Schwarzenegger

[lawrocket 3]

Quade:

I must respectfully disagree. Schwartzenegger has been greatly involved in California politics for a number of years. Remember Prop. 49? Schwartzenegger was the driving force. He's behind a whole lot of things, but just isn't the publicity hound of, say, a Rob Reiner or Martin Sheen.

Most of the Hollywood scene would give you the shirt off of their back, so long as the press was there to cover it. Arnold works and donates, mainly behind the scenes.

He's been exceedingly active in California politics for over a decade. That's why I said in my previous post that he is not an outsider. He knows everybody, and everybody knows him. He knows the system. He knows how to use it.

Furthermore, he is a business man. He's got more money and power now than ever. How did he avoid the plight of MC Hammer? By prudent investment and business dealings. He is smart, slick, and shrewd.

Arnold is an interesting thought. And I'm sure he wants people to underestimate him. It can only work in his favor.

Edited to add: I may yet write in Sebazz!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[evilivan 0]

Hold on, Hold on! Reagan won the cold war??!? I think if any credit has got to be given (and thats a VERY moot point), the Soviets LOST the cold war - nobody won it.................

And...... Arnie?!? As a politician?!?!!?! Have you ever listened to the guy?? Man, he is appalling at delivering someone else's lines, never mind his own.

Small print: political systems are pretty phucked up, so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

"If you can keep your head when all around you have lost theirs, then you probably haven't understood the seriousness of the situation."
David Brent

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

Yeah I know. And in that time not only would I have to act uninterested, I'd have to fend off guys like you.

The soviet system would have collapsed with or without the gipper. It was a poor system destined to fail. No one diserves cedit for its collapse other than the Communists themselves.

[quade 3]

Quote

How did he avoid the plight of MC Hammer?

By not having a huge entourage.

THAT was Hammer's downfall. He was bleeding cash because was "sharing the wealth" a little too much. An admirable goal, but it can only go so far.

Schwartzenegger is no more and no less a talking head than Sheen or Reiner. People, mostly Reps, come to fund raisers to see him -- not so much to hear what he has to actually say, which is not much.

Quote

He's been exceedingly active in California politics for over a decade.

Yeah, fund raising, but that's about it. He has never held any office or managed any company including his own.

I will say that he probably is qualified to try to become "Mr. California", but certainly not Governor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I'll agree with you on your points. Schwartzenegger is at functions mainly for fundraising and for people to "hear" or see.

Nevertheless, it is indeed difficult to imagine how a person can rub shoulders with the political elite for ten years and not learn a thing or two.

One thing is for sure: It'll be interesting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

One thing is for sure: It'll be interesting.

And sad.

And, I'm going to admit defeat right now, because he probably will win even if it is for all the wrong reasons.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

And sad. And, I'm going to admit defeat right now, because he probably will win even if it is for all the wrong reasons.

And this is different from any other election HOW?

[lawrocket 3]

You're falling victim! If Ahnold merely does a bad job, he'll have done better than expected in your eyes.

Maybe I won't write in Sebazz. I'll write in Paul Quade.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

I believe that there have been a few good elections in the past. Elections won by both Democrats and Republicans. Candidates that had a vision of the future, a plan to get to there and the charisma to inspire people to follow both them and their plan.

Some of our elected officials have stumbled in the past, but have quickly learned from those mistakes and gone on to greater accomplishments.

These are the types of leaders I want to see. Unafraid to take on new challenges even at personal, public and political risk so long as they have the vision, plan and action to inspire the people to become greater.

It is possible.

It has happened in the past.

I just don't see it happening in the near future.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Steel 0]

Quote

>Look at Reagan. He was just an actor and he went on to become the best President of all times . . .

The president who funded Al Qaeda and gave us the Contra scandal and John Poindexter. If those are pluses in your book, I suppose he's right up there with Nixon as one of our best.

---------------------------------------------------------
Funded Al Queda, I don't think that is a new one. The Iran/Contra scandal was because the Democrats would not let him help the Contras in Nicaragua who were fighting to save Nicaragua from Communism.
As it turns out Israel sold arms to the Iranians. They did this mostly because they knew Iran was at war with Iraq and Iraq posed a greater threat to Israel. A portion of this money went to help the Contras (anti-communists of Nicaragua). When Democrats got wind of men in Reagans staff promoting this, they went insane. See to them diverting money to communist rebels was cause for a constitutional crisis.
Don't even get me started on Nixon. Reagan was the best for the same reason that Arnold could be great, because of his combination of intellect integrity and Charissma. If you took Charissma out of the picture then Nixon would have been the best. Democrats have been after him ever since he outed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy in 1950. I must say Democrats have done a good job in tarnishing Nixon's name for the guy was among the cleanest of all presidents. It freaks me out when I hear references to Watergate. Most people don't even know what it is. After Kennedy stole the 1960 election from him, he did a little spying to try to keep that from happening again. But for Christ sake think about file gate. Clinton pulling up 900 FBI files including a very significant number of prominant Republican politicians simply so he could pull up dirt on them. No I am sorry to attack Nixon is just absurd. And I do hold a great deal of respect for Nixon.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[quade 3]

Quote

After Kennedy stole the 1960 election from him . . .

It -was- close, but certainly not stolen. Certainly not any more so than say, GWB v. Gore.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/elections/1960/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

And sad.

Oh, no worse then Jesse Ventura taking Minnesota...

Anyways, here's what prompted me to ask. Compare and contrast.

The globe is a national paper in Canada, traditionally seen right of center.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on Nixon in many ways. I'll grant that Nixon's foreign policy was brilliant. But his domestic policy and economic package was just silly. Price controls on fuel, etc, did not do much to keep America humming. his domestic policies were, ahem, misguided.

And Nixon was not exactly a clean guy. What he did with Watergate was wrong. He covered up for his boys when they did wrong when he should have done the noble thing. The only difference betwen him and Clinton in this regard is that Clinton sent out his people to cover him.

Nixon redeemed himself somewhat in his later years. But he was not a great man.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Hey I liked Jessie. I didn't always agree with his decisions. But I always knew what he was doing.

[billvon 2,467]

>Funded Al Queda, I don't think that is a new one.

You are correct. It's 20+ years old at this point. We discovered a side effect of his funding of the Mujahideen in September of 2001.

>The Iran/Contra scandal was because the Democrats would not let him
> help the Contras in Nicaragua who were fighting to save Nicaragua from
> Communism.

I don't much care what the reason was. He violated US law, concealed and destroyed evidence and deliberately lied to congress. Is that OK only when republicans do it?

> If you took Charissma out of the picture then Nixon would have been the best.

And the small fact that he was a criminal who abused the power of his office to undermine a presidential election. Which is like saying that Milosevic was one of the best leaders of the 20th century except for the genocide and stuff.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah I know. And in that time not only would I have to act uninterested, I'd have to fend off guys like you.

The soviet system would have collapsed with or without the gipper. It was a poor system destined to fail. No one diserves cedit for its collapse other than the Communists themselves.

-----------------------------------------
So I guess Reagans speech in 1987 at the Berlin Wall had nothing to do with the fact that the wall came down in 1989.
By the way Reagan had everything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. If you would like I can give you a list of all the countries that the Soviet Union took over since 1919. The fact is they never had a good economy because Communism has never done anything but destroy economies. However you can easily tell the difference by looking at when there was a Democrat president (McKinnly, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter) how the Soviet Union took over more countries and when there was a Republican (Hoover, Eisnehower, Nixon, Reagan) they would not be able to take more countries. And with Reagan they lost everything.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Oh, no worse then Jesse Ventura taking Minnesota...

much better than what they have now.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

After Kennedy stole the 1960 election from him . . .

It -was- close, but certainly not stolen. Certainly not any more so than say, GWB v. Gore.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/elections/1960/

--------------------------------------------
No it was stolen. In the city of Chicago alone 17,000 votes were registered by dead people as voting for Kennedy. The mayor of Chicago went so far as to watch people into the voting booths to make sure they voted for Kennedy.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,467]

> By the way Reagan had everything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Kennedy of course did nothing; I'm sure preventing the USSR from putting missiles in Cuba without starting a world war was a non-event. Or perhaps you have a reason that republicans actually did that, while Kennedy just took credit?

[Steel 0]

And the small fact that he was a criminal who abused the power of his office to undermine a presidential election. Which is like saying that Milosevic was one of the best leaders of the 20th century except for the genocide and stuff.


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

He was a criminal for what reason because he was involved in a little spying? What about Kennedy stealing an election? What about Clinton and filegate? Lets not forget perjury or Whitewater.
How could you compare spying to make sure an injustice is not done on to you AGAIN to ethnic cleansing?

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Steel 0]

Quote

> By the way Reagan had everything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union.

And Kennedy of course did nothing; I'm sure preventing the USSR from putting missiles in Cuba without starting a world war was a non-event. Or perhaps you have a reason that republicans actually did that, while Kennedy just took credit?

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

That is hilarious Kennedy letting Cuba go communist and turning his back on the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs. Little do you know my family is among the Cubans who Kennedy sacrificed. Incase you don't know Nixon would have saved Cuba completely but Kennedy took us down on the negociating table. Instead of it being about saving Cuba it became about taking our missiles out of Turkey which were there pointed toward the Soviets.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 2,467]

>He was a criminal for what reason because he was involved in a little spying?

He was a criminal because five people working for him were arrested for spying, he destroyed evidence, he was impeached for his role in the crime, he resigned rather than face a successful impeachment, and he later publically accepted a pardon for his crimes from the president who replaced him.

[Steel 0]

Quote

>He was a criminal for what reason because he was involved in a little spying?

He was a criminal because five people working for him were arrested for spying, he destroyed evidence, he was impeached for his role in the crime, he resigned rather than face a successful impeachment, and he later publically accepted a pardon for his crimes from the president who replaced him.

-------------------------------------------------------
He resigned because he preferred not to put the country under the embarassment that Bill Clinton would later do. He was hounded by the liberal media in every possible way. He didn't have the accomplices that Bill Clinton had in the media to help him out. I guess you think its better to have Soviet Spies crawling all over your staff as FDR and Truman had. Oh well

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

[replyHe was a criminal because five people working for him were arrested for spying, he destroyed evidence, he was impeached for his role in the crime

[billvon 2,467]

Guide to being a radical right winger:

We all know how much easier it would be if everyone would just "get with the program" and see things like Rush Limbaugh. The real world is so messy; shades of gray, murky facts, even (gasp!) some republicans who don't seem 100% good.

What to do? The easiest thing is just to take the facts and interpret them based on who they apply to; that way there are no annoying shades of gray. For example, take these incidents:

A president lies to Congress.

If he's a Democrat: He's a lying criminal who should be impeached!
If he's a Republican: He was just trying to do the right thing in the face of foolish Congressional opposition.

A president prevents World War III.

Democrat: He was a coward who turned his back on the issue.
Republican: He's a hero who saved the western world.

A president funds terrorists.

Democrat: He is as big a threat as the terrorists themselves.
Republican: That's old news; there's no way to know what those people will do anyway.

A president is impeached.

Democrat: He is an embarrassement to the country.
Republican: He is an honorable man unfairly slighted by the evil investigators.

A president starts a war that ends badly.

Democrat: He's a monster who killed thousands of innocent people.
Republican: Hey! He's defending democracy against the commies/the terrorists/the evil empire/the evil guys du jour.

A president wins an election under questionable circumstances.

Democrat: He was a criminal who stole the election.
Republican: Hey! The people have spoken! You got a problem with democracy?

A president wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Democrat: That stupid committee doesn't know anything.
Republican: (doesn't apply)

See? If you just find out what side of the fence they're on first, you can easily avoid confusing and depressing gray areas of opinion.