Last minute charges against Schwarzenegger.

[Death Metal Moe]

All politics aside, doesn't ANYONE feel that these SUDDEN stories about Arnold are a little too well planned?

And how can you even TRY to prove this one about how Arnold "respected" Hitler? That one was pretty underhanded. Where did it come from?

And Davis said he wasn't going to go after Arnold for stupid shit like that, but suddenly he finds himself so far in the polls that he changes his mind. Classy move.

Any opinions?

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>CTC</strike>

[HBox]

After the last couple of months, I can't wait until that massive earthquake happens and California is separated from the mainland. The farther away it is, the better.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Death Metal Moe]

Yea, I too am sick of the circus that this recall has become, but it is legal and their right to toss Davis if they're unhappy with him.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>CTC</strike>

[HBox]

And if there's one thing this mini election has helped me understand its why California reelected Gray Davis in the first place. Is there not one halfway decent politician in the entire state? McClintock is the closest, but he's way too conservative for that state.

I guess the reason that Arnold is ahead is that since its a given the governor will be a failure, at least he should be an entertaining failure.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Death Metal Moe]

I don't think a real conservative CAN'T win there. They elected Reagan. That was a smart choice.


<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>CTC</strike>

[Se7en]

ABC News seems to be leading the charge here. I'll refrain from making any sort of remark about them possibly being biased, and will instead go for the more obvious and factually accurate choice - the LA Times.

I mean, really.

Anyone who still respects that newspaper needs to have their head examined.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[FUNKMAN]

if you ever played "i got you last" with a sibling or friend when you were a kid then you've just explained Politics.


No wonder at least half the country has lost interest in it and don't vote or even care about voting. It's a fucking shame!

<img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/funkman.gif">

[sr71blackbird]

Im a republican too, and just wanna hide my head in the sand till this whole mess is over

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sr71-sig.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

[TheMojoPin]

Sounds like the Californian Republicans are getting their own little version of Clinton with all these stories of Arnold's dope-smokin', questionable personal politics and going for the ladies' delicates.

Enjoy the ride, suckers.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-4-03 @ 2:03 AM

[reeshy]

No wonder at least half the country has lost interest in it


To be honest, I never, ever had any interest in this fiasco!!! It's California, for shit's sake, who gives a fuck!!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.mingers.com/photos/classic/rm_minger258.jpg>
HORDE KING FOREVER!
ORACLE NEVER!

[DarkHippie]

I remember a certain Georgian Senator who had lost both legs and an arm as a war hero in the Army. But he was a Democrat, and the Republicans blasted him using TV ads pasting him next to Saddam and bin Laden, questioning his patriotism. Of course he lost horribly.

Don't act all shocked and awed. It's ugly, but it happens on both sides.


<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[UnknownPD]

All politics aside, doesn't ANYONE feel that these SUDDEN stories about Arnold are a little too well planned?

I couldn't agree more. This is orchestrated and not limited to California. Remember the George W DWI story appearing the Friday before the election.

These are things that happened 20 years ago and only appear now. It is amazing to watch the news media become pawns of an agenda. I don't think it is a liberal vs conservative media thing, just part of the new "gotcha" 24 hour cable media.

[silera]

This is from the state that managed to find 12 people that thought OJ was innocent.

I don't expect less.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[A.J.]

Sounds like the Californian Republicans are getting their own little version of Clinton with all these stories of Arnold's dope-smokin', questionable personal politics and going for the ladies' delicates.

Arnold should be grateful for Clinton: he lowered the bar for all politicians. All he needs to do is apologize publically, surround himself with some ministers and ask to be able to go to work for the people of California.

This is from the state that managed to find 12 people that thought OJ was innocent.

And to think that the "real killer" is STILL out there...somewhere. How are Californians not afraid to leave their homes?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[Death Metal Moe]

My only argument against people who say "Who cares, it's California. I don't live there" is that California is a large state with a huge economy.

Problems there are felt all over the US.

Also descisons made there sometimes set the stage for the rest of the country.

So it does matter to the rest of us in some way how this turns out.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>CTC</strike>

[ChrisTheCop]

Moe, youre talking to people who allowed a housewife from Arkansas become their Senator.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/aggiesox.gif">Go Saux!!! Thanx Aggie

[reeshy]

My only argument against people who say "Who cares, it's California. I don't live there" is that California is a large state with a huge economy. Problems there are felt all over the US. Also descisons made there sometimes set the stage for the rest of the country. So it does matter to the rest of us in some way how this turns out.


No it don't!!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.mingers.com/photos/classic/rm_minger258.jpg>
HORDE KING FOREVER!
ORACLE NEVER!

[sr71blackbird]

This whole past few weeks with all this shit, against Arnold, against Rush, against Bush, has really put a sour taste in my mouth against politics. Its like, against Arnold they are digging and digging, trying to find anything they can to destroy him, including slander. Even his wifes health is now is under the gun, because shes thin! What the hell does that have to do with anything?? How low will politics go, before we as a people just say "hey, enough with this petty shit, just tell us what you will do, and we will vote for you if you appeal to us and stop with the bullshit already!"

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sr71-sig.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

[TheMojoPin]

just tell us what you will do

Well, it would help if Arnold was at least TRY doing that...

What if the stories about him ARE true? And other media outlets are choosing to IGNORE them as opposed to reporting them? I'm not saying the timing of these stories isn't ridicuously suspect, but to just automatically dismiss them because of that is pretty foolish unless they're debunked. Again, MUST I point to Clinton? Most of HIS dumb shit turned out to be true. Didn't anyone learn ANYTHING?

And in the end...he's still ARNOLD. At least I'M consistent on my views on celebrities and politics.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is the underlying implication of this thread that this is just a case of the Right getting picked on? Because let's not pretend this shit doesn't go both ways...

This whole past few weeks with all this shit, against Arnold, against Rush, against Bush, has really put a sour taste in my mouth against politics.

Rush Limbaugh does not hold elected office. Nor is he running for one.

And why are people talking like they have to "give up" on politics? You just have to look at the candidates a little bit harder to find the answers you want. In this media-deluged age, that's easier than ever.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-5-03 @ 11:36 AM

[Se7en]

Sounds like the Californian Republicans are getting their own little version of Clinton with all these stories of Arnold's dope-smokin', questionable personal politics and going for the ladies' delicates.

Enjoy the ride, suckers.

And, much like Clinton, these scandals will have little to zero impact come Tuesday at the polls.

I was watching "Fox Media Watch" yesterday evening and -

- oh wait, let me pause for a minute. For the liberal folks here on the board: "FAUX NEWS LOL 2003!!!!" -

- Okay, that's over with. Anyway, I was watching the show and someone (I think it was Jim Pinkerton) brought up an interesting point. These types of "late-breaking" news stories have occurred so much in the last 10 years or so, against both parties, that the general public may at this point just be totally desensitized to them and come to view them as nothing but partisan mudslinging. I think there may be some truth to that.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is the underlying implication of this thread that this is just a case of the Right getting picked on? Because let's not pretend this shit doesn't go both ways...

No, you're right, it does.

But in this case, with Arnold, it's not just about the Right getting picked on, I think there is again the implication that some of the major media sources - in this case, the LA Times and ABC News - are biased towards one political persuasion. As I have said earlier, I don't know if I could necessarily make that sort of statement against ABC - but I definitely could against the LA Times.

Unless, of course, there are those of you out there who honestly believe that the Times coincidentally waited until the weekend before the recall election - which they are opposed to - to release these stories, simply because they were just "getting their facts straight."

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[TheMojoPin]

I think there is again the implication that some of the major media sources - in this case, the LA Times and ABC News - are biased towards one political persuasion.

But wouldn't choosing to NOT cover the stories just as clearly imply one's political leanings? Seems just as unprovable and likely to me.

And notice how we're not really talking about the candidates, the issues or the stories themselves...but instead the outlets that REPORT the stories?

The news has BECOME the news. Grand.

And you're assuming they "sat" on the stories. Maybe they DIDN'T have what they needed to publish the stories before. Is it so hard to believe that whoever dumped these stories into the outlets waited until now? Why is it automatically the agenda of the outlets and not whoever leaked or released these stories? You're assuming that your assumption is correct, when any of THESE ideas are just as possible.

And again, few people are actually talking about the stories...only the TIMING of the stories. So if these outlets are so scary-diabolical and they had these stories before, why would they wait to release them when they're pretty much guarenteed to only raise questions and suspicion? People want to assume these outlets are out to control our perception of current events any way they can...but then have no problem assuming they'd make as stupid a decision as this?

You shouldn't just automatically bash and dismiss the news if you don't like the news. If that were the case, I'd have gone through at least 10,000 TV's at this point.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

Moe, youre talking to people who allowed a housewife from Arkansas become their Senator.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/aggiesox.gif">Go Saux!!! Thanx Aggie

Indeed.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<strike>CTC</strike>

[Se7en]

But wouldn't choosing to NOT cover the stories just as clearly imply one's political leanings? Seems just as unprovable and likely to me.

That may be the defense they use.

And notice how we're not really talking about the candidates, the issues or the stories themselves...but instead the outlets that REPORT the stories?

The news has BECOME the news. Grand.

This is something new? There has been a trend lately by the news media to make THEMSELVES the story. The whole Jayson Blair scandal was part of that - not necessarily meaning that the Times wanted all of that attention, mind you, but Blair certainly seemed to welcome the spotlight, and the story was widely covered.

And you're assuming they "sat" on the stories. Maybe they DIDN'T have what they needed to publish the stories before. Is it so hard to believe that whoever dumped these stories into the outlets waited until now? Why is it automatically the agenda of the outlets and not whoever leaked or released these stories? You're assuming that your assumption is correct, when any of THESE ideas are just as possible.

As I said earlier - in the case of ABC, they can probably be given the benefit of the doubt.

As for the LA Times - given their background, as well as their editorial position on the recall and Arnold in particular, coupled with their well-known political leanings - I would argue that anyone who does NOT find the time of these stories at least a little suspect is just deluding themselves.

And again, few people are actually talking about the stories...only the TIMING of the stories.

You yourself talked about Clinton. Ultimately, did any of those stories - as you said, many of which turned out to be true - REALLY do a lot of significant damage to him, at least in regards to getting him elected? That likely won't be the case here. People are not discussing the stories because a) most Californians hate Davis THAT DAMN MUCH that he's almost certainly gone and b) if he does go, Arnold appears to be his chosen replacement. But as I hypothesized before, the public may be desensitized or just plain don't care about the stories - especially since at least one of them (the Hitler story) is weak and fragile at best - because the timing of this is so convenient as to arouse suspicion.

So if these outlets are so scary-diabolical and they had these stories before, why would they wait to release them when they're pretty much guarenteed to only raise questions and suspicion? People want to assume these outlets are out to control our perception of current events any way they can...but then have no problem assuming they'd make as stupid a decision as this?

Because it's still all theory - Pinkerton brought forth the theory, and I think there is some truth to it, but it's unknown whether it's fact or fiction that the public is sick of these types of story. I suppose we'll find out on Tuesday, but part of why I think the theory has merit is because of all of the Clinton stories and also incidents such as the report of Bush's DWI charge that came out the weekend before the 2000 election.

But at any rate, what would the LA Times or like-minded media sources have to lose? Arnold looks like a lock to win. Might as well use any ammo still left in the gun.

You shouldn't just automatically bash and dismiss the news if you don't like the news. If that were the case, I'd have gone through at least 10,000 TV's at this point.

Indeed, but as I've kept bringing up, given a media source like the LA Times, even you would agree that at the least it's CONCEIVABLE that, given their political motives, something may be suspect here. You could say the same thing, to use another example, if on the eve of a key Democratic primary the Washington Times published a scandalous story about Howard Dean or Wesley Clark. Maybe it's coincidence, maybe there's something a bit more sinister present, but at the least you would take pause and consider whether the motives w

[Shecky]

Politics. Politics. Politics.

Later,
SHECKY

[TheMojoPin]

You could say the same thing, to use another example, if on the eve of a key Democratic primary the Washington Times published a scandalous story about Howard Dean or Wesley Clark. Maybe it's coincidence, maybe there's something a bit more sinister present, but at the least you would take pause and consider whether the motives were pure.

I think you and I are looking at the same kind of situation in two different ways. Yes, I WOULD expect a paper like the Washington "Slimes" (LOL!!!1111 OMG!!!11!11111 OMFG!!11111!!!) to be more likely to run with a story of that type...not because of something "sinister", but because of their typical political leanings they'd be more likely to actually pursue the story and give it attention. A news organization NOT inclined to the Times' political standpoint would probably not push too hard to find out what was going on...a LACK of effort would probably be made. So which is one any more or less "biased" or complacent than the other? How is pushing a story that supports your typical leaning any better/worse than purposely NOT pushing a story that goes against it?

And on a side note, why do people automatically dismiss newspapers and news channels because of their supposed "agendas"? It's not like you're getting the "fake news" or anything...just a different slant or angle. I watch Fox just as much as CNN or, read the WSJ just as much as the Washington Post. People act like they'll be "infected" by the other side just by daring to hear a perspective different from what they'd normally expect to hear. It's not like one side's news is so radically different from the other's.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

You could say the same thing, to use another example, if on the eve of a key Democratic primary the Washington Times published a scandalous story about Howard Dean or Wesley Clark. Maybe it's coincidence, maybe there's something a bit more sinister present, but at the least you would take pause and consider whether the motives were pure.

I think you and I are looking at the same kind of situation in two different ways. Yes, I WOULD expect a paper like the Washington "Slimes" (LOL!!!1111 OMG!!!11!11111 OMFG!!11111!!!) to be more likely to run with a story of that type...not because of something "sinister", but because of their typical political leanings they'd be more likely to actually pursue the story and give it attention. A news organization NOT inclined to the Times' political standpoint would probably not push too hard to find out what was going on...a LACK of effort would probably be made. So which is one any more or less "biased" or complacent than the other? How is pushing a story that supports your typical leaning any better/worse than purposely NOT pushing a story that goes against it?

I think it all harkens back to your comment about people feeling the media is deliberately trying to manipulate them.

I'm not entirely certain that there is a difference between two much reporting or two little, except perhaps the former seems to happen more than the latter, and is obviously more overt - and thus, in the minds of the public, perhaps more insidiously manipulative.

And on a side note, why do people automatically dismiss newspapers and news channels because of their supposed "agendas"? It's not like you're getting the "fake news" or anything...just a different slant or angle. I watch Fox just as much as CNN or, read the WSJ just as much as the Washington Post. People act like they'll be "infected" by the other side just by daring to hear a perspective different from what they'd normally expect to hear. It's not like one side's news is so radically different from the other's.

But that is the image that is presented - by both parties at least.

How many times has Fox News been blasted on this board?

How many times have I criticized the LA Times in this thread alone?

IDEALLY, the news is supposed to be unbiased; but that's not the world we live in, so all of us, to some extent, rip upon those media who don't share our particular ideals.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[carcass]

the " MEDIA" ...WHOEVER THAT IS [ smoking type guys on x files]...think we're all dolts.....they may be right cause we are lazy...most people vote by party line instead of really looking onto the candidate....its not wether arnie took a few liberties w/ his dates...[ he did]...so what...if it didnt come out right after the fact...it couldnt have been that tramatic for the broads

face down in the gutter
wont admit defeat
thou his clothes are soiled and black
he's a big strong man , w/ a childs mind
dont you take his booze away

[HBox]

IDEALLY, the news is supposed to be unbiased; but that's not the world we live in, so all of us, to some extent, rip upon those media who don't share our particular ideals.

We have to remember that these are PEOPLE reporting the news. As much as most news people try, they can't be compltely objective. Their ideologies undoubtedly affect them; to what extent, who knows? It depends on the source.

But when it comes to ratings, all ideologies are tossed aside. If there was some major sexual scandal involving President Bush, you have to believe every major network, including Fox News, would be all over it. That's what drives news these days; not informing the public or driving an political ideology, its selling papers or getting ratings.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[sr71blackbird]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031006/i/r1346780462.jpg

Arnolds accuser...yeeeeshhhh... Apparently, her storys falling apart.

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sr71-sig.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

[sr71blackbird]

http://00fun.com/wimg4/planetofthejackson.jpg

http://members.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/sr71-sig.gif

Many Thanks Soup!

[TheMojoPin]

It sure is! Even though Arnold admitted to it and everything! HOORAY!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."