board77

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2 ... negger.htm

Obviously there is a biased slant to this video, but there are plenty of facts contained in it.. I had no idea about his comments about dreaming of ruling the world.

What do you people think about his motives for pushing for a change in the constitution?

I watched about half of the video and then had to stop before I died laughing.

I put as much faith in that propaganda, get rich quick scheming, racist web site, as I do in the National Enquirer, or Star magazine.
I have more faith in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and UFOs than I do with any of their hair brained conspiracy theories.

That place and that video are nothing more than a way to bilk people out of their money, and the sad fact is that people will give them their money.

I have a better chance at being the next Hugh Heffner than he does at becoming President.

Sure there are some facts there, but they conveniently twisted them to fit their needs and left out other salient points. The Constitution is not going to be changed.

Whether you believe what he's saying or not, Alex Jones is an entertaining guy to listen to - I don't think his video would be money wasted.

So does this mean you think highly of Arnie as a politician?

I don't think highly of any politician, let alone Arnie.
However that site puts me in the unpleasant position of having to defend him.
So over the top.

Yeah he is entertaining alright. So are the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges.

And how exactly are you defending him?

(If I could have chosen a neutral presentation of the facts in that video I would - but those with a neutral stance have little desire to compile such facts)

Do politicians that DON'T want to rule the world even exist?

Who knows how many have a strong desire for power - but I do know I haven't heard other politicians making similar comments to Arnie, or giving nazi videos to their friends etc.

Iavas,

Holby is correct. This is political silliness at its worst. Even if everything said about the Terminator were correct, his ability to act on his supposed desires is almost non-existent.

Real politicians learn early on what can and cannot be said. His problem is that he isn't a politician and never learned the skill. He is an actor who has never had a need to guard his comments and worry about their mis-characterization, so he has left behind a gold-mine for those wanting to deal in half-truth. There are far more serious threats to our society.

I have no idea if he can help solve CA's problems. California survived Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan, so I'm not too concerned. I can think of no likely context in which most American's will need to make choices about him other than at Blockbuster. Whether or not he succeeds as governor, he deserves our appreciation for being willing to expose himself to this nuttiness.

I would say actors, or anyone in the public eye, should gaurd their comments to some extent. If an actor starts making public comments that make him look like a wacko, he'll start to be viewed less favourably by his potential audience.

I think it's all too easy to right off facts because of a bias against the person presenting them. Is there absolutely no information at all on sites like infowars that you guys would take seriously? There's a lot of wierd stuff going on... but I suppose it's more comforting to believe that all our leaders act openly and with the best of intentions!

It is spelled "Schwarzenegger" (without T) - just because for once I can

Names have too many letters in your part of the world

Iavas_Saar wrote:

I would say actors, or anyone in the public eye, should gaurd their comments to some extent. If an actor starts making public comments that make him look like a wacko, he'll start to be viewed less favourably by his potential audience.

...er...well, except for the old saw, 'no such thing as bad publicity'.
He might be less favorably viewed by potential supporters in a Presidential bid. Iavas, I think what doesn't bother me about this site, and others of this ilk, is what has been termed the 'crab-factor'. Every time someone tries to rise above his equals, he is brought back down into the muck by his fellows.
It will be highly entertaining, and sell lots of commercials and newspapers, to see Arnie try. It's good business. He will not succeed. The eastern establishment will not allow it. The idea of any constitutional amendment at this stage of the game seems highly unlikely.
OTOH: if they actually ever manage to convene a constitutional convention, I'll be on the next plane to anywhere-but-here.

Quote:

I think it's all too easy to right off facts because of a bias against the person presenting them.

Or to accept as 'fact' that which is poorly substaniated because of a bias in against the person they describe.

Quote:

Is there absolutely no information at all on sites like infowars that you guys would take seriously?

(Oh, Iavas you disappoint me with this question. Are there any absolutes at all?)
As for taking any of the information seriously, yes, probably. But what I do with that seriousness is bound to be different that what another is likely to do with it. For instance, there was a scrolling blurb quoting him saying somthing about '95% of the people in this world need to be told what to do...'. Substitute 'want' for 'need' and I'd have to agree. It's pathetic, but how else to account for the popularity of dictatorships around the world?

Quote:

There's a lot of wierd stuff going on...

Yes, but then the world has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since we got kicked out of the garden. We still haven't made it.

Quote:

...but I suppose it's more comforting to believe that all our leaders act openly and with the best of intentions!

I do try to believe the best of people. I didn't like Bill Clinton the moment I clapped eyes on him on the front of some newspaper, long before he won the nomination. I said to myself, 'That guy thinks he's God's gift to women.' And he frankly gave me the creeps because of that. It came as no shock to me whatsoever to find out about his inappropriate behaviour with Monica Lewinsky.
That said, I do believe, in my heart of hearts, that Bill Clinton meant well for the country and when it came to performing his job as President, he put all his mind and heart into it. I think he was wrong and misguided, but I do believer he acted with the best of intentions.

If you enjoy infowars, you might also enjoy reading something by Otto Scott, The Secret Six. It's hard to find, and usually very expensive, but available in larger libraries and well worth the effort.

As for conspiracy theories. I do believe in them too. But also in a wildcard that most people do not take into consideration. It is a spiritual one. But that is for another thread, I think.

Please Iavas, do yourself a favour and don't read the Da Vinci Code or anything by Dan Brown. You're far too much into conspiracies as it is. :D

Iavas wrote:

I would say actors, or anyone in the public eye, should gaurd their comments to some extent. If an actor starts making public comments that make him look like a wacko, he'll start to be viewed less favourably by his potential audience.

Personally, I make it a point to know as little about actors as I can possibly get away with. I don't WANT to know what they think about real world issues, nor what they do in real life.

It's almost always disappointing, so I try to avoid it. I'm interested in the characters they play, not the person behind the act. I decided on this policy years ago, after reading that Patrick Steward didn't particularly like sci fi. I didn't want to know that! Now every time I see Cpt. Picard, I get this nagging little voice in my mind that says, "He hates this. He's only doing it for the money."

Iavas,

I grew up in a political world. You have no idea how much energy is thrown at the public image of a political figure. For an important figure, it is a full time job for several people. For actors, image is also important, but mostly limited to the context of the movie set, not every word spoken and every public appearance.

We generally don't care what an actor says and most of them don't make the transition to politics, but having made it, many of their unguarded past statements are on record and since they never developed the skill of guarding their public statements, they frequently get themselves in trouble for no reason at all.

I've personally known many politicians and I've met one I respect. Unfortunately for us, he left the field. I think I mentioned elsewhere that for decades it was normal for the governor of Kentucky to be indicted within 6 months of leaving office. The exception was Martha Lane Collins. Since she was a lady, and therefore assumed to be above reproach, they indicted her husband instead. I once knew the name of the person to whom you were to leave your brown bag (not kidding) before an audience with the governor of another southern state. Your admission was based on your ability to prejudge the importance. You were never asked for an amount, you were either admitted or not.

Those were the people in view of the public. I've worked with unseen parts of the government enough to know that we shouldn't trust it or its public statements.

Most of the threats to us and our constitution are in the open, they just go unnoticed. There are some that are also hidden. However, most of the things that the conspiracy theorists focus on are just silly.

Quote:

I think it's all too easy to right off facts because of a bias against the person presenting them.

That is indeed one of the major weakesses in our problem solving skills. Please visit Halplms Global Crisis thread. We'll be getting to that issue soon.

Old_Begonia

The call on Clinton was easy for me, although it wasn't his sexual charm I had in mind. He just seemed criminally inclined, like Nixon.

IdylleSeethes, Nixon was another one who got my screechmeter peggin' a ten. I never saw a picture of him that didn't scream 'self-absorbed twit'.

There was a book written in the early 70ies (Herbert Tarr) where a man nearly died laughing when another guy talked to him about his ideal presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan.

Reality doesn't follow the rules of plausibility. Arnold Schwarzenegger has an "Alpha Male" appeal that works even on other males, I can well imagine him in almost every leading position. As a man who started his career from scratch and all by himself, he has more common sense than any elitist riffraff who rely on daddy's gazillions and help of their friends.

Sensing fascism or racism in Schwarzenegger's opinions is BS, and stupid slander following the all too common pattern "he's austrian, he's clean shaven, he's got an unpronouncable name, he must be a Nazi". Guys who support this are just sad that Schwarzenegger isn't a "Von Schwarzenegger".

I wouldn't vote for him, but the average is worse than he.

I don't follow politics a lot because it's too confusing and I firmly believe we only ever see the tip of the iceberg on any given issue or person.

I voted for Arnie for governor because I just really hated his predecessor who reminded me strongly of Eddie Haskell. The government of California is a mess. I like the idea of shaking up the status quo and I figured if nothing else, he's easier to look at.

I would not vote for him for President because he is foreign born.

I don't care if they ever do actually manage to pass an amendment, which I highly doubt. The founding fathers knew what they were about on this one.

Mumpizz wrote:

Quote:

...Guys who support this are just sad that Schwarzenegger isn't a "Von Schwarzenegger".

Too true, I'm afraid.

Old_Begonia wrote:

I would not vote for him for President because he is foreign born.

I don't understand this. I would vote for somebody born whereever if that somebody would be the best for this job.

That's you, this is me.

Would you also vote for a president under the age of 35?