 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
oh Ned...
interestingly, outside of Rushlimbaugh.com and other right-wing Web sites, none of Arnold's mainstream defenders mention Broaddrick by name
Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey claimed their contact with Clinton wasn't consensual, but there was plenty of evidence to contradict them.
the ugly Broaddrick charge, which no one has ever proven
The hypocrites are Republicans who impeached a president over his sex life, but now try to argue that Schwarzenegger's shouldn't matter
CG 
Ned  |
And, oh yes, the LA Times said the reason it delayed publication to the eve of the election was that it was vetting the facts over the last several weeks. That was with six women. However, since Friday, it has trumpeted an additional nine, obviously vetting their stories within hours.
Saint Marcus, do you really believe that a women would volunteer to be molested when her husband is so distraught that he commits suicide on the same day and she goes to the president to ask for help? What do you think about women?
Did the girl in the Kobe case consent to rape by going into his hotel room? Did Paula Jones?
Had the LA Times come forward with the Broaddrick story before the 1992 election, Clinton would not have been elected. That is why they did not publish the story then. They only publish dirt on the eve of an election when Republicans are running.
Not only is the LA Times guilty of a double-standard, they are shameless about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
So what do you consider a quality newspaper. You're already discounting two of the three big ones. Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times.
what do you think of the Washington Post?
Secondly, since you seem to be very anti-Clinton...do you think Arnie should be a governor, after his sexual misconduct? |
Only one who condemned Clinton has a right to comment on Arnie.
Arnie's behavior is boorish, indeed. We should never elect a man that exhibits that kind of behavior because we would in effect be condoning it. However, I will still vote for Arnie later today because he acknowledged his bad behavior and has apologized. His wife enthusiatically supports his character as well.
Clinton, in contrast, never apologized for his behavior, not even to his wife, it appears. More, he attempted to smear any of the women who accused him. Finally, anyone who accused him promptly had their private employee information leaked to the public and were audited by the IRS. Abuse of power?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
After what the LA Times has done I will never buy anther one of their papers untill things change over there. It is like they are on the Davis beat the recall campagin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Why wasn't Davis investigated too?
By Jill Stewart
I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.
Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.
It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.
Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.
Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.
Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.
I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.
Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?
I have no idea.
Or, could she be telling the truth?
I have no idea.
And neither does the Los Angeles Times.
If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:
Here's my proof:
Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.
I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.
The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.
He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.
He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."
Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.
The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"'
After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.
Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.
Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.
Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?
Nobody.
The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,...l?search=filter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I'm not dishing at Arnie supporters here. Just people who think Clinton should have been impeached for unproven allegations, while Arnie should be elected dispite of unproven allegations. People like Ned here. |
As I recall he was never impeached for rape or other sex crimes. He was impeached for lying under oath in about his relation ship with Monoca.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-10-2003 21:17
Yeah, right. 
He's not the type.
|