j_b

if you think it pleasurable to be continually insulted by a moron whenever you express a differing opinion, be my guest. but don't assume it is to everyone's taste.

to reinforce stereotypes: marriage, mortgage, couch, etc ... (just kidding dfa)

2 posts on the topic is an obsession? what is certain however is that i am tired of bullies ruling the day (did you hear me trask?)

the article provides a rational of why some of the people involved did not say anything initially. your question can also be turned the other way: the identity of most of the accusers (~10 out 15 in the latimes) is public, so why is arnie not suing them?

lol. stop digging.

link to story Arnie, the humiliator Clinton took a hit for less, so why did Schwarzenegger's groping have no impact at the polls? Susan Faludi Thursday October 9, 2003 The Guardian [...] "Clinton was perceived by men as having lost this control, and worse, lost it to a series of women. He may have been the aggressor, but as a seducer he really meant to seduce, thus exposing an almost feminine sort of desire and vulnerability. For this, he was humiliated, held up like Howard for ridicule in male eyes. No wonder that so many women empathised with Clinton: he was essentially shamed like a fallen woman. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is Chad the "playful" cad, going after women, sniggering frat-boy style, for the score. Sex isn't even the prime object here: the women were manhandled, not seduced. There is no warning, no courtship (unless you count such come-ons as "I'd love to work you out"); the hand darts into their underclothes like a bolt from the blue, a pre-emptive strike. "Did he rape me? No," one woman said, recalling the time Schwarzenegger allegedly grabbed her breast. "Did he humiliate me? You bet he did." [...] "No matter how much sand gets kicked in their face, they can still fantasise that one day they, too, will do enough leg-lifts to rise in the ranks. At a time of deep economic and international insecurity, the easy power of the bully boy is a siren call to the American male populace, as evidenced by Bush's continuing allure to the very men whose interests are least served by his policies. The locker-room game works as long as only men get to play, and only as long as they agree to play by certain rules. One rule is that sensuality is verboten, but aggressive jocularity is not. Humiliating women in a "playful" way can signal a rejection of "the feminine" and a reinforcement of male bonding. That rejection of the feminine explains why, in the gubernatorial debate, the governor seemed fixated on shutting down Arianna Huffington. When haranguing didn't work, he resorted to a veiled threat of physical humiliation, implied in the remark: "I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4." As much as he denied it later, it's hard to imagine what part he had in mind except the one assigned the female robot in Terminator 3, whose face he buried in the toilet. Funny, right? Not to Huffington. "It's a continuum of a lack of respect," she remarked to me a few days after the debate, "from not putting a single woman on your economic team, to bullying a woman at a debate, to treating women in such a humiliating way in the course of your daily life." [...]

pretty weak. are you trying to rally the avatar mob to do what you can't do by yourself? what a man ...

j-b, your continual whining and arguing is wearisome. Changes don't happen over night and definitely won't happen if you aren't willing to put in some effort, but if you can muster even a little cooperation and hope, you may break this vicious argument cycle. cut the crap. we all know what your intent is here and it's not to have an exchange of opinions on topics (as can be seen throughout your posts in this thread).

not even that. it's more the result of having had spineless politicians who were scared of the anti-tax demagogues.

now he runs away. typical trask.

yeah, right. i bet you also make sure all the goods you consume are routed directly through .... marysville? why don't you compare your lifestyle to that of someone in pt. barrow and it'll help you realize the difference between living next to a large city and being truly out in the boondocks.

disruption of a thread which he does not like. it must be trask exercising his freedom of speech ... again Just want to point out you're off topic, and you told Trask to fuck off just a bit ago. You've become everything you hate here. dude, you're so smart it's killing me

typical hypocrite. do you really think that life in 'sleepy north snohomish' is not conditioned by the seattle metro infrastructure?

disruption of a thread which he does not like. it must be trask exercising his freedom of speech ... again

fuck off, trask. you are off topic.

??? so what would be the 'modern' solution? a futon for every 2 workers in the back of the office to decrease the need for commuting?

??? so what would be the 'modern' solution?

most maulings can be related to disturbed/sick animals; yet, these days i carry a gun when in grizz territory. i never had to shoot at one but it helps me sleep better. although, for protection a dog is best.

huh? do you have problems understanding what "no" means? i.e. the difference between physical harassment and consensual sex? anyhow schwarzy couldn't be worse than reagan (although i said the same thing about bush). what a joke.

kinda hard to tell. we are supposed to be in a cold/wet decadal trend but it did not happen last year and el nino is supposed to be back.

and then, you expect to be taken seriously ...

the two don't seem mutually exclusive (a hopelessly pro-administration spin in tv news and a fraction of the public wanting confirmation of what they believe is true). would they believe the same things if tv media actually presented the facts and all the facts (bias being often reflected in what is not said)?

is this true?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892 The Hazards of Watching Fox News By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service October 3, 2003 The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week. And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions. The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it. [...]