Democrats Spielberg, Saban, and Katzenberg support Arnold!

[AX10]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dems5aug05,1,5284187.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/schwarzenegger-blows-spie_b_26586.html

WHY????

Now I know why so called wealthy "liberals" are not investing in building a media structure. They are all status-quo corporatists.

:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[Cha]

1. They're not Dems if they

support swartzengroper..hell, they aren't even intelligent.

[sgxnk]

2. arnold

arnold supports gay rights, and is pro-choice

that could be part of the reason why.

not to mention he is a hollywood success story, a true self made in america story

i gotta admit i am biased, as i am a strength athlete (not bodybuilder) and have a similar interest in (to quote henry rollins) "the iron"

arnold has also, unlike some repubs, been a firm critic of bush in many areas

[AX10]

3. BULLSHIT! It's all an act. Arnold only came to the center....

after he got his ass kicked last fall. He will be out in 08' campaigning for whatever right wing loon the GOP nominates.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

6. So that's why he vetoed the gay marriage bill?

:eyes:

[sgxnk]

8. arnold said

he thought the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the voters or the courts. what he did not support was the fact that the LEGISLATURE passed Prop 22 by a margin of over 60% and then the legislature turned around and passed a law nullifying that

he always supported domestic partnership programs and would have supported gay marriage if it wasn't an issue of the legislature overturning a citizen prop

many dems have not supported gay marriage

howard dean, as governor did not support it

[ShortnFiery]

5. Arnold's Misogynistic Anti-Union scum ... they are NOT Democrats.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

10. This is a board that is PRO-DEMOCRATIC Party

If you want to be like Lieberman and play that "let's all be submissive to the republicans" to include voting for Independents or cross party lines to vote for Moderate REPUBLICANS, there's many other sites you'd enjoy better.

NO, they are NOT Democrats - especially in the sense that ole' Arnold loves UNION BUSTING. That's not democratic by a long shot. :(

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Go back and read The Rules of What This Board represents ...

We support Democratic Party Candidates. Your Lieberman-esque whining about not being partisan is going to fall on deaf ears within this message board. It's also skirting very close to not being "in the spirit" of what this board represents ... gathering place to promote Democratic Candidates.

You really are not "fitting in" if you continue to promote Democrats to cross party lines, especially for Arnold or Lieberman. :(

[sgxnk]

15. u are mischaracterizing what i said

#1 i am NOT promoting anybody to cross party lines

they already DID cross party lines, and i am saying there decision was not unreasonable. i am not saying anybody else should do it

furthermore, i was correcting inaccuracies about his record of supporting gay rights (which is similar to howard dean's record) and supporting abortion rights.

are inaccuracies ok as long as they are not negative inaccuracies towards a democrat?

#2 then where is the outrage for all the people shilling for green candidates here? and i see it plenty. there;s a few long threads right now from people giving props to dems

so, is the rule actually that it's ok to mention a non-democrat in a positive light if they are a green but not if they are a republican?

please clarify this for me

tia

i am not saying to SUPPORT ARNOLD

show me where i did

i am saying that GIVEN spielberg et al's decision to support arnold, THEY are not automatically traitors to democratic ideals, or the democratic party

do u understand the distinction?

[ShortnFiery]

17. No, I do not and YES in this Election Cycle, THEY ARE TRAITORS

You really don't belong here if you are going to tout people who are abandoning the party.

That's UNSAT! You know that, don't you?

Every democratic position COUNTS! Now more than ever.

[sgxnk]

19. i don't grok that

and again, you didn't answere my question

why is it ok to defend greens but not repubs?

if this is supposed to be ONLY democratic party candidates, why the greens are ok?

seriously


what if arnold ran against a dem who opposed choice, for instance?

are dems ok even if they are anti-choice?

there are dems who ARE

so is party loyalty more important than principles, ideals, etc.

should prochoice dems (and most dems are prochoice) hold their nose and vote only for a anti-choice dem or else be a TRAITOR?

these are serious questions

[ChipsAhoy]

44. You may not get serious answers.

Sorry to say, but there are some posters here who DEMAND us all to be in total lockstep and total agreement on every minute point and ideal.

I have said so many times on this board that I believe we all want the same final result - to take the country back-- we just have different avenues of obtaining that. And that IS OK.

However, you will notice that some here don't agree and start in with the insults and name-calling. Very immature. Good for you for standing your ground. Whatever it may be. FREEDOM of diversity, you know - what we all wish for.

[sgxnk]

50. cheers nt

[Cha]

35. There's gotta be a word just begging

to join the lexicon denoting "lieberman-esque whining"!

lieberwhineman? :+

[AX10]

13. Arnold serves a purpose, and that purpose is to...

do what he can to make Cali into a "red" state.

[sgxnk]

16. that's a pretty far fetched idea imo

[ShortnFiery]

18. Really, consider going to an independent site that lauds all parties

because we are not empathetic to such views here.

We are being run by Republican Maniacs.

TODAY more than ever, it's important to vote the Democratic Party Line. Well, if you wish to win back any semblance of our Democratic Republic.

[sgxnk]

20. i don't live in california and i never said anybody should vote for arnold

and i NEVER said you or anybody else should vote for arnold

i said that spielberg was not a traitor to the democratic party for intending to do so

and if that opinion - that spielberg et al should not vote for a (prochoice progayrights republican) or else they are TRAITORs is itself a traitorous opinion to hold, then i am guilty

must one vote for even a anti-choice dem for example

but that law is, to paraphrase, an a** if its traitorous to ever cross party lines, or to defend somebody who does

[ShortnFiery]

21. I regret to tell you that, during this election cycle, IMO, et. al.,

it is TRAITOROUS to cross party lines and vote for either Lieberman or Arnold. :thumbsdown:

No excuse for that save for GREED to hold on to one's wealth ... and/or enjoy the thought of union busting and tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. :(

[sgxnk]

22. i still didn't get the question answered about right to choose

would voting for, for example, a pro-choice repub over a anti-choice dem be "traitorous"

acceptable.

evul (tm)
what?

[ShortnFiery]

23. I clearly explained myself ... I'm done with this. :-) eom

[sgxnk]

24. fair enuf :)

[AX10]

26. Thanks for the support ShortnFiery!

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

28. You're welcome ...

And I'm not trying to beat up on this person ... only to explain how *CRITICAL* it is for the Democratic Party to stick together. We need to gain seats this November like never before. :hi:

[sgxnk]

30. even anti-choice dems? even antigay dems?

[AX10]

31. Bob Casey is lightyears ahead of Rick Santorum.

[sgxnk]

33. i am talking about

a antichoice dem vs. a prochoice repub

for example

would one still be breaking inviolate party faithful rules (tm) under DU logic in voting for the repub in the above case?

i am DEFINITELY not talking about santorum

[druidity33]

36. get out of hypothetical-land!

Will Arnold be running against an anti-choice Dem? Do we know who the candidate will be for the Democrats will be? Is his an '06 or '08 election? Answer these questions for me as a Massachusettes resident, i do not follow the politics of California...

Do you really think the Dems will put up an anti-choice or anti-gay candidate in Cali?

you're throwin' spitballs here...

Your argument is moot...

fiddle faddle...

[sgxnk]

39. first of all

moot means 'arguable" not the usage you use. common misusage

now, that i am off grammer-mode

sorry if i don't hold fealty to a political party over principles

my point stands. arnold is prochoice, progay rights/ spielberg is no traitor

sorry if that upsets the party loyalists

second of all, the double standard i mentioned is silly

i see shilling for greeens all the time. so, it's not just a 'dem' board

but i dare mention that spielberg is not a traitor for daring to intend to vote for ahnold, and all of a sudden *i* am some sort of traitorous rw shill

whatEver

all i did was come to the defense of spielberg et al for DARING to consider voting for arnold, and all of a sudden the edifice of democratic party politics is gonna come down

[oasis]

41. Since we're in the correction mode, it's G-R-A-M-M-A-R. Common mistake.

;-)

[sgxnk]

45. now THAT is ironic, alanis :) nt

[druidity33]

42. whatEver yourself...

Maybe you could have tried answering the pertinent questions... Who's running vs. Ahnold? What's their stance on those issues?

Collins Cobuild (a dictionary within reach) defines moot point as:
a statement or idea that may or may not be true, or that people cannot agree about.


"all i did was come to the defense of spielberg et al for DARING to consider voting for arnold"...

Oh, IS THAT ALL?

I think you're missing the point of this message board.

It's called Democratic Underground! We work here to promote the best DEMOOCRATIC candidates for the job. Expressing understanding towards a prominent and powerful Democrat for publicly announcing he'll vote for a Rethug will not go over well here. What Speilberg and co. should be doing is working towards fielding the best Demo candidate vs. Ahnold that they can. They (Speilberg and other moguls the article mentioned) can afford to support a campaign, so they'd basically be able to pick their own candidate from the field. A thoughtless and Unforgivable time to throw weight behind Arnold.

BTW, where does ASchwarz stand on the Bilbray/Busby debacle?

[sgxnk]

46. ok

and as the colin dict. shows, using moot in its common usage is just plain wrong

this is a common error though

anyway...

i repeat. why is it ok for people here to promote, laud, and defend GREENS then?

greens are NOT democrats. correct?

that's my point.

i am asking for "equal justice"

i think the term "traitor" is absurd. that's what set me off. it evidences the sort of "my party no matter what" type of close minded thinking that is just as stupid as "america right or wrong is always right", etc.

it's the same close-minded facts-be-damned kneejerk close minded religious fundamentalist rubbish (except its for a political party) that true free thinkers should be AGAINST.

but i'll ask again.

cause everybody is dancing around it like fred astaire.

why is it ok to mention GREENS in a positive light, defend people for occasionally voting for greens, etc. but it is a terrible thing to dare defend ...

STEVEN SPIELBERG who has a long history of supporting liberal causes and ideals, who is by all accounts a good and honest man, for DARING to cross party lines and consider voting for a pro-choice pro-gay rights republican?

i am offended by the double standard (vis a vis greens) and i am also offended by the apparatchik mentality

double standards. it's what's for dinner

when somebody can address the double standards and loyalty above all else issues, then we'll address specifics of the california race

[druidity33]

47. just not so...

I don't recall ever having seen a thread on this board where Greens are a prominent topic. And the last time i saw a Green mentioned it was Nader... who was in that thread, condemned soundly by several people despite his long history of consumer advocacy.

Point me to these Green supporting threads please...

and you still haven't answered the pertinent questions...

[sgxnk]

48. donor

i just tried to search and it says i must be a DONOR to search

i was gonna search for greens.

i was reading a thread yesterday on greens. at least 20-30 responses

as to the pertinent questions, i admittedly have no idea whom schwarzenneger is running against.

lets assume the dem opponent(s) are all prochoice, progay rights, etc.

imo, that does not make spielberg a traitor

again, i want to make something clear. i *never* advocated anybody vote for arnold

i merely said that the fact that a (committed) dem like spielberg WAS, did not make him a traitor

i obviously have a very different view than u do. i do not think that party loyalty is some sort of sacrosanct thing. imo, it is these kind of loyalties that are often problems because ANYTIME a person has a blind obeyance to a party, or religion, or other "system", it means exactly that

their blinders are on

and is it or is not against DU rules to defend somebody who is intending to vote for a specific repub candidate? if it is, i think that is moronic, but i accept it cause hey... it's not my board

but i do not think arnold is some kind of evil rightwing demon

and i find it amusing that a guy who is prochice, progayrights, progun control (which i happen to disagree with him on gun control), and has the same stance on gay marriage, essentially, that howard Dean did as a candidate is some sort of ogre, and spielberg a traitor for voting for him

i know zip (admittedly) about his upcoming opponents. i do think the primary reason that grey davis was defeated by him was davis' stance on the illegal drivers license issue, combined with arnold's liberalness (on social issues), and his general popularity and amazing personal success story, which shows a lot of character

having maria shriver as a wife, and a lot of kudos from the kennedy clan didn't hurt either

[druidity33]

49. not sacrosanct...

but not utterly dismissable.

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."-from the rules

Republicans ARE NOT Progressives. Regardless of where Arnold stands on any of the issues, in this forum it is expected that you are to , again i say, promote Democratic candidates. Whether you had "told people to vote for Arnold" or not, the fact that you think it's acceptable that HIGHLY VISIBLE AND PROMINENT DEMOCRATS should cross Party lines to vote for an R, WITHOUT KNOWING where the Dem candidate stands on the issue does mean you and i think differently. And by the way, i DO think he's a traitor for voting for AS. Why the hell do you think they call it party loyalty?

I can understand if you like/respect the guy (Schwarzenegger that is)... that's fine. Maybe you should write to him and ASK HIM to change his party affiliation since he's so liberal. But i don't think he would since so many of his policies only help to make the rich people in Cali even richer and the poor people in Cali even poorer... stinks of an R to me. Maybe you should ask the Union workers in Cali about his "liberal" policies. Or the Teachers (education policy)... oh, better yet, see how the Social Services in California are holding up to his Liberal "social policies".

As for blinders... i have my eyes WIDE OPEN buddy. I think it's you who's not seeing it.

Once more and i'm out of this, Get out of Hypothetical-land!

[sgxnk]

51. thanks for the clarification

i appreciate that

as for the 1st thang, i do not think that denying spielberg is a traitor = promoting arnold

second of all, i do not think that if a lifelong democrat supports a repub in one election that that makes them a traitor

by that definition, unless one votes the party line every frigging time, one is a traitor

that is absurd imo

but i guess we disagree

i do appreciate the effort you put into explaining the DU policies

[fishwax]

40. is Angelides anti-choice or against gay rights?

arnold supports gay rights, and is pro-choice

that could be part of the reason why.

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

7. Odd since Ahhhnold's family were not exactly on their side during WWII

and Ahhhnold arrived here with dubious immigration status...and he's an admitted adulterer.. family values, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

11. Disgusting.

[Larkspur]

25. This is the same mentality that NARAL and Planned Parenthood used

to endorse Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee. both claimed to be pro-choice, but they either didn't fight hard for women's rights or they voted for a reactionary leadership that did everything it could to undermine women's rights.

[OzarkDem]

34. Surprise about NARAL and Planned Parenthood

they are DC "insiders". They're not in touch with the real world.

[BlueManDude]

27. And Stone's new film is GOP propaganda n/t

[Totally Committed]

29. I can't even express how distressing, depressing, and disgusting

I find this news. Shame on them! It really pisses me off!

TC

[Reckon]

32. I would just say...

You better save California from the fascists WHILE YOU STILL CAN! Once they get total control, it will be to late, if it's not already.

Beware of the wolf is sheep's clothing!

[faithnotgreed]

37. anyone read june vanity fair - MAY give some insight about corruption

in hollywood so perhaps its related in some way ....

its the bizarre but true story about the private investigator who worked on behalf of the heavy hitters
(illegal) wiretapping of all kinds of phone calls just to name one thing thats being heavily investigated and pursued by the fbi

this criminal investigation is going on as we speak and what caught my attention was that spielberg and katzenberg were mentioned in the article and then all of a sudden they are endorsing arnold
maybe connected maybe not but it surely raises an eyebrow

[AX10]

38. Could you get me a link and/or some more info?

I'd appreciate that very much. Thank You.

[cmkramer]

43. Was that Palladino?

I remember it was widely rumored that the Clintons used him to dig up dirt on their enemies. When he first got into trouble the Freepers were all about how he was going to divulge all sorts of delicious scandal about Bill and Hillary in exchange for leniency or immunity.

[AX10]

52. kick

[GreenTea]

53. Arnold's a shoe-in...said that month's ago when he was at 34%

Democrat's get so excited, and over confident, and start prematurely celebrating when republican poll numbers show republican polling low.

And then get so down, not taking into consideration how much time there is to the election and how many things can change...I knew Arnold would pretend to go back to the middle, almost to the left, I knew it was tough anytime to defeat an incumbent, I knew California has an appointed Sec. of State counting the votes, I knew Arnold would sign liberal agenda, I knew people would still be in awe of celebrities status, I knew Arnold would be running against a democratic(either one) stiff, I knew the republicans would make sure their future golden boy would have ALL the money he needs to win and I knew the media would be in republican Arnold's corner...

And apparently, Spielberg, Saban, and Katzenberg knew it too.

People said to me your crazy, Arnold is toast, what's wrong with these people?

The same ones who are saying the Dem's will take back the house, it's in the bag!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

54. I guess the Hollywood types stick together.

On a different note, I wonder about the long discussion between "deleted message" and "ignored".