Free Republic

Oh god, don't imply that b/c I made a mistake I was talking behind your back. How old are you?

you say As to my point: Again, the old adage that 'all politics is local' still applies. There are many areas of the country where a conservative candidate running on a conservative platform can win, but not everywhere. Michael Steele tried a pretty conservative platform (although independent of the Bush administration) here in Maryland and got pounded badly.

OK. How does that address my point or have anything to do with where I live? It does not.

I never said that a candidate in CA needed to be as conservative as a candidate in TX. I said that Arnold's evolution into a full-on liberal was predictable at the time, that I argued against the recall and against Arnold b/c of that, that I took a lot of unneccessary and nasty name-calling b/c I argued against Arnold, but have now been proven correct - and wondered if anyone out there was adult enough to admit they were wrong (apparently not).

Nothing you have said responds to my points. So, all politics is local - except when it isn't, as in the last congressional election. But, it is a nice cliche to roll out.

Good lord,

Is nobody here able to offer anything but straw-men? Does anyone have a rational argument to make? I had thought more highly of FR, but apparently reading comprehension is now at a premium around here.

That is the same thing that the Ross Perot people said in 1992 and they gave us Clinton. I don't think we were better off for that. Ideologs (or purists, if you prefer) lose and they lose fast. The problem is that they drag us down with them.

Please read my original post and my comments, then respond. It is quite clear from your comment that you did neither. So, until you do, I won't waste my time trying to explain what I actually said to you, except to point out that I have been quite clear that I am not a "purist", that I believe in appropriate compromise, and have explained, with much patience, why I was against Arnold at the time and have now been proven correct.

Congratulations on your service. I spent over 10 years - 1/2 enlisted, 1/2 as an officer - earning the right to have opinions and defending your right to do the same.

My own opinion is that people who bash California politics from places like MA, NY, MD, IL, etc, etc, are throwing stones from glass houses.

That's just foolish. What, you have no opinions of anything going on anywhere else in the country? If you don't have an actual argument about my point, other than that I don't live there, don't waste my time. I have no respect for such an opinion

I have lived in CA - so have strong opinions based on that. I also have opinions of Arnold based upon our own "evolving" governor, Pataki.

Like Arnold, Pataki "evolved" into a pretty liberal Governor. His evolution pretty much helped destroy any chance of a moderately conservative GOP candidate elected statewide in the near future. The only difference here is, Pataki had some conservative credentials when he was first elected - in contrast Arnold's "evolution" was very easy to see coming.

I also link to this post about Arnold on FR:

Arnold Schwarzenegger Tax Increase: Anatomy of a Broken Promise

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1765382/posts

RebelBanker,

Your attitudes are why Republicans were the minority party for so long. No one is ever perfect enough for you, so you sit out elections sulking and then whine about the liberal Democrats that get elected.

Except for the fact that when they actually stood up for conservative ideals, the Republicans won the house and senate, and when they lost those conservative ideals, they lost the house and senate.

Except for actual facts, yoy are correct. But, those facts certainly don't help your argument.

Moreover, you still refuse to read what I actually write. I never said I would never compromise. I have voted for "less than perfect" candidates many, many times.

My point with Arnold was that he wasn't even "less than perfect" and that his evolution into a full-time liberal was a given. Anyone who listened to him knew he was going to become Teddy Kennedy, Jr. at some point.

How does having Ted Kennedy with an "R" after his name help the conservative agenda in any way? that is my point. Indeed, Arnold's antics are more likely to ruin any chance of even a moderate GOP conservative winning statewide office in CA again.

Everyone repeating the same talking point over and over "you guys won't compromise and cost us all this or that election" is idiotic. I never said I would not compromise on an issue, or on a candidate. so, if you make that argument, you must have no other argument to make and try to rely on a discredited straw-man. If so, don't bother posting as it makes you look foolish.

You have it backwards. Who did you have that met your standards and could possibly win in California? I don't consider someone who only got 13% (McClintock) even close. It is easy to complain. That is your problem.

this is why I also argued against the recall itself. However, it would be better to have a dem tax/spender doing what Arnold is doing, then we can at least run against it next time.

Instead, the GOP is doing the damage, which allows a dem to run against it, and then you have this idiocy, plus whatever idiocy the next dem governor is going to enact. Moreover, the next GOP candidate is unlikely to be more conservative, as instead, the road is now paved for more liberal GOP candidates. How you think having an extremely liberal "R" leads to a conservative "R" is beyond me. Having a moderately conservative "R" could lead to a conservative "R", and I could have supported that. However, Arnold's evolution into Teddy Kennedy was utterly predictable.

Some people seem to beleive that all that matters is an "R" after the name and principles are ALL for sale. That there is absolutely no principle you would not give up in order to have an "R" win the election.

Sorry, your argument is weak and really does not make sense.

Your saying this and according to your profile you're in NY?!?!?!?!?! I'm sorry, I did not realize that I was not allowed to have an opinion. My apologies. Please, don't respond with anything approaching an argument as I have learned by lesson. I will never have an opinion on politics outside of New York ever again sir. I will not donate to any causes that are outside of new york, nor comment upon them. I won't comment on cultural happenings outside of New York. I won't read books by writers outside of New York. I won't buy things manufactured outside of New York. I won't vacation outside of New York. I won't vote for a presidential candidate who is not from New York. I won't listen to speaches by politicians who are not from New York. do you need me to go on?

Rebelbanker,

I'm not sure you even read my post. I never said "no compromise". You seem to think "always compromise."

I said this was not a good compromise, and believe I have been proven correct.

Just because I won't compromise on everything you want me to compromise on, does not mean I won't compromise. So, that is a straw man.

I said, the outcome that Arnold would evolve into a total liberal was utterly predictable. And, I predicted it. Anyone who was paying attention could have predicted it.

But, some people seem to believe that what matters most is electing republicans. I think what matters most is moving the conservative agenda. I understand this requires compromise, and in more liberal states you have to lower your expectations.

However, you seem to believe it means giving up any pretense at conservatism. Not sure what the point is in that case.

So,

You think that Arnold's environmental positions and health care plan is going to be good for CA?

I'm amazed that people still think it is good to have anyone in office with an R after there name, even if they are pursuing the exact opposite of conservative ideas.

How does a disasterous health care plan, which will help destroy CA's economy, and can be hung around the GOP's neck, get a conservative elected in the future?

that's like saying, let's get Ted Kennedy to switch parties, have all the same positions, but sometime later we'll get a true conservative elected senator from MA becasue of it. It makes absolutely no sense.

Dreams and pie-in-the-sky is not a point or an argument.

Now that Arnold is basically endorsing big-government liberalism, I would like to know what all of the people who were so angry at those of us who were against Arnold have to say?

I would argue in the recall posts that Arnold was not a conservative, that it would be better for DAvis to remain governor than elect a Republican who would turn out to be liberal. And, that it was better for conservatism to back a truly conservative candidate in the election (so as to move the GOP to the right).

Many people, following the lead of Hugh Hewitt, called those of us who argued this way all kinds of names, and implied we were stupid, unwilling to ever compromise, naive, simple, etc.

I tried to point out that there are times to compromise, and compromises to make, but that this was not such a time. That it was predictable that Arnold would "evolve" into a liberal, and that this would harm the CA GOP more than help.

Who is ready and willing to apologize to us, and the next time such a "compromise" is presented, to actually think about principles rather than worring only about winning?

Just asking.

- Brownie

So, logically, based on your responses, "worshipping" "god" by martyring yourself as a suicide bomber killing and wounding other people is just as valid as any other form of prayer or worship b/c we don't understand god.

And, worshipping satan is the same as believing Christ is the saviour b/c there is only 1 god and we don't understand him.

So ultimately, your belief appears to be, do whatever you want, worship whatever you want, God doesn't care - which is, of course, against the teaching of any major religion.

That is the ultimate moral relevancy. But, you are correct, if you are going to consider all religions and all acts of worship morally equal, than at least you are consistent. It certainly is not accepting and judging those religions by their actual teachings and beliefs. But, it is consistent.

Thus, I would have to assume, for you to be consistent, that morals also don't exist? Why would an islamic suicide bomber's action be immoral - we don't know what god wants? There is only 1 god, therefore the suicide bombers act in the name of god is just one more mystery by someone with a different concept of the same god that we don't understand and should just accept.

Interesting theory I guess. Good luck with that.

"If there is one God, how could someone's prayers to God, be something hateful?"

and

"If there is one God, then why isn't anyones version, correct?"

You're kidding right? I think you may just be trying to get a rise out of people, rather than believe what you write. Most likely you are an atheist, in which case you don't believe any religion is correct and therefore all have the same moral standing, which is a somewhat different argument (i.e., I would argue that the teachings of the New Testament are objectively more moral than the teachings of the koran). It is hard to fathom that you actually believe in God but believe that all of the world's religions are the same.

1st, how can a merciful loving God also be the vindictive hateful "god" of islam? If a muslim prays for the pain/suffering and death of all the infidels (christians, jews, etc.), you believe that God hears him and is not displeased? A generous, loving God just accepts that prayer as being as valid and the same as a prayer from someone else for world peace? Or, do you believe that God's character changes in relation to the person praying to God? Think of it also as if you pick up the phone line while someone else is on it having a conversation - just because you heard it does it mean it was directed to you?

All religions cannot simeltaneously be correct. If you are a hindu worshiping Shiva, God - being omnipotent - certainly hears the prayer, but that is not the same as the prayer being directed at the God of Christ. I agree with you that false gods don't actually exist (i.e., there is no actual shiva in existence) - but it does not logically follow that people cannot worship false gods. You put up a stone in your backyard and worship it, it is not the same as worshiping God - even though God being omnipetent hears you worship the rock. You create a fictional "god" allah and worship him - it is a false god, the same as the stone in your back yard. God may hear it, but it is not the same thing as worshipping and praying to God. A good example of this is Santa Clause. We all know he does not exist, but children believe in him. If someone were to worship Santa Clause, it would be worshipping a false god - i.e., worshiping someone/thing other than God, be it an idol, or a ficticious god.

Claiming that all religious beliefs are simply different versions of worship of the same god is moral equivalence at its best. Most of the religions of the world are mutually exclusive by their own terms. If God were simply revealing himself differently to different cultures in different time-periods, wouldn't he at least keep the main tenents of his word and laws consistent? And, why, in many of the religions, would God tell people that only that religion is the one true religion? Only one of those claims can be true.

"What about people that pray to God, not a god, or the god, just God?...ie '...Dear God, thank you for all that I have..'"

I think the point is, just b/c someone calls something "god" and prays to it/him/her, does not mean the person is praying to God - as christians and/or jews understand God.

You seem to be saying, if someone prays to something they call "god", then b/c there is only one God, God will hear the prayer and be pleased with the prayer. Well, what if the prayer's understanding of what they call "god" is something hateful to the actual God? Does God accept that prayer, simply b/c the prayer is directed to something called "god"?

In this case, muslims pray to allah and seem to worship rocks, as well as violence and "martyrdom". If, as some believe, islam teaches violence and hatred, wouldn't such prayers directed to "allah" be hateful to God? Would he accept such prayers or believe the prayers are worshiping a "false god"?

In conclusion, my point is that there is such a thing as being able to worship a false "god." Just because there is only one God, anytime someone prays to their version of "god", does not mean that God accepts the prayers as directed to God.

One of the things about Scientology, along with another "major" religion I will not name, is that it keeps its beliefs secret - even from those lower in their own religion - and makes its believers at each level swear not to reveal such secrets to anyone else.

I think one of the definitions, at least for me, of a belief that can be respected as a religion, is that its beliefs cannot be kept secret. Once you tell me that I can't stroll in and watch your ceremony / service / hear your teachings and/or study your documents and beliefs at any time for any reason, I believe you are a cult and that it is a con. After all, if you believe your religion is the truth, why are you hiding the truth?

Yes, all religions require some faith - believing in something that cannot be proven - but not all religions require you to lie about and hide what your beliefs are.

your impressive argumentation style has gone from stating something is so simply b/c you state it is so, to name-calling. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, your opinion shows a lack of intelligence or education, and your inablility to argue without name-calling demonstrates a lack of maturity. Your argument displays an inability to comprehend logic or understand the meaning of words. I won't respond again as you have proven your inability to understand simple concepts and words.

you seem to believe that if you have an opinion about someone, based upon your observation, then that person has "avowed" that thing. While I too would have liked to have seen Jackson found guilty, your argument about "avowed" is absurd and lessens any other argument you are trying to make. You are basically stating "it is so because I say it is so." If that is your argument, you won't persuade anyone.

The 2000 election, before “national security” and “defending the homeland” became campaign buzz words, was a hotbed of competing, headline issues.

I guess in this democrat's mind (Like all democrats) national security is simply not a "real" issue!!

Unfortunately, due to a work committment in Rochester, I will not be able to attend on Wed. Please keep me informed of any other meetings or events though.

-Matt

I will try to be there.

Fair Opinion,

You always seem to defend any GOPer. Is there ever a time, in your opinion, when it is o.k. to challenge and criticize a republican for not pursuing (or in fact hindering) a conservative agenda? If we followed your advice, and never questioned, challenged, or criticized, the GOP would become a tax and spend party that did not fight to get nominees confirmed . . .