|One of you conservative apologists have an opinion on this?||Cory|
Oct 2, 2003 8:01 AM
|Trying to leave politics out of it, if I can, I'm still left with a question I can't answer:
Why were Bill Clinton's admitted marijuana use and apparent treatment of women a huge deal, even leading to his impeachment, while Arnold Schwarzenegger's documented, admitted, photographed marijuana use, his use of steroids and his sexual activity (both the stuff he bragged about and the stuff he now denies) don't raise any conservative hackles?
|Easy answer. Clinton would have done just fine in California. nm||Kristin|
Oct 2, 2003 8:09 AM
|cause he's "dah tehrminatahr"||rufus|
Oct 2, 2003 8:12 AM
|because he's a "stah" baby!||ColnagoFE|
Oct 2, 2003 8:14 AM
|Also steroids weren't illegal back when Ahnold was using...(though I'm guessing he also used a number of illegal substances as well) and nearly nobody considers pot a hard drug these days--even a lot of conservatives. And his past sexual exploits are no big deal now that he's "happily" married. After all the guy gets to sow his wild oats, doesn't he? Stuff like this is only a big deal when people decide to play party politics and make it a big deal.|
|He's also pro-choice: who thinks he's a conservative? (nm)||TJeanloz|
Oct 2, 2003 8:53 AM
|I consider him a "middle roader". (nm)||jesse1|
Oct 4, 2003 4:08 AM
|because it smacks of politics?||mohair_chair|
Oct 2, 2003 8:56 AM
|You can't leave politics out of it. That's naive.
Who cares about his steroid use? Who cares about his pot smoking back in the 1970s? Who cares about his sexual activity? What possible relevance could mostly legal stuff he did 30 years ago have today?
I read a headline about his steroid use and the first thing that poppped in my mind was, wow, this is a real pathetic stretch to defame him, and here's a newspaper that desperately doesn't want him to win (this is the same paper that always refers to him as "the actor," which confuses me because Gary Colemen is also running). At no time did I think, hey, Arnold's a bad guy who isn't qualified to be governor.
Today this report came out about how Arnold was supposedly flirting and groping women on sets, and the first thing that pops into my mind is, gee, what a surprise. This information was so important, it wasn't released until five days before the election!! It's the classic October Surprise. There isn't enough time to refute it or respond, and more people will hear the report than will hear the response.
It's politics. Dirty politics. Plain and simple. It's why we end up electing losers and scoundrels and deadbeats most of the time. It's why no one in their right mind would run for office today.
Oct 2, 2003 8:58 AM
|1. He's not Gray Davis.
2. He's not Gray Davis.
3. He's not Gray Davis....
4. It happend a long time ago.
5. This is California, not the nation. We legalized marijuana.
6. Not aware that he lied under oath about treatment of women.
7. He may not be ideal, but see #1.
|Is marijuana legal in California??||Kristin|
Oct 2, 2003 9:11 AM
|Damn. California 1, North Carolina, 2 (NC lost 5 points in the last 2 weeks for being a cycle scary place to live.)
Just kidding. It wouldn't be fun to smoke pot if it was legal.
|sure it would still be fun...and cheaper too!||ColnagoFE|
Oct 2, 2003 9:17 AM
|maybe dominos pizza would include a free quarter ounce with every 10th pizza purchased? Think of the marketing tie-in possibilities!!!!!|
|more like free pizza with every quarter ounce ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 9:18 AM
|LOL!! That was funny! nm||Live Steam|
Oct 2, 2003 9:46 AM
Oct 2, 2003 9:17 AM
|Medical use is ok under state law, but not federal. Possession of a small amount for "personal use" is only an infraction under state law.
I think it may still be the state's number one cash crop, grown largely in national forests.
|Decriminalized. Still unlawful, offense is civil, not criminal||128|
Oct 2, 2003 9:36 AM
|as defined by legislatures.
As a civil offense penalty is (money, like a ticket) not a criminal offense and penalty(jailtime)if busted with an amount over the prescribed (usually an ounce)limit. If possessing over the limit, or dealing, then the offense IS a criminal violation. That's my understanding of the decriminization statutes (w/o reference to medical use)in most states.
Outside medical use, herb is not legalized (as distinct from deCRIMINALalized) anywhere in the USA.
Visit NORML on the web.
Grow your own.
Repeal mandatory sentencing guidlines.
|Hmmm. Yet another reason to hike the JMT!!||Kristin|
Oct 2, 2003 9:37 AM
|Okay, you guys are gonna think I'm a dope addict. I haven't partaken actually, since I was...what...eighteen? Then I became a Christian and I learned that smoking dope was an evil sin. Now I'm not so sure. I guess it depends a lot on why someone would do it. I have become a bit of a purist though. No makeup, quit smoking, don't take medicine unless its necessary, etc... I'm not sure I'd smoke anything ever again. But I don't think its a big sin anymore.|
|make brownies then!||ColnagoFE|
Oct 2, 2003 10:46 AM
|Bring them to one of those pot-luck things. Would give new meaning to "pot" luck. I bet your church group would have a blast! ;)|
|Mmmmm. Chocolate buzz! nm||Kristin|
Oct 2, 2003 10:54 AM
|Kristin, just out of curiousity...||Matno|
Oct 3, 2003 9:17 AM
|What is it about being a Christian that convinced you to stop wearing make-up? Never heard that one before. Extreme make-up perhaps, but "normal" make-up seems pretty benign. Or maybe it just sounded like religion was your reason. Is there a health reason that I haven't heard of? Like I said, I'm just curious...|
|Oooo. You're just connecting all sorts of dots.||Kristin|
Oct 3, 2003 9:33 AM
|Nothing about being a Christian made me stop wearing makeup. I stopped wearing makeup when I became athletic. The fact is that sports like cycling and hiking take time. In my pre-athletic lifestyle, I filled up all my hours with non-athletic activity. Something had to give. Sofa and mirror time became the 2 primary things that gave. Also, my skin has improved a good deal. I'm not sure if it is because of the exercise, my overall physical condition or the lack of pore-clogging makeup. In any regard, I don't "need" the makeup anymore. I spend 15-25 minutes styling my hair and that's it. Two weeks ago, I was having an especially good hair day and decided I'd put some makeup on. (I still own an eyeliner, some foundation and a lipstick.) When I got done I looked in the mirror and there was a clown staring back at me. I looked rediculous and immediatly scrubbed it all off. I like me just the way I am, thank you very much!! :-)|
|Good for you....||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 3, 2003 10:58 AM
|All you have to do now, is to get rid of those 6" heels and the hoop skirt.|
|When did we meet? nm||Kristin|
Oct 3, 2003 11:40 AM
|Tip of the day...||loki_1|
Oct 3, 2003 11:01 AM
|Marry the woman that looks good without makeup (I did). You'll be much happier waking up next to her. : )|
|Makeup is like Bondo.||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 3, 2003 11:44 AM
|If it is used, it should be used as a last resort. And then sparingly.|
|Oh, I didn't say I look good without make-up.||Kristin|
Oct 3, 2003 11:44 AM
|LOL. Just kidding. But I think there is a point at which you become comfortable in your own skin and don't feel a need to cover it up. I think that type of confidence has an attractivness all its own.|
|"An attractiveness all its own..."||Matno|
Oct 4, 2003 10:13 AM
|That's what being able to not wear make up for practical reasons is... attractive. I'm not saying that I don't like it when my wife wears make up, but she looks beautiful without it (she doesn't wear much, so the difference isn't startling), and she refuses to leave the house without it. Personally, I put a lot more priority on being on time than I do on looking perfect. I'm learning to live with it though. I have a feeling things aren't going to change soon. Fortunately, she's practically perfect in every other way (to paraphrase Mary Poppins) so I can live with having to be a little more patient on occasion!
|You forgot one BIG one!||Live Steam|
Oct 2, 2003 9:25 AM
|Every other one of the five hundred candidates on the ballot alos smoke/smoked pot and abused drugs at one time or another :O)|
|true; hard to make an issue out of it nm||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 9:31 AM
|It's a non-issue. Period!||Live Steam|
Oct 2, 2003 9:40 AM
|Aside form the fact that pretty much everyone on the ballot ethier already does or will, once they win the election, cozy up with Hollywood/sports types who we know, all like to PARTY! It wouldn't go over well with these types if they made this type of stuff an issue in this election. Just wouldn't be Hollywood PC :O)|
Oct 2, 2003 8:59 AM
|First off, I guess I'll lay claim to the moniker of "conservative", whatever that means.
Clinton's use of marijuana wasn't the subject of his impeachment. What was laughable was his admission that he tried it but didn't inhale.
Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky wasn't the reason for impeachment, either. His lying to a federal grand jury about the affair, however, was.
Neither of these excuses Arnold. I find what he did reprehensible. I wouldn't vote for him if I lived in California.
|easy - he aligned himself with the 'right' party.||sacheson|
Oct 2, 2003 9:22 AM
|Republicans don't care what your track record is, as long as you are a Republican (for the record, Dems don't either).
If Arnold was running for the other team and doing well, rest assured his name would be drug through the mud for any morally questionable action he committed.
|maybe not so in this case||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 9:30 AM
|We want Gray Davis out at any cost. He is an evil, lying, self-interested, back-room-dealing tyrannical politician of the worst kind. Well, maybe not "any," as Bustamonte is a poison pill that will give us a helluva hangover should Davis be ousted and he win.
At a time when Californians are totally fed up with high taxes and running businesses out of the state (Chris King?), we'd take darn near anyone who promises to try to lower taxes and burdens on businesses.
In this case, Arnold might actually have fared better as an Independent.
|re: One of you conservative apologists have an opinion on this?||CurtSD|
Oct 2, 2003 9:26 AM
|Because Ahnold didn't lie under oath to a grand jury about it or convince others to lie to a grand jury about it. The Clinton impeachment wasn't about the sex.|
|Load of rubbish||filtersweep|
Oct 2, 2003 10:23 AM
|It was all about the sex. We'd already have an independent council looking into the current White House leak if the Republicans didn't control both the house and senate. Clinton's situation was pure politics. Don't even kid yourself. GW is getting a free pass on all sorts of issues since they control the house and senate.
One speculation regarding Ah-nold is that the public expects this sort of behavior from entertainers- and Ah-nold is still seen as an entertainer- NOT a politician. ]
Coming from MN where Jesse the Body got away with murder (well, not literally)... I never voted for the guy, and I never dreamed I say this, but he blows away the current governor!
|So the self-righteous, moralistic attacks on Clinton...||PdxMark|
Oct 2, 2003 10:08 AM
|really were just politics under the guise of religious piety and moralistic temperance. Nice to see that the right-wing is so comfortable in it's hypocrisy and moral relativity. At least we on the left acknowledge our moral relativity.|
Oct 2, 2003 10:26 AM
|Clinton was a moral slug. Everyone knows that. Rather than Democrats acknowledging it, but saying, "Heck, he's the best we got," they defended him and attacked his accusers.
On the other hand, in this instance most Republicans will agree that things that Arnold is alleged to have done (albeit 20-30 years ago) are not good, but he's still better than Gray Davis.
At some point, you have to decide whether you are going to walk off the cliff flying your moral banner, or accept less than perfect candidates and win the election, ridding the state of the most despised governor in history.
|Slugs and thugs.||OldEdScott|
Oct 2, 2003 10:29 AM
|Man, we got to start electing us some better Presidents in this country.|
|any ideas? ;-)||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 10:33 AM
|Anyone totally honest and morally upright would never be elected. No one could honestly discuss what they really believe. Everything has to be spun and qualified to be electable. Anyone who would be morally superior would be labelled a "religious extremist" or do-gooder, then demeanized at the first slip from their self-imposed high standards.
|If you really sit down and reflect on all this||OldEdScott|
Oct 2, 2003 10:42 AM
|you'd get too depressed to even bash Republicans!
It's a terrible problem, and without resorting to crazy talk about liberal/conservative media bias, I DO blame the immediacy of media for a lot of the problem. When you have a microphone in your face 24 hours a day, and 1,034 cable news commentators parsing your every sentence 29 hours a day, it's impossible to be thoughful or to be real.
|yup, and polls, too||DougSloan|
Oct 2, 2003 10:50 AM
|Polls have almost replaced elections. Heck, candidates are dropping out here because of polls. People will never even get the opportunity to vote for some of the candidates. As you suggest, every candidate needs to say whatever it takes to keep the poll numbers up. If numbers dive, you start losing credibility, ability to fund raise, volunteers, etc., and you are hosed well before the election. People want to be on board with a winner or the anticipated winner, not someone who is 10 points behind in the polls.
Oct 2, 2003 11:15 AM
|(Although I'm sure the gun partisans on this board will find something wrong with it.)
"...for every minute Bush and Gore spoke on the evening network newscasts (during the 2000 election), the reporters covering them spoke for six minutes."
(from a review of "The Vanishing Voter" by Thomas E. Patterson)
The point being made was that voters are apathetic at least in part because the campaigns are reduced to soundbites, offered up by bland cyphers while their proxies sling mud. And all of this filtered through talking hairdos desperately trying to fill all those cable channels.
|I believe the allegations run from 1975-2000||Tri_Rich|
Oct 3, 2003 6:13 AM
|not 20-30 years ago, and come from anumber of different women.|
|Anyone who'd want the job of Governor of Calif...||No_sprint|
Oct 2, 2003 12:22 PM
|Is undoubtedly on drugs or has been. The hole that has been dug will take a long time to climb of. I don't see a winner emerging regardless of what transpires. To fix this problem will require many to be affected negatively.
Thank goodness he's got some of the right ideas though. Some of the other idiots can't figure out that spending must be cut, and yes, maybe some social programs too. After all, how do you pay for social programs when there's no money?
|re: Its the impacts of his statements||jrm|
Oct 2, 2003 2:24 PM
|The Gropenator gets grap because his campaine is all about attitude, and his arrogance is amazing. he thinks he can go into Sacramento and bust heads but he knows little or nothing about the issues. This is most evident when you strip him of one liners and the feeding frenzy of a large crowd. Check out this recent interview with a SF TV station located @ www.kron4.com. Scroll down to the gropenator interview and youll see what im saying.|| |