Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 4, 2003.
Schwarzenegger sure isn't the one to complain about "gotcha journalism tactics," considering his long history of playing "gotcha" with women's private parts.
Oh, for the love of God. It was ALL like 20 - 30 years ago! People need to get a friggin life. The talk show Dr. Said that he rubbed her legs under the table, and she thought it was playful because she was asking him tough questions.
If this **** was legit, people should have opened their mouths over 20 years ago. Otherwise. They need to shut up, sit down, and mind their own business.
I said the same thing about the women that came out against Clinton btw.
I thought I read that the incidents were as recent as the year 2000.
Yes, a couple of people were in the late 90's and 2000's. So what. Why did they not say something when it happened? They have no credibility. NONE!
This crap makes me very mad. If someone does something to a woman, she should say something then, and if she chooses not to, then it is her damn fault, and she should shut her mouth about it for the rest of her life.
How do we know it is true? How do we know it isn't political?
L A times is so pro democratic its almost shameful, this crap has to stop if we are going to get top people instead of top politicians. special interest has screwed california for years and america to.
i've done some work in the film industry as a sound recordist. not on anything major, but one does get a feel for how things work.
i can totally see why a lowly PA or what have you would precisely not make a stink about it. it would draw negative attention to yourself and there's a good chance you wouldn't get any work anymore.
it's BS, yes, but in some sense one must do everything they can to get ahead, which very much includes not making waves. accusing the film's star of unwanted advances would not play well during production, certainly, and may damage your career later.
bttm, you may question the timing, of course. but i think all these women, emboldened by the sheer numbers now saying something, simply want the CA public to know what sort of guy they're about to vote for.
I hope this signals a reevaluation on the part of a lot of people. I'm afraid it won't be enough and we will all end up with IJ in the town of "laughingstock." In our never ceasing chase of celebrity we will go so far as to elect this incompetent fool as governor. Ah, three years of movie lines passing as leadership - I can't wait.
Same with rape, right?
You know, women feel powerless enough. Then the highest paid actor in the world comes along and creeps her out by fondling her. She's a lowly staffer, trying to make ends meet. Is she going to upset the apple cart? Or keep her mouth shut and keep her job? BTW, women have told him about his behaviour to his face. "If I were a man, I'd bust your jaw," and he laughed at her.
Did you read the piece? It was thoroughly researched and verified. Different people verified the same stories in separate interviews, etc.
It took quite some time to ensure they had all the facts verifiable enough to be published. That would explain the timing. I'm sure if they'd not gone about fact-checking, a tabloid-depth version of the story could have been out six weeks ago, but then it would be immediately discredited. The LAT wanted to make sure they'd got it right.
Aw, well, Sayhey, it won't be any worse than the last 30 or so years...
As someone who has been critical of every Governor since Reagan, I'd say this is a new low.
As of today, the accusers now number 15, but it looks like Schwarzenegger will allowed to skate no matter how many people report personal experience with his outrageously boorish behavior towards women. To make matters worse, the Schwarzenegger campaign now is shamelessly lying about the sources of these stories.
As zim says, the reason they're speaking out now is very simple - he's standing for political office now!
No matter how lowly politicians have become in the public's opinion, I would hope you would agree that a Governor, Senator, etc, should be bound my a different moral and ethical code than, say, an actor.
The reason? They are making the goddamn laws!
I've been looking for evidence, one way or the other, about whether the L.A. Times has an agenda to favor one candidate over another. Proving the adage that "good news isn't news", they have run articles in the past months about the failings of each of the major candidates, and the governor too. They started the sexual misbehavior investigation seven weeks ago. To their credit, they waited until they could verify the information, and published the following day. However, they do admit that they initiated the investigation in the first place by calling women who had worked with Schwarzenegger, i.e., they went looking for trouble and found it.
They didn't have to "go looking." Schwarzenegger's boorish behavior towards women was well known in the entertainment biz, and had been written about before. The Times followed up the story to verify if it was true. This is the journalist's job.
On either Thursday or Friday of last week, the Times ran a front-page article, right next to the Schwarzenegger story, about how Cruz Bustamonte has difficultly connecting with audiences because of his dull demeanor. I didn't hear anybody howling like stuck pigs over that story, though it also came just days before the election. Can we say "double standard?" I knew we could.
The theory being floated by the Schwarzenegger campaign that the Times is working for Davis is not only poppycock, it's poppycock of the worst kind. They're trying to fuzz the issue just long enough to get Schwarzenegger elected.
and i think his delayed annoucement that he was running was part of the ploy. this is a shortened election process w/o a lot of scrutiny. you can bet handlers calculated how long he could ride his celebrity high and planned based on that.
I agree completely. they are all media whores.
Really? I would think Schwarzenegger would be the one slapped with the term "media whore."
And besides, most of the women only gave their stories after assurances that they'd remain anonymous.
Did you even read the LAT article?
please enjoy this site:
I've read each of the articles, including those about the negative reaction from many readers. (Two people quoted in the Times even said they were switching to vote for Schwarzenegger because of their distaste over the articles.)
I get the feeling that, with this report coming so late in the campaign, people who were planning to vote for Schwarzenegger are claiming that the women are lying, that the newspaper is trying to stop him, that the Democratic party is behind it, that it's all in the past, that his apology solved the problem, that the women should be ignored because they didn't speak out sooner, that "boys will be boys" on a movie studio set, that we can trust Maria Shriver, and that such behavior is not a reason he can't be a good governor, while the people who were planning not to vote for him are saying they believe the women, that the newspaper's reporting methods were proper, that the Times has no agenda, that some of these are recent events that occurred outside of the movie studio, that Schwarzenegger has not been honest, that this behavior has never been acceptable, that Maria is fooling herself, and that "character" is quite relevant.
In other words, your opinion about the Times article is not based on facts concerning the purported revelations, but on how you want the election to come out.
lol thanks for the link zim...
what?! that's absolutely retarded.
1. if the allegations are true, they've switched their vote to a serial molester
2. if the allegations aren't true, they've switched their votes away from a candidate who hasn't done anything to lose them
why punish a candidate you support because of something a newspaper reported on another candidate?
Well, that takes the Cynical Observation Award for this year, and it's only October.
So, you seem to be saying, nobody is capable of comprehension and evaluation, only prejudice and politics?
I said "I get the feeling that", not that I'm sure about this. But I would expect that people who took an unbiased look at this issue would voice a mixture of support for, and suspicions about, each side's claims, rather than the all-one-side or all-the-other-side conclusions that the people I hear/read about are espousing.
(I do realize that the people I hear/read about have been selected for me by either the candidates or the news media, so it's not really the voices of John Q. Voter and Mary Q. Voter.)
Said another way: I hear more people saying, in essence, "I'm right, shut up!" instead of "Well, let's look over these claims objectively", and that's too bad if it is a sign that people don't want to know any facts that might challenge their previous views of the candidate or the journalists.
At some point, objective analysis goes out the window, and for me it happened when Schwarzenegger essentially admitted that he'd done some of these things, while at the same time, continues to claim that he can't remember all of the incidents. Huh?
Truth is, he's trying to have it both ways. Another dirty little secret of this campaign is Schwarzenegger's appeal to men who actually approve of how he degrades women. We've even seen it here, in an earlier thread on the campaign, where he was saluted for "what he did" to Ariana Huffington at the debate. (Assuming our memories need refreshing, he shouted over her often and then alluded to shoving her head in a toilet -- all to applause, not gasps of horror.)
The time for objective analysis is past. We know his attitudes, he's as much as admitted them, and is even trading on them. The question before us now is whether this confessed misogynist is fit for office.