|You read it here first: Arnold's going to be president||Cory|
Oct 14, 2003 8:41 AM
|Spent several days in Sacramento last week dealing with a family emergency, and I had lots of time to wander around talking to people. I'd sort of figured Schwarzenegger was an anomaly, a hysterical response to an unpopular sitting gov and a confluence of circumstances, but no. It's Brainwash City down there, like old movies of Hitler (not that I'm implying, but that's the only comparison I can think of).
If he doesn't completely d**k it up, or perhaps even if he does, he'll be living in the White House in 2012.
I know he's not eligible because he wasn't born in the U.S., but there are stories that Orrin Hatch, of all people, plans to introduce legislation to remove that requirement on grounds the world has changed and it's unfair to discriminate. Apparently the GOP distaste for immigrants applies only to dark-skinned ones who speak Spanish....
|Good luck with the Constitutional Ammendment||TJeanloz|
Oct 14, 2003 8:46 AM
|The odds of that one passing are less than 0.|
Oct 14, 2003 8:51 AM
|Won't happen, the amendment or the election. Don't worry, you won't be terminated.
There's no brainwashing going on. This election was purely anti-Davis, and Arnold just happened to be the most likeable candidate to replace him.
Now, I could see potential for US Senate.
Oct 14, 2003 8:53 AM
|You liberals had no trouble a few months back ...||Live Steam|
Oct 14, 2003 9:32 AM
|when Hollywood was pontificating about the perils of the war or on pretty much everything else that touches our lives. Why is there a problem now with a Hollywood type governing?|
|It isn't always about you, Steam...||Cory|
Oct 14, 2003 10:59 AM
|I have high hopes for Arnold. My dad and my stepmother both voted for him (I don't vote in California), and I like his stand on several issues, including education and (if he can separate it from his pro-business stance) the environment. I was just shocked at the fervor of his followers. They're way past logic, moving toward worship. Must you make EVERYTHING a political issue?
I also disagree with Doug that the vote was purely anti-Davis, BTW. There's a big jocksniff quotient there, as well as confusion of his real-life qualities with his movie persona. You wouldn't believe the number of people who support their vote by saying he's "tough," and then cite something he did in a film.
But, shoot, that's nothing new for Republicans. Ronald Reagan thought he fought in World War II, instead of just making movies about it, and GW Bush has gracefully donned the mantle of war hero.
By the way, I'm STILL pontificating about the perils of the war. And the longer we go, the better I sound.
|So are you and your folks brainwashed?||Live Steam|
Oct 14, 2003 11:38 AM
|Do you actually read what you write before posting?
"I'd sort of figured Schwarzenegger was an anomaly, a hysterical response to an unpopular sitting gov and a confluence of circumstances, but no. It's Brainwash City down there, like old movies of Hitler (not that I'm implying, but that's the only comparison I can think of)......but there are stories that Orrin Hatch, of all people, plans to introduce legislation to remove that requirement on grounds the world has changed and it's unfair to discriminate. Apparently the GOP distaste for immigrants applies only to dark-skinned ones who speak Spanish...."
Sounds politically inspired to me :O) Hey I just asked a simple question. Liberals were fine with Hollywood telling our President how to run this country and it's foreign affairs. Yet Arnold running for office has the LA Times and OTHERS, ridiculing him because he was/is and actor. I just needed clarification on the differences.
|there's a big difference.||rufus|
Oct 15, 2003 7:05 AM
|I don't think liberals were calling for the hollywood elite to tell the president how to run our country. nor were they looking for those people to lead our government. what they did object to was the vilifying by the right of those that did choose to speak up and say what was on their mind. those that did were effectively told that they were stupid actors whose opinion didn't matter, and so they should just shut it. what liberals objected to was the stifling of dissent practiced by the right. no one on the left seriously believed that these actors were any more qualified to hold public office than arnold is, they just believed that they did have a right to speak out, just as any citizen has. it's just a matter of fact that hollywood celebrities have a much bigger forum to speak from. just ask arnold. and they're still wondering why the political opinions of leftist celebrities don't matter, but those of arnold or charlie daniels do.
now when it comes to actually running for office, i don't believe that liberals think susan sarandon or tim robbins are qualified to hold political office either, and hopefully wouldn't be voting them into some office based solely on their name recognition and the fact that they're big stars. but i'm not so sure about that. our culture has become increasingly celebrity driven, and name recognition seems all that you need these days.
|name recognition all you need?||DougSloan|
Oct 15, 2003 9:01 AM
|So, Timothy McVeigh could have won office in Oklahoma after the bombing? He certainly had high name recognition. Or, how about O.J.?
Name recognition is necessary, but far from sufficient.
|as long as that name recognition||rufus|
Oct 15, 2003 9:46 AM
|doesn't come from noteriety.|| |