Arnold as CA Governer???

[Soledad]

How does one fold a groped butt?

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Soledad
How does one fold a groped butt?

weren't you betting it???


Actually it's the crease in the middle (you hate me anyway..... )


I see your point.....
It's that 'hostile work enviroment' that people create....being blacklisted is all the more reason to go forth with a case...

Unfair pressure at work is no reason to fear losing a job....It makes sense to leave if you are being hassled, groped, mistreated.......

[lbaker]

DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE OR MUTILATE That's the law, or at least it was when there were punch cards, before computers - or am I just showing my age again

[RICHARD]

What's the statute on being fondled????


IF Andy Warhol wasn't dead.........

That dude gave everyone 15 minutes and in typical selfish human nature everyone is looking for 1 hour.....


Ladies,

when a movie star fondles you, get mad.....don't wait until he runs for office.


Mary Carrey is looking better all the time!

[Pam]

Originally posted by RICHARD
What's the statute on being fondled????


Ladies,

when a movie star fondles you get mad.....don't wait until he runs for office.

Exactly what I was thinking Richard. The timing is just a bit curious here. Do I smell a rat? (my apologies to those of you have ratties as pets. )

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Pam
Exactly what I was thinking Richard. The timing is just a bit curious here. Do I smell a rat? (my apologies to those of you have ratties as pets. )

thank you,

When I worked moving office furniture I was 'sexually harrassed' by a woman in one of the offices..

It was kinda embarrassing, but hell, getting your
rear squeezed ain't the end-of-the-world...

Mattter of fact it was kinda funny, the gal was a doll and should she ever run for office I'll vote for her!

P.S. the obvious sign it was a political ploy was my-gal Arianna, leading the parade......my only concern is her leading off the press conference....

Don't the clowns go last???

[Logan]

My point is WHY IN HECK didn't these women say something before??

I think that if it were a big enough deal to them at the point it happened, they would have said something. At the time, they probably thought it was "cute" and "fun" to be fondled by him. Now it's an atrosity. There stories, all these years later, should mean nothing.

If I were in California, I'd vote for him, just to spite them!!!!! Besides, Gov. Davis looks scary to me!!!!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Logan


If I were in California, I'd vote for him, just to spite them!!!!! Besides, Gov. Davis looks scary to me!!!!

I think it's against the law to coerce, sell or maipulate a vote........

But there's no reason why I can't take suggestions..

Want to split my vote with me???

[Logan]

I'd gladly do that, Richard!!!

[kohala]

Let's see - give a Calif***ia driver's licenses to ILLEGAL immigrants . . Oh, that's right - we need them here, illegal or not, because we need the workforce . . wait a minute, aren't Americans are having unemployment problems. Oh, that's right, these jobs don't PAY enough for Americans to take them.
Hm, must be lazy. I mean, why not take a job at $6.00/hr (or -woohoo! - $10.00/hr) ? That would give you -hm- $1,233.00/mo! That's a lot of money! After all, you only have to pay rent/mortgage ($750.00/mo low-end to - $1500.00 and up), power bill, food (!) and who says you need a car to pay for and insure? Oh, that's right - the people who are giving out licenses! Tell, me, are they also insured?
Sheesh
So, what's Ahnie got in mind?
We know where Cruz stands.
BTW - does that also mean we no longer deport illegal immigrants? Why have a department of immigration, then?
It's not like we're crowded or anything.

[RICHARD]

Why wasn't Davis investigated too?
By Jill Stewart


I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.

Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.

I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.

Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?

I have no idea.

Or, could she be telling the truth?

I have no idea.

And neither does the Los Angeles Times.

If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"'

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.

Jill Stewart is a print, radio and television commentator on California politics. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jillstewart.net

------------------------------------


GO ARHNOLD!!

[mugsy]

OMG! I am SO ready for this stupid election to be done. It has turned into a circus for no apparent good reason. My question is, why are these stupid attention seeking wenches just coming forward now? Oh well, after tomorrow it won't much matter.

Good luck Californians.

[kohala]

Originally posted by mugsy
OMG! I am SO ready for this stupid election to be done. It has turned into a circus for no apparent good reason. My question is, why are these stupid attention seeking wenches just coming forward now? Oh well, after tomorrow it won't much matter.

Good luck Californians.

I'll be glad when tomorrow has come and gone - hopefully with some positive changes left in it's wake!

[kohala]

Originally posted by RICHARD
Why wasn't Davis investigated too?
By Jill Stewart


I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.

Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.

I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.

Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?

I have no idea.

Or, could she be telling the truth?

I have no idea.

And neither does the Los Angeles Times.

If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"'

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.

Jill Stewart is a print, radio and television commentator on California politics. She can be reached via her Web site, www.jillstewart.net

------------------------------------


GO ARHNOLD!!

Good article - thank you! Whether we approve or not, sexual friskiness, especially of the movie star variety, is a part of our culture. Sadly, sexual abuse is, also, and that doesn't always mean getting hit on. Many an excellant woman has been held back in her career for not being "sexy" or "young" or "thin" enough, while women willing to "play the game and look the part" get ahead.And not a few women profiteer off their "abuse" while many truly abused women quietly get on with their lives.
But violence in the workplace (beyond sexual harassment), verbal or physical, is not only an indication of poor adjustment (to put it mildly), it's illegal. I am amazed that such behavior could possibly get covered up.
Or maybe I'm not.

[babolaypo65]

So basically, they are both creeps. Great selection you guys have to choose from.