'm begging here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Experienced and seasoned bureaucrats is what got them into that mess. Try somebody that has a history of success and fiscal accountibility. I can't even remember where I was 25 years ago much less what I said or what I did. I would imagine that if I ran for Governor of somewhere that I would find out pretty quick. I doubt that I would even recognize who I was then much less what I said. As for Limbaugh's racist remark there was nothing racist about it. To say that the reason why a football player who he deemed to be not star material was getting disproportionate press coverage was because he was black simply calling the meda themselves racist. They, not the footbal star were the target of Rush's remark. Is the media black or white? Neither so where is the racism here? Talk about calling wolf. While I'm on Rush, I only listen to that windbag as I'm looking for something else to listen to. If anybody on the left thinks that corpulent buffoon is listened to by any serious right winger they are living in a fantasy world. Glen Beck and Sean Hanaddy are serious right. Ultra is Machael Savage, now there is somebody who I seriously can say is right wing. Tune him in sometime there Nova, he is definitely entertaining. Rush though, B O R I N G. I think they put him on the air for the purpose of making the left think the right is dumb as a kind of deception ploy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 I don't listen to Rush so i have no opinion on him, but his policies certainly are not dumb - compare them to the Dumbocrud policy of tax and spend in Calif. I don't know what he says on the radio but his writings on supply side economics are correct. Back to the thread, McClintock is even now criticising Arnold. State Sen. Tom McClintock, Schwarzenegger’s main Republican rival, agreed that the accusations were serious and called for investigation. But he added extra caution was needed because the allegations surfaced so close to Tuesday’s election This is not smart. He should be talking to Arnold about the #2 spot, not dreaming that he will win. You have to love the Liberal media and 'grope-gate'. Trying their best with unsubstantiated allegations from ABC news first on Arnie's sympathy for Hitler [no proof was offered from ABC, no facts nothing] and all of the women streaming forward saying Arnie felt their buttocks. Have to love the 11th hour timing of these supposed revelations. Oh where is John Turner in all of this ? And Nova you add 0 value and I have no idea why you are allowed on this site to post your nonsense. Go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 The Republican double standard is: It's ok if a Republican sexually harrasses women without being consensual. It's not ok if a Democrat has consensual sex and lies so that his wife doesn't find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpark121 Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 That was probably one of the stupidest sweeping generalizations I've read in my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftwinger Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 That was probably one of the stupidest sweeping generalizations I've read in my life. Hey djpark121, are you referring to this statement? "The Republican double standard is: It's ok if a Republican sexually harrasses women without being consensual. It's not ok if a Democrat has consensual sex and lies so that his wife doesn't find out." i take you are a republican and that explaines alot right there, no wonder you can't make sense of it. Republican classic mode is denial & lies. It makes perfect sense to me "Bushmustgo" least we have some honest folks on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 It's not ok if a Democrat has consensual sex and lies so that his wife doesn't find out. I don't think that was the problem. The way I see it is that he was having this consensual sex in his office whilst in the pay of taxpayers. He was in his office, on "company time" if you will, shirking his job and grossly misconducting himself. As I said, if he were an executive he would have been fired on the spot. He then lied about it under oath, which is of itself a pretty serious offence. As a lawyer he should know that, but instead he chose to lie to a court and to the American public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 True enough. Now the LA Times - which is to the left of PRAVDA back in Pravda's glory days - chooses the 11th hour to publish the allegations of 16 women, 12 of whom have been identified and confirmed - that Arnie groped them. The Times has been sitting on a story since 1997 on Davis's harassement - verbal and physical - of his employees substantiated by many former workers - but of course it refuses to print the report. This is liberalism double standards at work. "It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history," wrote Jill Stewart, a former Los Angeles Times reporter, in her syndicated column, which appears in the Los Angeles Daily News and the San Francisco Chronicle, among others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Craig, I'm sure the LA Times leans left just as Fox is radically Right. But, the "11th hour" you mention is not placed into context by the far right. We're talking about an election that is happening so fast as news develops and has been investigated to get proof and throw it out there 1 week before the actual election. Arnie's political record is hard to attack because he doesn't have one........AT ALL! Therefore, they have to stick to the truth and he's even admitted that he was basically a sexual "Predator." Now, this is the guy that the supposed "moral" Republicans are trying to get into office.................hypocritical and like Rush Limbaugh's right wing lesson #1, ALWAYS BLAME THE LEFTIST MEDIA WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS TO A REPUBLICAN, whether he has a sexual harrasment history, makes rascist remarks (remember ole Trent Lott).......... It's always the Leftist media's fault for Republican problems....... What a crock of garbage you guys believe in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 my comment is these women folks are just stigmatizing women. classic of women behaving very badly. shows the progressive DECAY OF WOMEN. women have suffered psychologically over centuries; really we don’t need more aggravation to pathologised ourselves and make shameful while we are trying to struggle from anxiety amiss guilt. what i meant is these are incidences since 1975 goodness, how about a complaint then? scandalous then, alright, well how about the plenty of time and opportunity to make a complaint since no? the legal system is always serious about allegations of harassment at any time. oh! its fashionably timely and more effective now, the minute of fame gain. be proud ladies, stand tall, and be bold, show your fighting spirit, resist the inherent urge to capitalize on what you are doing ------> opportune conniving trickery on your placards “we demand respect”, show respect for yourselves first rid a sexual myth used against women for too long the only apology is women are shameless and muddled when there is heated politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 These ladies were never raped at the time and not enough damage was evidently done to constitute getting this guy arrested, most likely just labled a "horny slimeball." HOWEVER, these women felt it appropriate to come out now and let the world know what this predator is about since they feel there is NO WAY this guy should serve the public or represent their state, that's why this is coming out and what goes around, comes around. Let's face it, Arnie's admitting to "bad behavior" and has issued an apology, and not because the accusations are false! You Right Wingers try to justify ANYTHING in the name of Conservatism........ New Slogan for the Republican Party, "It's okay if we do it, so long a Democrat doesn't," or "we can justify this!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal.F. Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 I don't consider Arnie a Conservative. I would not vote for him. I would be voting for Sen. Tom McClintock were I in California today. McClintock is a true conservative. He knows and understands the financuial matters of the state, and would bring in fiscally conservative policies to rectify things... More important;ly he is socially conservative. He would reverse the radical maves made by Moonbeam Davis , since he is staunchly pro-life, and also understands the nature of the radical feminist/homosexual movements, and is determnined to roll back the de-forms introduced by Dumbocruds. Arnie may be a fiscal conservative, but a social conservative he is not. In other words I'd prefer to see Arnie elected to ANY Dumbocrud, but tomnight will be a disappointment nevertheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.