Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sabertooth
Ah, yes. The group whose very name derives from its founding purpose, namely to urge Congress not to IMPEACH Clinton for his perjury and obstruction-of-justice about sexual affairs, but rather to "Censure and Move On" instead.

Hypocrites. Back then, it was "move on"; sexual dalliances AND perjury and obstruction of justice related thereto were NOT to be grounds for disqualification from high office. NOW, apparently, far lesser sexual conduct, with NO lying under oath or obstruction of justice, it IS grounds for such disqualification.

I am on MoveOn.org's mailing list for the express purpose of getting a slight jump on their forthcoming lies. The ad is just a condensation of the email: half-truths and lies.

For example: they (in the email; dunno about the ad) quote Arnold's comment about how, at first, when one sees a hot-bodied blonde, one may assume she's an idiot, and sometimes that turns out to be the case ... AND THEY STOPPED THERE. The very next thing he says is that, usually it ISN'T true, and that people must beware of following their superficial, appearance-based stereotypes. It's actually a very feminist comment. This partial quote is a lie, for all practical purposes. I wish I had such "testimony" in a court for cross-examination purposes: any jury that saw how they've selectively quoted him would never trust them again.

The toilet bowl comment, in context (or, frankly, even out), is obviously a lighthearted joke. It needn't even have been about a woman. Plus, MoveOn left out another part of the quote, in which Arnold says what is obvious to anyone who's seen the movie: It's not a woman. It's a machine made to look like a woman to fool its victims. Sorta like Arianna.

Lies, lies, lies.
10 posted on 10/03/2003 4:26:23 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: pogo101
Hypocrites. Back then, it was "move on"; sexual dalliances AND perjury and obstruction of justice related thereto were NOT to be grounds for disqualification from high office. NOW, apparently, far lesser sexual conduct, with NO lying under oath or obstruction of justice, it IS grounds for such disqualification.

That's a very good point. I still can't summon up much sympathy for Arnold, though. At least he apologized, and that is something.

19 posted on 10/03/2003 4:50:19 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson