"I Admired Hitler" - Schwarzenegger

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

That's 50% democratic, 33% republican and 16% mixed. Pretty far from 90% liberal.

Guys,

My assertion that 90% of journalists are "left of center" and "vote democrat" is based on the famous '92 and '96 Freedom Forum polls revealing that they voted 89% and 92% for Clinton respectively.

Saying that 90% are left of center is NOT the same as saying that 90% are liberal; however I will in the future be more careful about what I seem to imply on here. I do believe the admitted political leanings among journalists is more like this:

Liberal: 61%
Conservative: 15%
Other: 24%

These figures (or anything like them) are overwhemingly removed from those describing the general populace, and the result still bears my assertion that the liberal slant is moving them out of mainstream focus and toward irellevancy (much like the Democratic Party is doing overall lately ).

. . =(_8^(1)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

My assertion that 90% of journalists are "left of center" and "vote democrat" is based on the famous '92 and '96 Freedom Forum polls revealing that they voted 89% and 92% for Clinton respectively.

Of the 9.000 women polled, when asked whether they would have sex with Clinton, 84% said "never again". (Oh, just to clarify, the women were talking about Bill Clinton.)

[quade 4]

Gotta be careful about your sources.

The Media Research Center has been known to have a bit of a bias itself.

See http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4219

Quote

Right-wing foundations support four media monitoring organizations: Accuracy in Media, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and the Media Research Center. These organizations have the task of making sure that the media reflect conservative positions. These groups monitor what Americans see, hear, and read. They are quoted frequently and forcefully on a variety of topics.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jfields 0]

Quote

do believe the admitted political leanings among journalists is more like this:

So your "proof" is a website whose "About Us" page states:

Quote

Bringing Political Balance and Responsibility to the Media


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

Do you think you could find any more biased website? If honesty and impartiality don't mean anything, you can "prove" anything you want to, by your standards.

I could support the fact that blacks are inferior, by linking to the homepage of the Aryan Nation. (Not that I think that.)

Once again, do you have any proof? You haven't shown any so far. A self-admitted Conservative website pushing their own agenda doesn't count. Please try again.

[billvon 3,114]

>and the result still bears my assertion that the liberal slant is moving
> them out of mainstream focus and toward irellevancy (much like the
> Democratic Party is doing overall lately ).

If we had a true multi party system I'd agree. The democratic party would slide towards irrelevence and another party (say, the green party) would capture many of its votes. However, we have a two party system. Whenever one party has gotten out of touch, they have "reinvented" themselves by absorbing centrist positions of the other party; it's rare that a party just disappears, like the whig party did in the 1850's (although one could argue that then became the republican party; the other party in 1850 was the democrat-republican party.)

In a two party system, what each party stands for keeps changing. Shortly after the Civil War, the democratic party was the party of the Southern plantation owners; the republican party was the party of freedom and tolerance, the party of "anything's possible in America."

The republicans held a position of leadership for about 60 years, during which time they turned into a laissez-faire, anti-immigrant, small-government party. Then the Great Depression hit, and the people of the US turned to the democratic party, a party that believed in government work projects and economic intervention to haul the country out of the depression.

Since then, the parties have adjusted with the times. Anti-communism, led by McCarthy, worked well for the republicans until the fall of the USSR; anti-terrorism (and to some degree anti-islam) seems to be taking its place. McCarthy speeches are eerily similar to modern republican's speeches on terrorism. The republicans, once a champion of small government, are now presiding over the most rapid expansion of government since the 1930's. The republicans are also beginning to absorb some of the democrat's positions, such as environmentalism and racial tolerance. This has hurt the democrats, who are losing the 'center' of their party to the republicans.

Within a few years, look for the democrats to start reaching out to this center again. It wouldn't suprise me to see some basic changes - the democrats may become the party of smaller government, for example, to give an attractive option to the trillions spent on new security departments, wars, and inspection teams.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Please try again.

So you both choose to ignore the Freedom Forum polls? Ok . . .

If you guys want to wear the heavy duty blinders required to blot out seeing any liberal bias in traditional media, go right ahead. There is no "proof" that can make you see otherwise.

So, I will revise my use of the "proof" term to something like "my opinion, supported by millions of small data points and evidence scattered generously accross the American intellectual landscape".

. . =(_8^(1)

[Deuce 1]

Q, I'm replying to you just cause I like you, nothing specific that you've said.

BillVon, your definition of Liberal included something about being free from bigotry, which is holding on to a belief in the face of contradictory facts.

I would hold that extremists of either spectrum are bigoted. That is, embrace negative aspects of the "enemy" (right or left) until an avalanche of evidence proves the initial belief untrue, or misguided.

The relish with which any negative information regarding a candidate is embraced defines that person as an extremist in my book.

So anybody who shouts "look at X!, he holds this opinion, did this thing, associated with this person, and is unsuitable, prove me wrong" is an extremist in my book.

Clinton didn't inhale.
Bushlette flew Phantoms in Texas instead of DaNang
Davis's wife is a beard
Schwarzenneger screwed everything that moved on every movie set he ever stood on.

Whatever.

Taxes, education, immigration, social interference by government. That's all I really care about.

A nice ex-priest who is a pre-surgical trans-sexual with the right answers and credibility gets my vote.

But until then, can't we all just get along?

[quade 4]

Quote

So you both choose to ignore the Freedom Forum polls? Ok . . .

Show me the actual, current and relevant data directly from the Freedom Forum unfiltered by the MRC and I'll consider it!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Whenever one party has gotten out of touch, they have "reinvented" themselves by absorbing centrist positions of the other party;

Bill, I totally agree with your appraisal of how the two party-system works, and I'll add on that I think it's a good thing. If one or the other party were to dominate politics and government, we'd have a real mess on our hands.

I, as one who leans to the right, appreciate the tug of war that goes on between liberal and conservative, and I appreciate many of the things liberals have accomplished. I am glad I am not working 60-70 hours a week for bread money, as is what was going on before the turn-of-the-century "liberals" fought for change.

Man, I could go on and on, but my point is that I think the system we have is great -- nothing else can produce the most reasonable changes amongst such a diverse population.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,114]

>I would hold that extremists of either spectrum are bigoted.

I agree.

>So anybody who shouts "look at X!, he holds this opinion, did this
> thing, associated with this person, and is unsuitable, prove me
> wrong" is an extremist in my book.

I disagree. People who think that the Unabomber is evil are not extremists. He _is_ evil. Similarly, people who think that Nixon abused his power are not extremists. However, people who hate everything any republican or democrat does, based purely on their political affiliation, would be an extremist.

>Taxes, education, immigration, social interference by government.
>That's all I really care about.

I agree, but would also suggest that a candidate's previous actions, rather than his words, are the best indicators of what he will do on these topics in the future. All the words in the world don't count as much as a single action. (Note that this approach casts both Davis and Arnold in a negative light.)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Show me the actual, current and relevant data directly from the Freedom Forum unfiltered by the MRC and I'll consider it!

I can't seem to work FF's search engine very well.

BUT, a well constructed google search will yield many, many references to the polls. Surely one of the referring sources will be credible enough for you to believe.

. . =(_8^(1)

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I agree, but would also suggest that a candidate's previous actions, rather than his words, are the best indicators of what he will do on these topics in the future.

So we can count on Arnold getting some while in the White House? Oh well, at least nailing interns isn't against the law.

Our country needs to think in terms of international esteem. Do you think Saddam does homely chicks? I hope that he is planning on getting some Hollywood talent instead of the Monica type.

Since this is an accepted morality "flaw", maybe we could do a "Star Search" type program? Or "Who wants to do the President?" Reality tv? "12 interns living at the White House... who will be the lucky girls?"

[Deuce 1]

The unibomber example is a good one. When the evidence came to first light here's the point I'm making.

The unibomber did it. The evidence was overwhelming.

Extremists hang him then and there.

The rest of us are content that he is in custody and await the results of the full investigation, and accept the verdict of the jury.

That's me.

Rush has been accused by his ex-housekeeper, who is admittedly a drug dealer, in the National Enquirer, of illegally buying prescriptions drugs.

Extremists have gleefully shouted "look at that hypocritical son of a bitch! All hoity toity about being law abiding and he was buying percocet and oxycontin!

I'll wait for the investigation. I'll be disappointed in him if it's true, just like I was with Favre, who clobbered my niners with some regularity.

I just don't take joy in others failures. I admit I like to crush my enemies, but I have a track record of not beating up criminals who tried to shoot me with my own pistol.

That's maybe why I think this bullying in the intellectual arena is so petty.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Judge a person by their actions not their words.

Why are you guys so up in arms about what Arnold "may" have said but silent about Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd who used to run around with a sheet over him.

Nope, no double standard here.

[Gravitymaster 0]

And then there's this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/national/04BOOK.html?ex=1065844800&en=a7a8774de32aec11&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Gawain 0]

IIRC, one of the journalists involved in this "headliner" lost a libel suit in the UK when Schwarzeneggar was accused of being a Nazi sympathizer just a few years ago.

Sloppy work...this is what happens when journalists stop reporting and start trying to "add perspective"...when I want their perspective, I'll give it to them...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Clearly! But even after I pointed it out to him, his eyes couldn't see it.

Thats just because I didn't know what you were really trying to say, I thought you were trying to say you didn't post what you did. I hadn't realized (until I was fairly confused and read back through the entire thread to find it) that I had posted the wrong copy and paste.

Hey, shit happens, even to an uber-geek.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jose 0]

Why don't you and Billvon go have sex already.


















[quiet voice] Did I just say that? [quiet voice]


























*Holds up long metal rod in the middle of a field during lightning storm*


Edited for spacial effect.

[encinoadam 0]

Funny how all these years, no one ever had anything bad to say about Arnold. Now, all of a sudden, the democrats who were so disgruntled about the "fairness" of the Clinton probe are now going to be critical?

If Arnold did anything, he did it 25 years ago. Clinton did what he did while IN OFFICE. How many of you have nothing to be ashamed of as you were growing up? And, the story breaks just DAYS before the election? Interesting.

Well, he has my vote. He's a good man. If he were a creep, we would have heard about it WAY before now. We hear way less severe allegations against way lesser known people all the time. If there were any substance to this, we'd have known about it before now. People ought to feel ashamed for dragging a good man's name through the mud.

Perfect example of taking stuff out of context. During the debate, Arnold said he had the perfect role for Huffington in T4. She takes that comment and publicly interprets it to mean that he wanted to slam her, a female, into a toilet. Um, ok. Can you say INSANITY??

Arnold is already worth tens, if not hundred of millions of dollars. The only reason he is running, and dealing with all of this BS, is to help improve California. And for that, we attack him.

That's just great.

[akarunway 1]

BULLSHIT. He has money now he wants power

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[miked10270 0]

ZZzzzzzzzz........

Who else thinks that this thread is now lacking in either a lock or Boobies?

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Who else thinks that this thread is now lacking in either a lock or Boobies?

Yea I agree . . . we sure don't need people discussing the issues or sharing their opinions around here!

Anything beyond "Poll: Which breakfast cereal do you prefer?" or "I'm wearing pants, you?" is unecessary and best kept to yourself, thank you!

. . =(_8^(1)

[encinoadam 0]

Quote

BULLSHIT. He has money now he wants power

Despite ANY actual facts or evidence, that is all the anti-Arnold campaign can do; name call, make up "facts," and in general, say anything they have to in order to prevent him from winning.

Facts:
1) Arnold had a good name before this campaign.
2) People are suddenly "surfacing" to bad-mouth Arnold.
3) There have been no reports of Arnold being power-hungry.
4) If Arnold was power hungry, surely he would have plenty of it on any movie set he worked on. He's rich and he is famous. That IS power around here. He doesn't need to run for office to get it.

Opinions:
1) People must be pretty frightened that Arnold is going to win, in that they are going to such great lengths to ensure it does not happen.
2) All the press will simply help Arnold. People like me are just that much more determined to help him win.
3) If people would just give him a chance, he could do some really amazing things with California.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Of the 9.000 women polled, when asked whether they would have sex with Clinton, 84% said "never again". (Oh, just to clarify, the women were talking about Bill Clinton.)

and one of them was Sen. Hillary lol

[billvon 3,114]

> Funny how all these years, no one ever had anything bad to say about Arnold.

Standards are different for an actor and a governor. Actors, in general, don't change state laws. Do you care if the guy who lives three doors down from you gets drunk every afternoon on his patio? How about a pilot flying the plane you're riding in? Different situations, different standards.

>Perfect example of taking stuff out of context. During the debate, Arnold
> said he had the perfect role for Huffington in T4. She takes that
>comment and publicly interprets it to mean that he wanted to slam her,
> a female, into a toilet. Um, ok. Can you say INSANITY??

Well, he said exactly that - that in terminator 3, it was awesome that he got to stick a woman's head in the toilet. How often do you get to do that? (he asked rhetorically.) His own words. Is he insane?

>Arnold is already worth tens, if not hundred of millions of dollars. The
> only reason he is running, and dealing with all of this BS, is to help
>improve California. And for that, we attack him.

So rich politicial candidates want to help California; poor ones are just trying to make money? That's a stretch.

But it's really up to the people here. If they want an action hero as governor they can choose that. And if they do, they will deserve the leadership they receive.