PDA

View Full Version : Arnold smoking pot, drinking and not giving a F?



GonePostal
08-27-2003, 08:18 PM
Dude.... Dude...? Can you be mr. olympia and party hard?

http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/arnoldinter1.html

GonePostal
08-27-2003, 08:20 PM
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/arnoldoui1.html
Orgies? Protien shake with whiskey? Crazy stuff??? Someone tell me this is fake...

JD77
08-27-2003, 08:23 PM
Wow. That second link is something else!

BCC
08-27-2003, 08:46 PM
Heh, sweet.

SquareHead
08-27-2003, 08:51 PM
*snicker

If you read that with an Arnold voice over in your head it's 10x's better.

IronFist
08-27-2003, 08:53 PM
That was one hell of an interview.

The woman gang bang story was funny as hell to read about.

Scott S
08-27-2003, 08:59 PM
Hmm... interesting articles. Funny how the things you say in articles never actually go away, huh? ;)

Berserker
08-27-2003, 09:20 PM
Be interesting to see what happens, Arnold is not a typical politician. California is probably not a typical state. Going to depend on the voter. I wasn't offended, but some people will be.

On another note I think everybody here without a life outside the gym should read.
Whisky and protein party? He was probably being cocky. I hope.

Big o Boy
08-27-2003, 11:25 PM
haha... he's the man.

JD77
08-27-2003, 11:41 PM
We'll be hearing about it on CNN in no time.

chris mason
08-28-2003, 12:06 PM
Arnold is real. He freely admits what he has done and said in the past. I like that. Most other politicians lie like mofos about their past etc., I don't like that.

MixmasterNash
08-28-2003, 01:54 PM
Geez, what do you think everyone in California was doing in '79? It's California for crying out loud. They'll either elect Arnold because he's one of them, or reject him 'cause the don't want to remember.

LAM
08-28-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Arnold is real. He freely admits what he has done and said in the past. I like that. Most other politicians lie like mofos about their past etc., I don't like that.

I agree. Arnold even stated that he didn't live his life to be a politician, it is just someting that happend along the way.

aidano
08-28-2003, 02:11 PM
"The one thing that won't work on the screen is my being an ass-kicker"

Well that certainly went to plan...

lick
08-28-2003, 05:03 PM
yeah, he should "play the victim"?

and i think its funny how honest he is about the gangbang and head at the olympia.

Berserker
08-28-2003, 05:25 PM
He was honest about it back in 77. He probably wouldn't have brought it up on his own.

Scott S
08-28-2003, 07:25 PM
During my workout tonight, I caught a CNN clip on one of the TVs in front of the cardio machines: "His Past: Do We Really Want to Know?"

Sounds like he's got nothing to worry about. :D

Stephen Riddington
08-29-2003, 12:36 AM
IMDB has reported the article in its daily news.

ChrisH
08-29-2003, 05:26 AM
The second article was just quotes frm the first but repeated and put in a more shocking context. The first one was cool though, i'd vote for him :D

Sinep
08-29-2003, 08:31 AM
Arnold is da man... I think more of him after reading this article

Joe Black
08-29-2003, 09:30 AM
Me too.

Lets face it if we could all get away with living the lifestyle he lived back then AND looking so damn great, wed all be happy.

Well, I would ;)

Berserker
08-29-2003, 10:50 AM
I would do/done everything excpet the whiskey and protein powder. Maybe a white russian and protein powder. Gatoraid, vodka and creatine would be good too.

Wu36
08-29-2003, 10:54 AM
Vote Arnold.

Avatar
08-29-2003, 04:07 PM
I'd vote for a man like that.

Saturday Fever
08-29-2003, 04:17 PM
So you'd vote for a guy who doesn't really have views on anything because he admits he said something that was already documented as proof? That makes sense.

This is the root of all that is wrong with politics and voters in America. Nobody knows jack **** about the candidates, but they will freely vote blindly on political party affiliation or name recognition. When you vote like that, you deserve everything you get.

chris mason
08-29-2003, 07:16 PM
Or the problem could be that the whole political system as we know it is so rampant with incompetent people, or people who don't know **** (as you put it), that to pick a man who has had nothing but stellar success at anything he has pursued in his adult life would be the absolute best move and people like yourself who listen to the naysayers will not vote for him because he doesn't play the political game in quite the normal fashion (i.e. state his stance to get voted in and then completely reverse it later when special interests bend his ears).

What I am saying is make a salient point, don't just regurgitate what you have heard in the media. What Arnold says about his beliefs now is quite irrelevant to me. What people say before they are elected must be taken with a grain of salt because they are trying to appeal to as many people as they can in order to get elected. It is what they do after that is important. What they have done in their life prior to aspiring to political office is also important. Arnold came from nothing to be the greatest bodybuilder that ever lived (arguably) and then the top box office draw of his day. He has been #1 in any field he has chosen. Why should we believe he will be anything other than the best governor ever if history and what he has done in the past is any indicator?

;)

Just food for thought.

Majestic
08-29-2003, 08:35 PM
Arnold is not unlike Bush, in that he would do nothing short of surround himself with the most competent people possible.

Period.

Who isn't "attracted" to the office of Arnold?

He's a humant magnet....a born leader.

It matters not who our president is. What counts is his cabinet.

The world isn't mean to be "equal". There are ALWAYS going to be people cleaning tables, and mopping floors. And abusing wellfare systems.

I don't see Arnold accomodating those who don't work hard to earn what they achieve, or at least use some sort of moxie.

George W. Bush is much more clever than many give him credit for. He's a bad......no.........terrible public speaker. But he would outright ground your a** into the floor if came to a contest of "Who Can Surround Himself With The World's Brightest People".

Last I checked, your personalities aren't so magnetic, otherwise, you'd be a salesman raking in an easy, and I mean EASY $100,000 a year selling insurance, pharmaceuticals, or anything else that requires trust or salesmanship.

Keep whining about Iraqi oil (which we've never used, and never will)......it just helps highlight the idots in the country. The WORLD needs us to regulate oil. Period. We subsidize oil for the U.K. So you bet your a** Tony Blaire supports us.

I could go on, but I'm tired of being right.........

Saturday Fever
08-29-2003, 11:35 PM
If you were right, or anywhere near on track for this thread, I'd say OK.

Arnold stands for nothing. Why can't he answer any questions about the single biggest issue surrounding this recall? Davis is being recalled because he ****ed the economy. So the ONLY issue the recall candidates should be concerned with, is the deficit and economy. And yet, when you ask Arnold what he wants to do, will do, or anything at all, he response is always a resounding, "I don't want to do..."? Why can't he state his point? Yes he was a successful bodybuilder. So what? I managed to make enough money by the time I was 24 years old to retire. Does that make me a good candidate for governor? There has been nothing in my life I have strived for that I did not achieve. I'm sure many of you can say the same thing. We have lots of students on this site who are striving for a Bachelor's degree, and they will get it. Does that mean we are all great candidates for the governor's office?

The fact Arnold was a nothing in life but became arguably the best bodybuilder ever does not, AT ALL, mean he will be anything as a governor. It just means he has the most Mr. Olympia titles of all the candidates. Yeah, that definitely deserves my vote. Sheesh, a guy who can juice up, wear a speedo and "outflex" his competition is obviously the best guy for the job of running a state.


Who isn't "attracted" to the office of Arnold?

He's a humant magnet....a born leader.

The world isn't mean to be "equal". There are ALWAYS going to be people cleaning tables, and mopping floors. And abusing wellfare systems.


OK, what the hell are you talking about? When has Arnold stated his stance on anything even remotely related to what you mentioned? Arnold has no views. Arnold has high profile people "advising" him. So what are they advising him to do? Not answer questions? Never make a stance known? Yeah that's great. I definitely ant to vote for a guy who has no stance.

Try it this way. Arnold campaigns on name recognition alone. He never does take a stance. Stupid people throughout the state elect him because "Hey he was the Terminator, and I LOVED Kindergarten Cop!" Then Arnold increases the sales tax from 7.75% to 13.4%. Then he increases the standard income tax brackets by 13% each. Now is he the right guy for the job?

Use your brains. Vote for a candidate whose views best reflect yours and/or the interests of the state.

Reinier
08-30-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Or the problem could be that the whole political system as we know it is so rampant with incompetent people, or people who don't know **** (as you put it), that to pick a man who has had nothing but stellar success at anything he has pursued in his adult life would be the absolute best move and people like yourself who listen to the naysayers will not vote for him because he doesn't play the political game in quite the normal fashion (i.e. state his stance to get voted in and then completely reverse it later when special interests bend his ears).


The whole problem is that people are accepting politicians to lie. People are accepting politicians to break their words.
What is it going to take for the people to stop taking it? Do they have to come door to door and slap you?

Any politician that says one thing and does another should be publicly HANGED. Find me in the front row throwing stuff at him

Blood&Iron
08-30-2003, 08:45 AM
I saw a few clips on CNN last night. In the first, he used the "I didn't live my life to be a politician." line. Fair enough. And a good answer.

Now it seems he's changed his tune and is saying (in direct reference to the article at the beginnning of this thread) "I don't remember".

One more page from the other Californian actor-turned-politician.

To be fair, maybe Schwarzenegger has Alzheimer's too.

And frankly, if Arnold participated in some gang bang 30 years ago, cheated on his wife, etc is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether he would or would not be a good governor.

While I'll always admire him as a bodybuilder, I don't particularly care much for Schwarzenegger as a person. He has always struck me as a raging narcissist for whom "Arnold is Numero Uno." is the encapsulation of everything he has ever done. I've even read interviews where he's stated that the only reason he ever went into bodybuilding was so that he could become an actor (Obviously not in 'Flex') His reality shifts to fit his needs.

He'd make a perfect politician (Note I didn't say governor)

restless
08-30-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Majestic


Keep whining about Iraqi oil (which we've never used, and never will)......it just helps highlight the idots in the country. The WORLD needs us to regulate oil. Period. We subsidize oil for the U.K. So you bet your a** Tony Blaire supports us.



lol, what a joke.


Halliburton is getting their asses full of money thanks to people that think like you.

Tony BLAIR probably didn't have much choice in the decision of giving the USA's support or not in the illegal invasion of Iraq but he's political carreer is completely shot. It's a good thing at least the British won't allow thousands of innocent civilians to be murdered based on lies. To americans it seems to be ok, you can always rely on patriotism to gather support for whatever you do, just exploit their paranoid delusional fears and convince them of threath that doesn't exist and 7000 civilian deaths become a prefectly acceptable number on a TV screen.

ah well.... We need you to do these things, that's for sure. Bush friends are not rich enough s it is.

Sorry for the off topic rant, but I couldn't leave this comment unanswered.

Gyno Rhino
08-30-2003, 10:54 AM
I think it's ridiculous.

The man is charismatic as hell and he's been successful at everything he's put his mind to.

BUT....

I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER vote for a politician that can't even answer simple questions about his platform.

chris mason
08-30-2003, 07:13 PM
Blood, Arnold is a raging narcissist?????


Ever heard the saying "the pot calling the kettle black"?


I think people ought to take a hard look in the mirror before they judge others. Yes, that includes myself.


I cannot make any judgement as to Arnold's true character because everything I know of him is from the media. I don't personally know him, nor does anyone here.

My point was that I can only make a valid judgement of one thing where Arnold is concerned. Every professional endeavor that I know of in which he has chosen to partake as an adult has lead to his being the very best in the field. Not an also ran, not really good, THE BEST. NUMERO UNO. He was the best bodybuilder and the number one box office draw multiple times.

I don't know any of the other candidates, but I do know that they have not been at the very pinnacle of their chosen careers as Arnold has.

To me, that dictates I give him the benefit of the doubt in any field which he chooses to engage in. Sure, he could suck. He could be the worst governor ever! He could also be the best, NUMERO UNO.

Again, food for thought.

nejar462
08-30-2003, 07:30 PM
Honestly, at least it will be a change of pace from the regular politicians, if he does well maybe the whole country could learn something.

Saturday Fever
08-30-2003, 07:39 PM
And if he doesn't do well?

Being a top box office draw is honestly very funny. Have you actually watched Arnold ACT? Why was he successful in Hollywood? Not because he was so good, but because good screenplays, good ideas, etc happened to fall into his lap. The same argument could be made of Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson and many others. Again, that doesn't mean he's the man for the governor's office. Any actor, given the right publicity and scripts, can be successful. But I don't see anyone riding the "Vin Diesel for Governor" bandwagon.

nejar462
08-30-2003, 07:56 PM
if he doesn't do well, he doesn't do well and we learn something anyway

Saturday Fever
08-30-2003, 09:31 PM
That's a terrible attitude. What you're saying is, basically,

"Hey he sucked, he ****ed over millions, but he was a multiple Olympia winer, we HAD to give him a shot!"

Tahzay
08-30-2003, 10:18 PM
Being a Californian, I just want the budget crises over. I don't want to worry about who's getting layed off and how much the gas will be this week. When someone finds the candidate that is going to fix that let me know. Until then I think I'll flip for who I'm voting for. With that said no one know's ish about any of these candidates its the luck of the draw.

nejar462
08-30-2003, 10:31 PM
My attitude is if people want him in, let them vote him in, this is a democracy, if he sucks, he sucks, if he's good, he's good, only time will tell.

Saturday Fever
08-30-2003, 11:03 PM
OK, here's an idea for you. Research the candidates, even if they number 130+. You are responsible for yourself. That's a hell of a concept isn't it? If you want to be ****ed, vote for a candidate blindly. If you want things to work, find the candidate who wants to make things work. Do your part to rally votes to that candidates cause. If you lose, and your condidate loses, then let the state be ****ed. It's YOUR job as a voter to find good condidates and spread the word, the truth. If you're too lazy to do that, then vote for the standout Democrat. Vote the standout Republican. And be happy with the way the state is being run.

Gyno Rhino
08-31-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
OK, here's an idea for you. Research the candidates, even if they number 130+. You are responsible for yourself. That's a hell of a concept isn't it? If you want to be ****ed, vote for a candidate blindly. If you want things to work, find the candidate who wants to make things work. Do your part to rally votes to that candidates cause. If you lose, and your condidate loses, then let the state be ****ed. It's YOUR job as a voter to find good condidates and spread the word, the truth. If you're too lazy to do that, then vote for the standout Democrat. Vote the standout Republican. And be happy with the way the state is being run.

WHAM. Hear that noise? That's the noise of a hammer hitting the nail on the head.

chris mason
08-31-2003, 10:03 AM
Ok, question for you researchers. What exactly will your research yield? Will the statements and promises of the cadidate carry through once they are voted in? Is that guaranteed? Do most politicians say and do things of their own volition, or are they puppets of those funding them? Do many politicians not change their tune once they actually get into office?

Joe Black
08-31-2003, 11:30 AM
yeah, probably, but what else do you have to go on? :)

If you vote blindly its a pretty wasted vote. You should at least look into the policies of each candidate and then make a decision along with what you feel about everyones integrity.

You do bring up a good point though. Thats the main reason I did not even vote in the last UK National election. I have just lost faith in politics, and really did not want to spend the time researching their policies as I feel tunes will change once they get elected.

Probably the reason only about 50% of the uk voted in the national elections lol

Saturday Fever
08-31-2003, 11:41 AM
I think you'll find that with regards to Republicans and Democrats that they do change their tune once elected. That's why it's a good time to start looking at the other candidates. What is the scariest thing facing the two major parties in America? Having to do what they say. How do we make tem do that? We start voting their asses out of office and electing people who honestly care about their word.

There are candidates who care about the country and want things to reflect the original American Dream. But we as voters are too blind or lazy to find out who they are and elect them. We take the attitude that nothing is going to change, so we may as well vote for a democrat. And guess what? Nothing changes.

If you have pride in your country, it's past time you showed your pride and started making things happen. Take the initiative.

Berserker
09-01-2003, 12:56 PM
I would like to see more talk of the issues, both from Arnold and on this thread.
So far I've heard he is pro-choice. Progun,but with restrictions. I would like to hear more about that, sounds like he is walking the line.

He is also against illegal aliens, which I have no problem with. People are critizing him because he doesn't want to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, what am I missing? The whole you were an immigrant is BS, he came here legally. Not sure if its a problem though, illegal aliens can't vote. Though hispanics might be against him, and they are a large part of the population.

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 10:27 AM
I would love to hear anything from Arnold about anything that matters in this recall. If I wanted his gun control views, I'd ask him to wait until a normal election. If I cared what his views on abortion were, I'd ask him during a normal election.

What Arnold seems to be doing is trying to walk on both sides of the battle field. He likes "republican" ideas, but he also likes "democrat" ideas. But when it comes down to the core issues of this recall, he won't open his mouth and make a stance. He won't even participate in debates with the other candidates. His stance, thus far, is "I was the Terminator! I killed an alien in Predator! Vote for me!"

gino
09-02-2003, 11:28 AM
I'd vote for Arnold before I voted for you or Gary Coleman

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 11:51 AM
Well, since the mods are letting it go...

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you're one of the stupid, blind voters I've been talking about.

Gyno Rhino
09-02-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
I would love to hear anything from Arnold about anything that matters in this recall. If I wanted his gun control views, I'd ask him to wait until a normal election. If I cared what his views on abortion were, I'd ask him during a normal election.


So you'd vote for a guy that would fix the budget crisis but screw up your freedoms?

You don't think that ANY guy that makes it to governor is going to try and stick all of his beliefs into law?

Budiak
09-02-2003, 12:43 PM
but because good screenplays, good ideas, etc happened to fall into his lap.

You've obviously never seen 'Raw Deal.'

Relentless
09-02-2003, 12:47 PM
I don't live in Cali so all this crap isn't my problem

but I think chris mason has a very salient point in that Arnold has proven himself to be very capable in a number of pursuits and goals that he has set for himself

not only as a bodybuilder, though his accomplishments in that field are clearly top notch

not only as an actor, though while you may decry his acting ability the absolutely incontrovertible truth is that he has demonstrated the ability to again and again put together a film PRODUCT that people like, enjoy and want more of

but also

what he has done in the name of activism and community service points to a man who is capable of getting things DONE which is by far the most important criteria for a politician, in my estimation... his work with the Special Olympics, his after school programs and his other efforts are simply outstanding

he also has actually addressed the issue that SF is ranting on about:
"How will you address the budget crisis in California?

It's disturbing to realize that after taking a close look at California's budget, it's hard to make any sense out of it. My Economic Recovery Council, comprised of the best and brightest among the state's economic and business leaders, recently drew this conclusion.

California's budget has become a patchwork of special interest give-aways draining precious resources from core programs such as education, public safety and health care. There are also hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - of documented waste, fraud and abuse in state spending.

Our first order of business is to get California's operating deficit - estimated at between $5 billion and $8 billion - under control. Runaway spending and structural deficiencies fueling this operating deficit are putting us deeper and deeper in debt every day. I will ensure that California government lives within its means - something working families manage to do everyday - and reins in spending to close the operating deficit.

I support a constitutional limit on annual spending increases and an unambiguous constitutional requirement that the state pass a balanced budget, so that California never finds itself in this mess again.

I will also restructure our inherited debt, estimated at between $12 and $20 billion - a very wide range that is itself another indicator of how difficult it has become to understand just what is going on in Sacramento. This includes the unprecedented $10.7 billion deficit bond and other borrowing in the current budget.

The bottom line is to make California competitive again so that businesses and entrepreneurs stay here and create jobs - which will bring new revenues to state and local government. I have formed an Economic Recovery Council, and they have already begun work at my direction."

he goes on to discuss his position on taxes:
"What is your position on taxes?

I am firmly opposed to raising taxes. Californians are already overtaxed. California has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, and just about everything a Californian does today is subject to one tax or another. From the moment you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night, the tax collector is there to take a share - at your home, in your car, at the gas station, at the restaurant, and just about everywhere else you go and everything else you do.

It's unfair to accept the notion that hitting taxpayers up for more money is the answer to our state's budget and economic problems. Politicians in Sacramento should find a better way to turn things around not simply shift the burden of their mistakes onto the backs of taxpayers. "

quotes courtesy joinarnold.com



the bottom line: I too believe in voting in an informed fashion, choosing to place my vote upon consideration, and for the candidate that I believe best represents my interests

but the more I learn about Arnold and his pursuit of this position, the more I think he'd be damned good at the job

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 12:49 PM
Gyno, I'd be very interested to hear his views on those issues, when they are the matter at hand. This recall isn't about Davis' view on abortion or gun control or immigration. The recall was placed because Davis has ruined the budget and economy in California. Now while I don't mind Arnold or Bustamante or even Gary Coleman from giving their views on abortion or gun control, at this point I would much rather hear how they are going to fix the budget and economy in this state.

Right now, Spetember 2, 2003 the issue that should take the forefrunt in California is how to turn the economy around. Convince me, convince all Californians, that you have the best way to do that. And then let us hear your views on abortion or gun control. Odds are heavily in favor of a few candidates having similar budget ideas but contrasting views on other issues. So let me pick the best 2 budget plans and decide based on other views. Or maybe I feel the budget is the single most important issue and that alone will win my vote.

I haven't picked a candidate that deserves my vote yet. But it will certainly not be any candidate that won't address the biggest issue surrounding the recall election.

Budiak, ugh. And what was Collateral Damage all about?

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 01:03 PM
A good post, Callahan. But upon a deeper look at his response to the budget question, I still don't find an answer. He says he wants to curb spending. Where? Are you going to cut childcare to avoid cutting education? He wants to restructure the inherited debt. How? With David Blaine and street magic?

He's doing a good job of playing the politician right now. The successful candidate will have a plan with details. When he/she says, "I will curb spending." he/she will also say exactly where they feel it needs to be curbed. Not just that they plan to make cuts in spending.

Gyno Rhino
09-02-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Gyno, I'd be very interested to hear his views on those issues, when they are the matter at hand. This recall isn't about Davis' view on abortion or gun control or immigration. The recall was placed because Davis has ruined the budget and economy in California. Now while I don't mind Arnold or Bustamante or even Gary Coleman from giving their views on abortion or gun control, at this point I would much rather hear how they are going to fix the budget and economy in this state.

I totally understand that.

But once elected, his policies on the budget WILL NOT be the only things on the agenda.

If Hitler had been able to fix the budget crisis, would you vote for him?

Of course not.

Think of this as a regular election. Because that's what it is. You're electing a governor. Not just a guy to fix the budget problem.

RoidRage
09-02-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
A good post, Callahan. But upon a deeper look at his response to the budget question, I still don't find an answer. He says he wants to curb spending. Where? Are you going to cut childcare to avoid cutting education? He wants to restructure the inherited debt. How? With David Blaine and street magic?

He's doing a good job of playing the politician right now. The successful candidate will have a plan with details. When he/she says, "I will curb spending." he/she will also say exactly where they feel it needs to be curbed. Not just that they plan to make cuts in spending.

curb spending=no new social programs, no new allocation of money. (i.e. what got Cali in this mess)

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 01:15 PM
I think maybe we'll just agree to disagree on the election point.

My idea is that their views can be expressed, but let's focus on the main problem before getting into smaller side problems.

When I say problem, of course, I mean immediate facing problems. Gun control is a problem, but not as immediately looming as the budget.

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


curb spending=no new social programs, no new allocation of money. (i.e. what got Cali in this mess)

Now think about what you just did there and realize. You assumed what Arnold meant. Instead of insisting he say specifically what he means, you're letting yourself assume what he means. And there are no grounds for that assumption because he has not given you any reason to believe that is what he means when he says, "curb spending." Think about it.

RoidRage
09-02-2003, 01:26 PM
I just said what curb spending generally means. Think about it. He hasn't given any reason he isn't going to curb spending either. Think about it. What politican in Cali would increase taxes or spending (besides a complete idiot, so Bustamante is out)? Think about it.

Relentless
09-02-2003, 01:30 PM
SF:

How many candidates HAVE presented a detailed, specific and practical plan for approaching the budget problem?

Any of 'em?

Given these two statements:

1) "I will do the best job I possibly can when I am fully apprised of the situation"

and

2) "I think I know what the situation is, so here's my plan to deal with the problem as I perceive it."

Which statement is the most credible?

To me, the first statement, delivered by someone with the credibility and accomplishments of someone like Arnold, carries a lot of weight.

The second statement could be made by any schlep with a good idea and some time on their hands.

The REALITY is that to effect change, it will require both a good plan and the ability to execute on that plan. And in most cases, the BEST plan is not required. One of my favourite Patton quotes is, "A good solution applied with vigor NOW is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later."

Arnold clearly has the contacts, the resources, the connections and the force of personality to get things in motion in rapid order.

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 01:32 PM
I don't argue that he's said he will curb spending. And I believe because of his conviction to education in the past 4 years or more that he will stick to his word. But where is he going to curb spending? Why do we have to settle for such a generic answer? I'd like to hear that he's going to curb spending on welfare, while notcutting a dime from education. I'd like to hear that child care for single working mother's is not going to be impacted, but I'd like to see government personnel audited and I'd like for the useless state employees to be ousted so their salaries can applied towards cutting the deficit. California is notorious for hiring just about anyone and giving them a job as mundane as "chief paper shredder" and paying $35k a year for that.

That was hypothetical, of course, but that's the kind of detail we should demand as voters from our candidates.

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 01:35 PM
OK, so how long do you let someone do nothing and ride the "I am not fully apprised" quote? Public spending and budgets are not classified information. And you're right, he has world-class people on his team. So what's holding him back from being fully apprised?

Relentless
09-02-2003, 01:52 PM
publicly accessible numbers and budgets are not the same as getting your hands dirty in the actual operational numbers and seeing what's happening with the organization

it would be my expectation that a fact-finding/inquiry phase would consume a month or three at the beginning of the new term and findings/recommendations be announced after that time



once again, I would be highly interested to know if anyone else (other than Schwarzenegger) has presented a plan that is up to your standards -- otherwise all of your high expectations of politicians are really just so much pissing in the wind, mate...

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 02:03 PM
Maybe they are. But am I wrong for expecting my elected leaders to start leading?

To date, only Cruz Bustamante has given any form of detailed plan. Unfortunately I hate his plan, so I won't vote for him. There are 130+ candidates though, I probably won't have made up my mind until the day of the election. Lots of research to be done.

Relentless
09-02-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Maybe they are. But am I wrong for expecting my elected leaders to start leading?

You're not asking for leadership.
You're asking for management.

Anecdote:
A manager devises the most effective way to go about a task (say, hacking a path through a dense jungle). The manager organizes the work shifts, ensures adequate water for the guys with the machetes, balances the whetstone and bandaids budgets, etc.

A leader is the guy who climbs a tree and then calls down to the manager, "Hey buddy! We're in the wrong goddamned jungle. We need to be over THERE!"

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 02:23 PM
Then give me management. Give me someone who will lay out his/her ideas. The time for full of **** politicians and false promises to get lost. I don't want candidates who blame their shortcomings on the congress majority or some other stupid excuse. I want someone who handles things. I want Jesse the Body. A guy who speaks his mind and makes it happen despite whatever **** might be thrown at him. If that's management and not leadership, that's what I want.

RoidRage
09-02-2003, 03:40 PM
managment would be the delagated authorities in a government. Like the president is a leader, a figure head, but its really his cabinet that gets the job done (as well and congress). So on a smaller, state level scale a govenor is a figure head for the state govn't while all the people the govenor delagates actually get the job done, or his management team.

call, good example.

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 03:48 PM
So, this is the situation you propose. We elect someone with no views and HOPE his "management team" is on the ball. That's great. If that doesn't shout of voters not caring, I don't know what does.

chris mason
09-02-2003, 05:29 PM
Lol at the thought that any politician actually answers a question with a detailed, exacting answer. You guys are beating up Arnold for doing the same thing every politician does.

:help:


Listen, this argument is most likely pointless because the guy is getting so much exposure it will be tough for him not to win. I suppose we can review this argument a year or two after he has been in office...

Saturday Fever
09-02-2003, 05:37 PM
You're being complacent(sp?). Why are we settling for politicians who don't get specific or who don't answer questions? Every time we elect a president the media plays the same story about "voter disenfranchisement." I say that's bull****. I say it's voter laziness. We accept that the politicians that lie are the only choices. We never raise the bar. We all have gripes about the way things are being run but we never do anything about it.

Lincoln's "advisors" told him that freeing the slaves was a horrible idea. But he took the ball and did it anyways because he knew it was necessary to get the leverage he needed. And the result, albeit a very long process, was that blacks in America were finally treated as human beings. We need leader's who go against the grain. Leaders who aren't just faces for their "advisors." And you don't get there by making excuses for the poor leadership we have today. We get there by wising up, by saying, "Man these guys are ****ing me over." and by finding the candidates who can say specifically, "This is what what I want, and this is how I'll accomplish it."

Relentless
09-02-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
So, this is the situation you propose. We elect someone with no views and HOPE his "management team" is on the ball. That's great. If that doesn't shout of voters not caring, I don't know what does.

he has views, just not views that are (apparently) specific and detailed enough for your tastes

His 'views' are at least as detailed as the majority of other candidates whose platforms I assayed.

SF, no offense dude, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on this. You want an action-oriented candidate like 'Jesse the Body' but Arnold isn't action-oriented enough?

Did Ventura spec out his entire platform, planned changes and all that crap before being elected? Did he generate a detailed project plan before setting out? Hell no.

He had to get stuck in to understand what was really happening and THEN he started kicking ass. He made some general statements about what his views, opinions and goals were, and then after he got into office and had a chance to settle in and sort things out, in October 1999 (10 months after taking office!!), he released "The Big Plan", which contained his core goals and vision for the state.

Gyno Rhino
09-02-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
You're being complacent(sp?). Why are we settling for politicians who don't get specific or who don't answer questions? Every time we elect a president the media plays the same story about "voter disenfranchisement." I say that's bull****. I say it's voter laziness. We accept that the politicians that lie are the only choices. We never raise the bar. We all have gripes about the way things are being run but we never do anything about it.

BAM. The reason that NONE OF US SHOULD EVER EVER EVER vote Republican or Democrat. You're just feeding the machine, letting it roll on and on.

gino
09-03-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you're one of the stupid, blind voters I've been talking about.

No. I said I'd vote for Arnold before Gary Coleman or you. That makes me a very smart individual, and the nutshell doesn't get any smaller than that.

Saturday Fever
09-03-2003, 12:17 PM
So, like I said, you'd vote blindly for a candidate that you don't know anything about, other than that he's been a bodybuilder and a movie star. I suppose there's something I may have missed, but how does that even closely resemble something a smart individual would do?

I suspect you don't know the first thing about Gary Coleman's political views either. And since I'm not on the ballot, nor have I made any of my ideas known in the context that I'm asking for, you don't know anything about me either.

So, back to what I said in the first place, you're voting blindly. Certainly not an attribute of a smart individual.

Relentless
09-04-2003, 07:34 AM
Admit it, SF... you don't give a crap about the election, you're just being trollish and looking for kneejerk I-Love-Arnold responses.

:D

Saturday Fever
09-04-2003, 11:56 AM
Hah. I care. I just want other people to care. If we don't demand better leadership, the quality of our leadership is going to continue to degrade.

Reinier
09-04-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino


BAM. The reason that NONE OF US SHOULD EVER EVER EVER vote Republican or Democrat. You're just feeding the machine, letting it roll on and on.

You dont understand. thats not what hes saying. Hes saying you should take your pitchforks and torches and storm the damn white house already

Reinier
09-04-2003, 02:03 PM
Politicians that lie should be publicly hanged and politicians that refuse or dodge questions taken out of the race

chris mason
09-04-2003, 06:16 PM
The only idiot is the idiot who really thinks he knows something about the true nature of a politician...


Just my 2 cents.

Saturday Fever
09-04-2003, 06:33 PM
I don't know. There's so many ways to define who an idiot is. Is an idiot a person who still to this day blindly hates black people because they're black? Or is an idiot a person who tries to impress girls by trying to squeeze out a huge fart, only to **** his pants?

Or is an idiot the person who claims not be an idiot, but refuses to acknowledge that other beliefs may be as valid or more valid than his own?

Gyno Rhino
09-04-2003, 06:37 PM
I've gotta agree (for the most part) with SF on this one.

Most of y'all don't have a clue what Arnold is going to do, but want to vote for him anyway, blindly.

RoidRage
09-04-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
I've gotta agree (for the most part) with SF on this one.

Most of y'all don't have a clue what Arnold is going to do, but want to vote for him anyway, blindly.

most don;t know what ANY politican is going to do. Look at our former republican govenor, gyno, he wanted to increase taxes. WTF!? Thats not part of the republican ideology. Total suprise.

Gyno Rhino
09-04-2003, 08:38 PM
Heh. That's why I didn't vote for the bastard. Van Hilleary sucks.

RoidRage
09-04-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino
Heh. That's why I didn't vote for the bastard. Van Hilleary sucks.

I was just never too sure on what van hilleary stood on. And Bredeson was a business man so he'd understand how to use money. Hell he made Nashville what it is today.

Gyno Rhino
09-04-2003, 09:53 PM
I didn't vote for either of them in the primary.

I'm just going to start writing in my own name every time there's an election.

Saturday Fever
09-04-2003, 11:22 PM
You don't know what a politican is going to do because you don't make him state it. Look at how graciously everyone has accepted Arnold's "plan" despite the fact that he hasn't gone into said plan at all. If you want a politician to soeak his mind, you corner him/her in mixed company and you force him/her to answer questions.

Scenario: You fill a room with rich people who think taxing middle-income families is OK. He's going to gear his answers to make those people smile. So on TV you see happy smiling people and, gosh, he must be saying what we want.

Scenario: You fill a room with extreme pro-life and pro-choice people. Add in some serious gun buffs and some serious gun control buffs. And you nail his/her ass to the wall. Make him/her stte his/her stance on those issues. Make the candidate stand up to the boos while acknowledging the hurrahs.

No candidate can make everyone happy. That's why you have to, as a voter, decide what makes YOU happy. Then you get off your lazy ass (or use the internet so you can still be lazy) and you find the candidate who most closely shadows your views. And not the candidate who gives generic answers for you to assume upon. The candidate who says, "Hey I hate ALL guns ad I will do everything in my power to ban them all." or the candidate who says, "If I raise taxes, plese cut off my left testicle."

If you vote accordingly, and lose, then applaud the American system and chastise the blind voters. If you vote accordingly, and win, then congratulate yourself because you have made this country what it is supposed to be.

HINT: No republican or democrat will ever speak in front of a mixed crowd that way, and that speaks volumes.

OK, so I'm not trying to binge on a "republicans and democrats are the devil" speech. I will let their own actions and empty promises over the last 100 years do the speaking for me.

Maki Riddington
09-05-2003, 12:39 AM
Lol at Arnold getting egged. Btw, I would never ever vote for him.
I don't even vote, actually, yes I do, I voted for the "green" party last election. Legalize marijuana!!

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
I don't even vote

So you like not having a say?

NateDogg
09-05-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by RoidRage


So you like not having a say?

IMO, not voting for anyone IS saying something.

Maki Riddington
09-05-2003, 10:48 AM
I didn't say I didn't vote.

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by NateDogg


IMO, not voting for anyone IS saying something.

exactly its saying you like others to make decisions for you.

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
I didn't say I didn't vote.

Sorry you voted in ONE election. My mistake. Totally different.

HahnB
09-05-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


exactly its saying you like others to make decisions for you.

"One persons's vote can make a difference", it's just a figure of speech in order to get ppl to vote. In reality, one person's vote doesn't mean jack ****. In order to change any type of election you have to get a majority of ppl that normally don't vote to vote, which is never going to happen.

I don't understand ppl that do not vote, yet I don't understand ppl who critisize them for it, considering you need to persuade a lot of non voters to vote at once in order to make a difference.

Saturday Fever
09-05-2003, 04:07 PM
If I were a politician, I would do my best to shaft all the non-voters. If you don't want to exercise your right to elect your own leaders then you don't deserve good leaders. And I'd be as mean to non-voters as I possibly could, and I'd make it known that that was why I treated them so poorly. Implementing such an idea would be difficult, though, if not impossible.

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by HahnB


"One persons's vote can make a difference", it's just a figure of speech in order to get ppl to vote. In reality, one person's vote doesn't mean jack ****. In order to change any type of election you have to get a majority of ppl that normally don't vote to vote, which is never going to happen.

I don't understand ppl that do not vote, yet I don't understand ppl who critisize them for it, considering you need to persuade a lot of non voters to vote at once in order to make a difference.

ok so everyone don;t vote and we won;t have any elected officials, in other words no one will run the states/nation. Allright, now thats what i call thinking!

Maybe you were living in a cave in 2000 but your vote does count and in this election in cali your vote does count.

Your vote is high unlikely to be the deciding factor, but when you at least vote for the candiate that will never win (or you write in) your trying to make a difference. Its the difference between fighting someone or just letting them beat you down no matter how big they are.

Read my quote in my signature by ben franklin.

HahnB
09-05-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


ok so everyone don;t vote and we won;t have any elected officials, in other words no one will run the states/nation. Allright, now thats what i call thinking!

Maybe you were living in a cave in 2000 but your vote does count and in this election in cali your vote does count.

Your vote is high unlikely to be the deciding factor, but when you at least vote for the candiate that will never win (or you write in) your trying to make a difference. Its the difference between fighting someone or just letting them beat you down no matter how big they are.

Read my quote in my signature by ben franklin.

That had nothing to do with my statement lol. All I said was that you need a majority of non voters to vote in order to make a difference.

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by HahnB


That had nothing to do with my statement lol. All I said was that you need a majority of non voters to vote in order to make a difference.

Re-read the 2nd para of my last post. All I said is that, sometimes a few votes make a HUGE difference.

If everyone thought like you no one would vote. Thank god the majority is smart enough to realize the values of voting.

HahnB
09-05-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


Re-read the 2nd para of my last post. All I said is that, sometimes a few votes make a HUGE difference.

If everyone thought like you no one would vote. Thank god the majority is smart enough to realize the values of voting.

YOu don't seem to read or understand my posts. If you read my first post, I said "I do not understand ppl that don't vote". I vote myself, but there's no point in preaching to someone about voting because 1 vote does not make a difference in most big elections. Now if you were taking a vote and there were only 30 potential voters, then 1 vote makes more of a difference--and so would preaching about voting.

chris mason
09-05-2003, 06:31 PM
Saturday, Saturday, I will acknowledge someone's ideas are as valid as mine (or more so) when I see one I think fits that criteria.

Your ideas on this issue don't strike me that way.

When I am wrong, and it is proven to me I am wrong, I am very quick to admit it.


Now, here is the whole problem with your rationale (to me). The system as it exists will not allow for you to get to know politicians in any real manner. It doesn't happen.

If you want to say something relevant, you might say something along the lines that you would overhual the whole system and truly make men accountable for their own words. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is now. Any other arguments are mere philosophy and may be great to vent your frustrations, but other than calling others idiots, it can accomplish no end.

RoidRage
09-05-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Saturday, Saturday, I will acknowledge someone's ideas are as valid as mine (or more so) when I see one I think fits that criteria.

Your ideas on this issue don't strike me that way.

When I am wrong, and it is proven to me I am wrong, I am very quick to admit it.


Now, here is the whole problem with your rationale (to me). The system as it exists will not allow for you to get to know politicians in any real manner. It doesn't happen.

If you want to say something relevant, you might say something along the lines that you would overhual the whole system and truly make men accountable for their own words. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is now. Any other arguments are mere philosophy and may be great to vent your frustrations, but other than calling others idiots, it can accomplish no end.

:withstupi

Arrr! Well stated Chris.

HahnB, 1 person's vote doesn't make a difference? Remember the 2000 presidental election? Remember Florida?

HahnB
09-06-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by RoidRage


:withstupi

Arrr! Well stated Chris.

HahnB, 1 person's vote doesn't make a difference? Remember the 2000 presidental election? Remember Florida?

It didn't come down to 1 vote.

Big o Boy
09-06-2003, 12:26 AM
He's got a point there....

100th post.

(+1) :D

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by HahnB


It didn't come down to 1 vote.

Just a few. What if those few people had taken your approach?

Gyno Rhino
09-06-2003, 07:17 AM
I don't understand why people don't grasp the concept of "voting DOES make a difference".

Seriously? Look at it from a Kantian point of view. What if everyone had that idea? So maybe YOU don't vote... There are MILLIONS of people out there with the same approach. Think how different the world might be if you all would vote.

But if you aren't rational enough to grasp that concept, it may be a better thing that you DON'T vote.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Gyno Rhino

But if you aren't rational enough to grasp that concept, it may be a better thing that you DON'T vote.

:withstupi

ya hit the nail on the head bro.

chris mason
09-06-2003, 11:52 AM
I shudder to think of what the world would be like if everyone voted.

I have never entertained the idea that the masses know what is best. I think there are a select few who know what is best and that the masses are like sheep that need to be lead. People need leaders.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
I shudder to think of what the world would be like if everyone voted.

I have never entertained the idea that the masses know what is best. I think there are a select few who know what is best and that the masses are like sheep that need to be lead. People need leaders.

sounds like a communist ideal. I think thomas jefferson, ben franklin, george washington, patrick henery would say otherwise. Or are you talking about people like my grandma, who vote only for a certain party, even though she doesn't know who the candiates are or what they're running on. Sad thing is if she knew what they're platforms were she would vote for the other party.

HahnB
09-06-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


Just a few. What if those few people had taken your approach?

My approach? I have already said numerous times that I do vote (republican by the way :) ), but I don't preach to ppl that don't vote because unless you convince a lot of non voters to vote, your wasting your time.

chris mason
09-06-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


sounds like a communist ideal. I think thomas jefferson, ben franklin, george washington, patrick henery would say otherwise. Or are you talking about people like my grandma, who vote only for a certain party, even though she doesn't know who the candiates are or what they're running on. Sad thing is if she knew what they're platforms were she would vote for the other party.


Errrrr...., the communist ideal would be everyone is equal, there are no real leaders. WTF are you talking about?

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by chris mason



Errrrr...., the communist ideal would be everyone is equal, there are no real leaders. WTF are you talking about?

I don't think in a communist country that its leaders would like it if its citizens could vote methinks. And a select few making all the decisons? Sounds like a communist govn't. Of course equalizing everything is part of it. Of course equalizing is a joke in communism, but anyways.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage


Sorry you voted in ONE election. My mistake. Totally different.

*** I did? Where did I say I only voted in "ONE" election?

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington


*** I did? Where did I say I only voted in "ONE" election?


I don't even vote, actually, yes I do, I voted for the "green" party last election

The signifies one, or single. And since you named only ONE election.

the1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th before a vowel; th before a consonant)
def.art.

1. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore.

2. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days.

3. Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon.

4.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 03:25 PM
Oh my goodness, what does the word "last election" represent to you? Next time you give me a lesson in the english language, learn to read my friend.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Oh my goodness, what does the word "last election" represent to you? Next time you give me a lesson in the english language, learn to read my friend.

*sigh* The why did you originally say "i don't vote" and then you seemed like you had to think about it signifying you don;t do a certain action a lot (if ever) to be able to recall it quickly to memory. Next time my friend watch your wording and you won;t have these little mishaps ;)



"1 Thessalonians 5:21"

btw, why would a Christian want to legalize drugs?

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 05:56 PM
Ok.

If it's legal then it's ok to use in moderation, no? Just because I am a "christian' does not mean that I am an anal retentive person with straight forward views.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 06:02 PM
as i recall the bible says one should not consume substances that harm the "temple" and smoking comes to mind in that passage.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 06:07 PM
1 Cor 3:17.
Gal 6:8.
Ro 8:13.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 07:06 PM
1 Corinthians 3
17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.


*** Explain how marijuana "destroys" my temple, I suppose drinking alcohol and taking prescription drugs would do the same thing? Remember the word "moderation."

8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[1] will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

*** First off this passage has nothing to do ones body (temple). It is talking about partaking in sinful acts.

Is it sinful if it is deemed legal and it is in moderation? Is one drink in moderation, or is two crossing that boundary where it becomes sinful?

I look at alcohol and marijuana as being in the same category. The only difference is one is illegal (at least for now).

Romans 8
13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

*** Again, we're talking about ones sinful acts, not about body being the temple of God.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 07:08 PM
I assume you are simply grabbing at anything to prove me wrong. I'd suggest you take it easy. There's no need to feel like you're one up on me.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
I assume you are simply grabbing at anything to prove me wrong. I'd suggest you take it easy. There's no need to feel like you're one up on me.

whew I can rest tonight. :rolleyes:

since pot has more tar than cigarettes i'd say there harmful, 3 times more if i'm nt mistaken. Sinful acts=harming the body (no brainer) among other acts. Quit trying to justify your sins. There sins, ask for forgivness and move on and try to not do so.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 07:50 PM
Roidrage, I am being very polite with you and I do expect the same treatment back.

"since pot has more tar than cigarettes i'd say there harmful, 3 times more if i'm nt mistaken."

*** Now, this is where the word moderation comes into use. You're assuming that I'd besmoking a whole joint, a gram, maybe more, I don't know.

I'd use it the same way many people use alcohol to calm the nerves. Some like a glass of red wine, others will take a puff. In moderation, this drug has a calming effect just like alcohol does.

Do you really feel that one puff, once a month will clog up my lungs? Seeing as the lungs do regenerate after sometime. This has been shown in smokers. Delphi may be able to shed some light on this as he is in the medical profession allbeit a surgeon. Does taking a puff once in awhile put me in the smokers category?

"Sinful acts=harming the body (no brainer) among other acts."

*** It is a sinful act if indeed I am harming the body, however as I explained in the above, I do not feel I am. It is one thing to have an opinion, and another to force it upon someone.

"Quit trying to justify your sins. There sins, ask for forgivness and move on and try to not do so."

*** Do I dectect a hint of sarcasm there?

SquareHead
09-06-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by RoidRage
since pot has more tar than cigarettes i'd say there harmful, 3 times more if i'm nt mistaken. Sinful acts=harming the body (no brainer) among other acts. Quit trying to justify your sins. There sins, ask for forgivness and move on and try to not do so.

Dude are you serious?

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Roidrage, I am being very polite with you and I do expect the same treatment back.



No your not:


Next time you give me a lesson in the english language, learn to read my friend.

When your polite with me, i'll be polite with you. Its a two way street.

btw, marijuana causes a loss of inhibition, loss of judgement, in other words it alters your mental state. Now how can losing your mental state serve the lord? its not like its positivly affecting your brain either (i.e. reading or school would be positive).

SquareHead, according to this book i have by Dr. Columbo:

"One joint of marijuana contains as much tar as 100 cigarettes, and the body retains 30 percent of its active agents for a week." He continues, "Damage occurs chiefly in the autonomic nervous system and the brain, altering all body controls and thinking centers and causing atrophy of the brain and muscles when individuals are heavy users. Marijuana is also known to cause greater lung damage than cigarettes."

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 09:26 PM
"No your not:

When your polite with me, i'll be polite with you. Its a two way street."

*** The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't blame me just because you failed to read what I had posted. You misinterpertated my post, yet it's my fault that you can not read the words?

Sorry Roidrage.

"btw, marijuana causes a loss of inhibition, loss of judgement, in other words it alters your mental state. Now how can losing your mental state serve the lord? its not like its positivly affecting your brain either (i.e. reading or school would be positive)."


*** Ok, this is what I'm talking about when I said that you need to learn to read. I didn't say I was going to go out and smoke a huge bong Bob Marley style. Read my post over.

"SquareHead, according to this book i have by Dr. Columbo:"

*** I didn't know he was a doctor as well as a detective. :D

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Majestic


2) the idiots that wrote that great work of fiction (ie. The Bible) were drunk as h*ll every day on wine, as I recall, so they're as guilty of operating in an altered state as anyone, as far as I can tell.



*** Although your entitled to your opinion, you could have communicated your point tastetfully.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
[B*** The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't blame me just because you failed to read what I had posted. You misinterpertated my post, yet it's my fault that you can not read the words?

*** Ok, this is what I'm talking about when I said that you need to learn to read. I didn't say I was going to go out and smoke a huge bong Bob Marley style. Read my post over.


*** I didn't know he was a doctor as well as a detective. :D [/B]

What truth? You want me to be polite to you, but you won't be polite to me tuttut just because your a mod does not mean i'm going to kiss your a$$.

I know what you read. But use over and over piles up over time. Sure not changing the oil in your car every 3K miles and instead doing it every 6K or so won't causes your engine to seize up or cause damage but you do that over and over again and you got to buy a new motor or car. Well you can't buy a new body.

And your answers are just proving a point I made earlier, your trying to justify your useage, or sin. 'I only smoke a little.'

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 09:41 PM
Majestic, don't push me, if you can't respect something then don't type.

Plain and simple.

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 09:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RoidRage
[B]

"What truth? You want me to be polite to you, but you won't be polite to me tuttut just because your a mod does not mean i'm going to kiss your a$$."

*** I'm about fed up with this. This has nothing to do with being a mod, so don't play that card. Don't put words in my mouth.


"I know what you read. But use over and over piles up over time. Sure not changing the oil in your car every 3K miles and instead doing it every 6K or so won't causes your engine to seize up or cause damage but you do that over and over again and you got to buy a new motor or car. Well you can't buy a new body.

And your answers are just proving a point I made earlier, your trying to justify your useage, or sin. 'I only smoke a little.'"

*** Again, the key word is moderation. I'm sorry that you fail to see my point of view and I accept that. Now can you accept that my point of view differs from yours?

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Majestic
I'm not heavily involved in this discussion, but I know this:

1) people don't smoke a marijuana joint every single day, 7 days a week (as MINIMAL smokers consume 7 in cigarettes, daily). Your average weed smoker hits a joint/the bong a few times a week, period. And for a very few years, at that, as it's not physically addictive.

2) the idiots that wrote that great work of fiction (ie. The Bible) were drunk as h*ll every day on wine, as I recall, so they're as guilty of operating in an altered state as anyone, as far as I can tell.

Last I checked, a single glass of wine was as potent as 3 or 4 domestic beers (American). Party on, drunken monks.

.........I'm sorry........I temporarily forgot how realistic it was for a virgin to have a baby.......:rolleyes:

So your sayign out of 300 million people in the US not a single person smokes everyday. hmmmm, interesting.

Since you seem to be a bible scholar I guess you'd know there wine was not as alcholic as it is today.

single glass of wine=1/2 pint of beer

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RoidRage
[B]

"What truth? You want me to be polite to you, but you won't be polite to me tuttut just because your a mod does not mean i'm going to kiss your a$$."

*** I'm about fed up with this. This has nothing to do with being a mod, so don't play that card. Don't put words in my mouth.


"I know what you read. But use over and over piles up over time. Sure not changing the oil in your car every 3K miles and instead doing it every 6K or so won't causes your engine to seize up or cause damage but you do that over and over again and you got to buy a new motor or car. Well you can't buy a new body.

And your answers are just proving a point I made earlier, your trying to justify your useage, or sin. 'I only smoke a little.'"

*** Again, the key word is moderation. I'm sorry that you fail to see my point of view and I accept that. Now can you accept that my point of view differs from yours?

Not trying to play the mod card.

Moderation is a word that gives you wiggle room. I'm sure a pro BB'er would say he uses gear in moderation, his moderation would be an enormous cycle to you and I. Its all relative and gives you ambiguity.

I can accept that your differs from mine. I was just trying to be impossible.

Now ask me if I believe any of what I said previously? Not really. I do believe moderation is key, using any drug. Except heroine, cocaine. I do also believe that marijuana should be legalized.

Sorry for being a dick.

Now can this thread DIE!?

Maki Riddington
09-06-2003, 09:55 PM
Not until I can call you one last name.:D

*calls Roidrage a !@#$#*

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Not until I can call you one last name.:D

*calls Roidrage a !@#$#*

lol ok. You deserve it. Sorry for being difficult. Had to play devils advocate. Causes too much trouble. Don't think i'll do it for awhile.

Big o Boy
09-06-2003, 10:24 PM
Wow, you guys really need to drop it. ;)

GonePostal
09-06-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Majestic


Get real.

Those monks drank multiple glasses of wine every day.

How many people do you know, beyond their college years, that drink even a pint of beer every single day?

Exactly. None.

1 US pint = 0.473176475 litres
that is a beer and a half. I know lots of people that drink 2 beers a day. They like it and it's taste so they drink it.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 10:31 PM
I've probably alread lost years on my life due to 2nd hand cigarette smoke

one can only hope

GonePostal
09-06-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Majestic

If you really want to know what anybody with a brain thinks about the bible.........:rolleyes: tuttut
I know many people that are smarter then you and even I (I know that is hard to believe) that believe in the Bible.
1. Don't think your so smart
2. Don't think intelligence is what separates people that are religeous and those who are not.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 10:36 PM
seriously i know of a few people that have a shot of liqour a day and/or a glass of wine a day.

and we're not discussing people to smoking cigs to people smoking marijuana. I quoted a doctor that said one joint has as much tar as 10,000 cigarettes.

and chill out man! Why are you so upset? Are you in withdrawl or something? First time i've ever seen an angry pothead.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by GonePostal

I know many people that are smarter then you and even I (I know that is hard to believe) that believe in the Bible.
1. Don't think your so smart
2. Don't think intelligence is what separates people that are religeous and those who are not.

:withstupi

well stated.

GonePostal
09-06-2003, 10:53 PM
1. I never knew this was a game
2. Minority is not <51% it is 50% period. I could be in the 50.5% which would make me a majority.
3. You seem to think this is a game but I never got a set of rules. You said "None. Exactly" but as you see this is wrong. You never said "the majority of people don't drink 2-3 beers a day on average". You said there were none of these people.

Following your lead it seems you are the loser but just don't know it.

GonePostal
09-06-2003, 10:58 PM
"It's not like people at a bar or restaurant have to endure marijuana smoke."
That's because it is illegal to smoke pot.

"I've probably alread lost years on my life due to 2nd hand cigarette smoke.....tuttut "
That's your fault, if you don't like cig smoke tell the person that is smoking it to stop. Even better make sure you don't put yourself in a position to inhale cig smoke.

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 11:21 PM
Oh wait.....it wasn't.....I still win.....yeah

huh? :confused:

RoidRage
09-06-2003, 11:23 PM
gone, forget this guy he obviously is talking out of his ass.

maj, please find me these 10,000 people you constantly refer too. You sure do know 10,000 in every category of people.

chris mason
09-07-2003, 09:08 AM
Roid, no "communist" nation ever came close to the communist ideal. You used the wrong words to express your idea. That was my point.

As you seem to be such a stickler for facts in your argument with Maki you might want to make sure of your own statements.


Unfortunately, I agree that smoking weed in any amount does not promote good health (although it can be used to dull pain and increase appetite in some folks for medicinal purposes). There is no way around it. That being said, you could make the same argument for so many other things.

If we were to agree that smoking weed does not gel with the Christian religion, that doesn't really make for an entirely valid argument. Christian's are people too. Although they should strive to be more Christ-like, they are human and therefore fallible. Those who use the argument that the bible or Christianity does not condone a behavior, and how can someone call themselves Christian if they do it, are not fighting a winning battle. We cannot be perfect. If we were, then we would be God. As we are not, we should certainly strive for perfection, but realize that we may falter along the way.

RoidRage
09-07-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Roid, no "communist" nation ever came close to the communist ideal. You used the wrong words to express your idea. That was my point.

As you seem to be such a stickler for facts in your argument with Maki you might want to make sure of your own statements.


Unfortunately, I agree that smoking weed in any amount does not promote good health (although it can be used to dull pain and increase appetite in some folks for medicinal purposes). There is no way around it. That being said, you could make the same argument for so many other things.

If we were to agree that smoking weed does not gel with the Christian religion, that doesn't really make for an entirely valid argument. Christian's are people too. Although they should strive to be more Christ-like, they are human and therefore fallible. Those who use the argument that the bible or Christianity does not condone a behavior, and how can someone call themselves Christian if they do it, are not fighting a winning battle. We cannot be perfect. If we were, then we would be God. As we are not, we should certainly strive for perfection, but realize that we may falter along the way.

*sigh* I know communist nations never came close to their "ideal" hence my comment "equalizing is a joke in communist countries." But I guess you didn't read that part.

And you seem to be such a stickler our to prove me wrong everywhere, you might want to read a little more closely.


I was just trying to be impossible


Now ask me if I believe any of what I said previously? Not really


Sorry for being difficult. Had to play devils advocate. Causes too much trouble. Don't think i'll do it for awhile.

from now on Chris READ what I say, before you go on a personal crusade to prove me wrong.

NOW, can this thread die?

Majestic
09-07-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by GonePostal
1. I never knew this was a game

Ohhhhh, that is soooo rich!

I don't care to carry on this conversation re: religion & weed. I goofed up another thread too after having 11 beers on Saturday night. Clearly, I needed my keyboard taken away from me.

Having said that, I seem to recall when you absolutely flamed me back when I predicted that "Matrix : Revolutions" wouldn't even earn $300M, let alone Spiderman's $400M plus domestically (we don't care about out of country figures, otherwise Spidey's is more than half a Billion).

*** note......"Revolutions" indeed did NOT surpass $300M, let alone $400M.

What I remember is that you left a a few consecutive evil posts, some of which contained such mature & insightful jabs as "owned". :rolleyes:

I still have some catching up to do before I equal your jabs. You didn't even come at me with facts, just childish behavior, and an expressed misunderstanding of box office gross (again, if we are to count domestic grosses, we'd be approaching 1 billion with Spiderman)

So to come full circle with a response to your post:

Hey, I'm not into playing games either. But I'm not the one who got psychotically offended over a box-office gross prediction.
tuttut

I guess all of us have our bad days, and our good days. ;)

Saturday Fever
09-08-2003, 11:19 AM
What the hell has happened to you people? This thread was bringing out good points until everyone whipped out their dicks and tried to make it a pissing contest.

Look, drugs should be legal. ALL drugs. I'll repeat that. ALL drugs. Legalizing drugs is not going to create a million new addicts. Legalizing drugs will create a huge stream of taxable imports and domestic product. The decision to use drugs is not based on legality. How many of you had a beer before you were 21? Did the law ever come into your decision making process? Think about that.

Look, you guys can rant all you want about voters and non-voters and what might happen if everyone vited. The root of the problem is that people are lazy and people are stupid. Apparently it's too much to ask for everyone to take an hour a week to research candidates. It's too much to ask for the people of this country to decide what their own views are. Instead let's all sit back and do nothing.

It's not about political party. It's about the existing power structure. Two groups, that are arguably the same group, are the power structure. Nobody wants to believe there is any other way. The Soviets in Russia were an extremely formidable power structure. One that scared the US, no less. And yet, change was brought about. The people finally decided that enough was enough. And now, the Soviet Union is gone. Now I'm not calling for the removal of the American system. I just want people to realize that change is possible.

Maki Riddington
09-09-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
Now I'm not calling for the removal of the American system. I just want people to realize that change is possible.

*** Change is possible if everyone took their heads out of their asses. Of course that will never happen............

gino
09-09-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Saturday Fever
So, like I said, you'd vote blindly for a candidate that you don't know anything about, other than that he's been a bodybuilder and a movie star. I suppose there's something I may have missed, but how does that even closely resemble something a smart individual would do?

I suspect you don't know the first thing about Gary Coleman's political views either. And since I'm not on the ballot, nor have I made any of my ideas known in the context that I'm asking for, you don't know anything about me either.

So, back to what I said in the first place, you're voting blindly. Certainly not an attribute of a smart individual.

If I have to answer a question in which I don't have any idea, like on a difficult multiple choice test, I go through a process of elimination. I have listened to your views time and time again, seen an interview with Gary Coleman, and listened to Arnold not give much of any position on any issue. Since I haven't cared for any of your opinions to date, heard Gary Coleman say he was doing the election as a joke, and since I didn't hear anything I necessarily disliked from Arnold, I would vote for him if I had to vote. I don't, so I won't, but it's a hypothetical situation. I think that this is what a smart person would do if they had to vote - vote for the unknown rather than a known dislike.

GonePostal
09-09-2003, 08:06 PM
Maj: GJ on dodging all my points.
2. M2: Revolutions made $280,332,223 domestically. When I made my comments I didn't know that they were going to rate it R in the movie theaters. That took alot off the top for this movie since the lil' ones can't go and rape the theaters over and over and over. 280 is very close to 300 so stfu plz. I don't get emotional over posts. I get emotional over retarded people. Oh and of course no one cares about international grosses... cuz the only money that count's is the greenback GJ.

GonePostal
09-09-2003, 08:08 PM
Oh 1 more thing pick a movie ANY movie this summer other then Finding Nemo that grossed more then M2. This was a horrible summer for movies.

PizDoff
10-02-2003, 09:55 AM
American politics are great.........hey Monica!!!!