8th October 2003, 8:54 PM
Quote:Arnold was honnest about it, but atleast he didnt actually have sex.But it did actually make me question him not just as a candidate but as a person, The worry is he will be brought into office and then law suites will shoot up.
Well I could say "well at least Clinton had consent", but it wouldn't make that right... same with Arnold here...
And I don't think he stopped... the rumors go well into the '90s...
Quote:but what is odd is that why did they choose now to come out with these complaints? Why not when he was the big shot actor, But what made it oblivious was the fact it was in politics and since watergate and Clinton these sort of things are just conciderd political blackwatering and nasty attack ploys.
Because now they'll get BIG publicity from them... more than before. And because now people are actively searching for them.
Quote:Well, I'll at least say this. The general problem republicans had wasn't the sexual indescretions, but rather that he lied under oath about it. For those who say "did you expect him to tell the truth?", I say YES. Don't take an oath unless you plan to uphold it, even if it means you embarress yourself. I myself certainly find that the major beef. Of course, had Clinton told the truth from the start, I have no doubt the repubs who "only had a problem with his honesty" would suddenly make the cheating thing out to be the major problem.
Oh, Clinton was really stupid to do it, and then even dumber to lie about it... but reacting the way the Republicansdid, with impeachment? Idiocy. Pure idiocy. At least Clinton's lies didn't kill people... unlike Pres. Bush's...
On that note, I wonder what will hapen to Arnold... will he make the accusations not matter by admitting it? It'll be interesting to see if he can avoid being really hurt by them by doing that.