Slight Hijack:
How does the crowd feel he would do as President, assuming laws were adjusted to allow him to run.
I like him, unlike other politicians I get the feeling that he does what he feels is right for his state…he coulda put up a real fight over this but he realized that it looks as though he as a conflict of interest.
I laughed when I first heard he’d be running for governor but he’s certainly earned my respect.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
Slight Hijack:
How does the crowd feel he would do as President, assuming laws were adjusted to allow him to run.[/quote]
Let’s see, he’s a Nazi governor in a country run by Fascist elites…
On the other hand, he’s AHNULD! He gets my vote!
Arnold Shwanzegaggearregazer in 2008!
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
Slight Hijack:
How does the crowd feel he would do as President, assuming laws were adjusted to allow him to run.[/quote]
No idea. I know way too little about Californian politics to able to judge the job he’s done.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
Slight Hijack:
How does the crowd feel he would do as President, assuming laws were adjusted to allow him to run.[/quote]
He’d do absolutely nothing different from the rest of the crimminals who run for that office.
What Arnold did was what every other politician would do when leaned on: he caved in to the pressure and gave up his position with the (evil) Weider publication.
I wouldn’t vote for him for President, or any other office!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What Arnold did was what every other politician would do when leaned on: he caved in to the pressure and gave up his position with the (evil) Weider publication.
I wouldn’t vote for him for President, or any other office!
[/quote]
I completely agree, I would have alot of respect for him if he had stood his ground and said screw you, I always thought regulation of supplements was crap, it has nothing to do with this current deal.
He vetoed a supplement bill in Cali, in a time when the witch hunt is on. I can respect that, I can’t respect backing down like he did.
I’m not getting into a political discussion, but seriously, any way you cut it, it’s a conflict of interest (ie vetoing a supplement bill). It sucks for us, but he shouldn’t be put in that position.
Tri, thanks for the “slight” hijack. You’re “…lamer than FDR’s legs.” <GASP!> “Too soon?”
[quote]DTak wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He vetoed a supplement bill in Cali, in a time when the witch hunt is on. I can respect that, I can’t respect backing down like he did.
[/quote]
I don’t think that he’s backing down on his stance on supplements. Both Flex and MF feature pictures and articles of pro body builders on steroids. He does not support steroids, so he cannot support magazines that rely on the physiques those who use them.
[quote]DTak wrote:
ZEB wrote:
What Arnold did was what every other politician would do when leaned on: he caved in to the pressure and gave up his position with the (evil) Weider publication.
I wouldn’t vote for him for President, or any other office!
I completely agree, I would have alot of respect for him if he had stood his ground and said screw you, I always thought regulation of supplements was crap, it has nothing to do with this current deal.
He vetoed a supplement bill in Cali, in a time when the witch hunt is on. I can respect that, I can’t respect backing down like he did.
[/quote]
That’s exactly why he ‘backed’ down. In the future, he can legitimately veto any other supplement bill and stand proud and say the only reason is because of his own beleifs and merits of the bill. In politics, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. He doesn’t need bullshit accusations about vested interest and being pro-supplement because of binding ties to a magazine funded by supplement companies.
[quote]David Barr wrote:
I’m not getting into a political discussion, but seriously, any way you cut it, it’s a conflict of interest (ie vetoing a supplement bill). It sucks for us, but he shouldn’t be put in that position.
Tri, thanks for the “slight” hijack. You’re “…lamer than FDR’s legs.” <GASP!> “Too soon?”[/quote]
Quick… to the petercopter.
Well put
[quote]Aqua Man wrote:
DTak wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He vetoed a supplement bill in Cali, in a time when the witch hunt is on. I can respect that, I can’t respect backing down like he did.
I don’t think that he’s backing down on his stance on supplements. Both Flex and MF feature pictures and articles of pro body builders on steroids. He does not support steroids, so he cannot support magazines that rely on the physiques those who use them.[/quote]
Those mags don’t openly admit that the bodybuilders featured use steroids. Of course we know better, but the average person may not. And if you follow that same trend of logic, why go to a baseball game, football game or an olympic event? Many of the athletes in these venues use some type of performance enhancing substances, always have and always will.
The magazines seemed to have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mentality to AAS. So all that in consideration, I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say ‘he doesn’t support steroids so he can’t support the mags.’
[quote]heimdall wrote:
Aqua Man wrote:
DTak wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He vetoed a supplement bill in Cali, in a time when the witch hunt is on. I can respect that, I can’t respect backing down like he did.
I don’t think that he’s backing down on his stance on supplements. Both Flex and MF feature pictures and articles of pro body builders on steroids. He does not support steroids, so he cannot support magazines that rely on the physiques those who use them.
Those mags don’t openly admit that the bodybuilders featured use steroids. Of course we know better, but the average person may not. And if you follow that same trend of logic, why go to a baseball game, football game or an olympic event? Many of the athletes in these venues use some type of performance enhancing substances, always have and always will.
The magazines seemed to have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mentality to AAS. So all that in consideration, I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say ‘he doesn’t support steroids so he can’t support the mags.’
[/quote]
You’re right. He can’t support the mags for the reason I previously stated. On a deeper level, you bring up another secondary reason. The average person looks at those guys and knows something’s going on. Instead of differentiating between steroids and supplements, they’re probably more likely to lump supplements in with steroids and assume supplements can lead to physiques like that as well as cause all the nasty side effects they’ve heard about through the media. Supplements end up getting a worse rap. I think Arnold made the right decision.
[quote]heimdall wrote:
Those mags don’t openly admit that the bodybuilders featured use steroids. Of course we know better, but the average person may not. And if you follow that same trend of logic, why go to a baseball game, football game or an olympic event? Many of the athletes in these venues use some type of performance enhancing substances, always have and always will.
The magazines seemed to have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mentality to AAS. So all that in consideration, I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say ‘he doesn’t support steroids so he can’t support the mags.’
[/quote]
This may be true, but the average person connects steroid use to bodybuilding much faster then they do to football, baseball, basketball, or any other sport.
[quote]heimdall wrote:
Those mags don’t openly admit that the bodybuilders featured use steroids. Of course we know better, but the average person may not. And if you follow that same trend of logic, why go to a baseball game, football game or an olympic event? Many of the athletes in these venues use some type of performance enhancing substances, always have and always will.
The magazines seemed to have a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mentality to AAS. So all that in consideration, I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say ‘he doesn’t support steroids so he can’t support the mags.’
[/quote]
Are you fucking kidding?? Joe Average thinks everybody with a semi-decent physique is on steriods. If your chest is bigger than your gut, you must be on steriods. Otherwise, what excuse would the fatasses have.
Got muscle? It has to be steriods.
Get muscle and your lean? Throw him in jail. He’s obviously a chronic user and a danger to the kids.
Anybody here from Cali that has any thought out opinions on Arnie as a govenor?
[quote]Massif wrote:
Are you fucking kidding?? Joe Average thinks everybody with a semi-decent physique is on steriods. If your chest is bigger than your gut, you must be on steriods. Otherwise, what excuse would the fatasses have.
Got muscle? It has to be steriods.
Get muscle and your lean? Throw him in jail. He’s obviously a chronic user and a danger to the kids.[/quote]
I could not agree more with this comment!
Somone from my daughters school asked her if I was on steroids! Ha ha…me of all people!
The problem just as Massif states. Those who are not in shape need an excuse: “If I was on steroids like your Dad…well then I’d be in shape too.”
Those of us who have invested the time on our bodies are going to be looked at as roid users whether we are or not!
Almost like the few who make some serious money. “I know he did something illegal to be driving that Porsche.” Um…try working really hard and smart for many years!
It’s jealousy…
As far as Arnold goes, he is just another pandering politician. He stands for nothing…If you think he does keep watching…
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Anybody here from Cali that has any thought out opinions on Arnie as a govenor?[/quote]
I do believe he is doing a good job for how wack this blue state I live in is.
The Liberals have been attacking him lately, so he is not seen a a “special” anything really…at least that’s my opinion.