Why I Am Now Behind Arnold

me

[Luis Gonzalez]

**BUMP**

[Maelstrom]

"I have spent a lifetime developing my political and philosophical beliefs. I don't need YOU or this forum to introduce me to these things."

Then how is it that you believe the unwillingness of *conservatives* to yield to RINOs in Califonia has kept the GOP out of power? Unless your lifetime has been a very short one, you'd already know better.

"I hate to have to break this to you, but it is third world counties that are governed by religious sectarianism"

Again, if you've spent a lifetime developing political philosophy, you'd know that *conservatives* aren't pushing for a religious sectarianism. That's a canard worthy of any progressive/communist around.

"You are the one who now seems to want the Authoritarian powers of the Admin moderators to stifle my individual freedom of thought and expression now. Just as you are the one who advocates Authoritaran Government to regulate the free activities and cultural life of the American people. You should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror."

This forum is for conservatives, you're the opposite of a conservative with maybe 2-3 issues where you're not completely a liberal...maybe not. I'm a libertarian. Saying "God" in a public place isn't an establishment of religion. Now, it's not *my* fault that homosexuality is a mental disorder, it can be treated, it is absolutely wrong to recognize is legally as an acceptible condition. Worse...I haven't advcocated *any* government powers and I have a tag line that's very specific. Exactly what authoritarian schemes do you think I support?

"I have said NOTHING about socialism. I have only talked about the evolution of American attitudes on culture."

The core of that culture is freedom. You *have* spoken about socialism it's the core of the "progressive" attack on culture. It's part and parcel of Arnold's political economics and is reflected in his choice of economic advisor: Warren Buffet. Again...had you spent a significant amount of time thinking about a political philosophy, these things would be evident to you. You are intelligent enough to make this realization.

"True liberalism, in the definition that I am using is the tendancy of western culture through out the ages to relax its Authoritarian grip of religion and social mores, and continually embrace new freedoms for individuals."

Try to refer to is at "classical liberalism" or more accurately in contemporary vernancular "libertarianism". What you've supported, and what we're witnessing in California is unrelated. The authoritarian grip on religion isn't being relaxed, like all communist goals, what is happening is that it's being gradually OUTLAWED. Relaxing grips on social mores does not improve the number of freedoms for individuals, it reduces them. The only possible way to increase individual freedom is to increase individual responsibility. AGAIN...if you have spent a lifetime of any significant length developing political and philosophical belief this simple truism would be self-evident. Individual freedom and responsibility are inseparably intermingled. Neither is on the increase in California, nor will they be under Arnold. He's explicitly stated that he wishes to remove some of the responsibilities of parenthood in a manner consistent with socialism: "The children should have first call on the treasury."

If you feel insulted by being termed a communist, do try to fail to support their incremental plan for the destruction of America through the destruction of her social mores. No nation can survive immorality without falling into chaos or tyranny...it's yet another lesson from history. Your use of the term "progressive" when it comes to society contextually, is EXACTLY toward that goal as implemented by Stalin's Useful Idiots and as articulated by Khruschev.

If you feel insulted, you did it yourself. I only revealed the maggots underneath the thin veneer of the idea you expressed...and it might not be your fault. You didn't know.

[Maelstrom]

I agree.

However, conservatives will likely simply stay home...once again...rather than be forced to vote for Arnold. I have no control over that.

[nyconse]

I was thinking that maybe socially liberal Californians are sick of being gouged by Dems and might go for a guy who is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (assuming Arnold really is fiscally conservative). At least maybe he could help California climb out of the economic hole Grey-out Davis has been busily digging for 5+ years. Then once Californians realize the GOP candidates are not ..... whatever they think they are-don't know-they might vote in a true conservative-especially love to have conservative senators.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Then how is it that you believe the unwillingness of *conservatives* to yield to RINOs in Califonia has kept the GOP out of power? Unless your lifetime has been a very short one, you'd already know better.

Simple. It's the Big Tent theory. Only the True Believers and the already converted will support the conservative candidates. At least the current ones being offered. Reagan was the exception, but then again, just like Arnold, Reagan had *star power*. Star power goes a long way, especially in this state. I myself am in my 20s. I'm sure that is very young for this forum. I will explain something to you. If you want to have a Republican majority, at least a shot at it, you need to make some overtures to my generation, who are all solidly anti-republican. You need to change that perception before they finally get up of their asses and start voting. The Arnold appeal might be the catalyst.

See, conservatives are a minority in the state. I doubt very much they even make up the majority of Republicans - since as you keep pointing out the CA GOP keeps choosing RINOs - and as it is Republicans are the minority party. What does all of this add up to?

The only way to win elections is by having a majority. I know it is a new concept to people like you who think that if you just wish hard enough it will come true. You are just like the far-left howling at the wind on MoveOn who think Howard Dean could really defeat George W. We laugh at people like that.

Again, if you've spent a lifetime developing political philosophy, you'd know that *conservatives* aren't pushing for a religious sectarianism. That's a canard worthy of any progressive/communist around.

And yet the main complaint against Arnold is his acceptance of gays and his being pro-choice. The only canard is the one that the vehement opposition to these positions is somehow not completely religiously motivated. The adamant desire by the far-right to legislate Christianity is in fact indicative of said religious sectarianism.

This forum is for conservatives, you're the opposite of a conservative with maybe 2-3 issues where you're not completely a liberal...maybe not.

There are many different interpritations of "conservativism". I'm not going to sit back and allow the most extreme elements hi-jack the word. I get the feeling like most of the far-right are only "conservative" on issues of morality. They certainly aren't for limited government. They want the state to expand to include church.

I'm a libertarian. Saying "God" in a public place isn't an establishment of religion.

I agree with that. Individuals are free to say God where ever they want and as often as they like. However, putting "In God We Trust" on our national currency clearly establishes the US as a religious country. That is the very definition of "establishment of religion". The only argument used to weasel out of it has been claiming that "God" pertains to multiple religions. Yeah, three, and they are all inter-related, excluding anyone who doesn't practice a desert religion.

A great many Constitutional conservatives believe that "under god" and other such usages violate the 1st amendment. You may or may not know, several attempts prior to 1954 were made by fundamentalist Congressmen to stick that in the Pledge, and were defeated on the floor on Constitutional objections every time. Finally, after much lobbying by the Christian lobbyist group The Knights of Columbus. It was in fact quite controversial at the time.

Finally, If you accept the whole "ceremonial deism" justification put forth by activist judges that makes the old liberal argument of "well, it is, but it isn't", then that just might make YOU a "liberal" too. Perhaps YOU have no place on this forum being you are a Constitutional LIBERAL.

Now, it's not *my* fault that homosexuality is a mental disorder, it can be treated, it is absolutely wrong to recognize is legally as an acceptible condition.

First of all, let me tell you that your statement is extremely offensive to many people here even, I am sure. It smacks of pure bigotted ignorance. That attitude is not going to get Republicans anywhere in California. Once again, go join Pat Buchanan's party.

Worse...I haven't advcocated *any* government powers and I have a tag line that's very specific. Exactly what authoritarian schemes do you think I support?

Good. so you don't believe in legislating morality at all.
Then why are we having this debate?

I sort of assumed you desired controlling the morality of popular culture through legislative means, being that the moral views of political candidates are so important to you.

"I have said NOTHING about socialism. I have only talked about the evolution of American attitudes on culture."

The core of that culture is freedom. You *have* spoken about socialism it's the core of the "progressive" attack on culture.

I don't even follow this line.
The core of which culture is freedom? Socialism?

Because I've talked about the historical advancement of individual freedom in America only, NOT economic collectivism.
If you think what I've spoken about is the definition of Socialism, then I think you need a refresher course on just what Socialism is. I also think you may be a paranoid delusional.

It's part and parcel of Arnold's political economics and is reflected in his choice of economic advisor: Warren Buffet. Again...had you spent a significant amount of time thinking about a political philosophy, these things would be evident to you. You are intelligent enough to make this realization.

I wouldn't mind Warren Buffet as my personal economic advisor, regardless of his party affiliation. I would be a lot richer than I am today. But then again I suppose you are much more clever than him...

I have grown tired of your post. The rest of it doesn't even merit a response, other than me needing to point out that Arnold hasn't even laid out an economic plan yet. "The children should have first call on the treasury." is not a fiscal plan or even an economic philosophy. It is merely lipservice for the sake of politics.

And no, I don't really care what Arnold's economic plan is. I don't think either he or the other 2 Republicans can actually effect much change in Sacramento. It is totally in the Democrats' hands. If anything, losing McClintock from the State Senate would be a HUGE blow to our power in Sacramento.

So for right now my main priority is putting the best public face on the GOP in California, since that is all the Governor will actually amount to.

[Maelstrom]

They can't...the two go hand-in-hand for very natural reasons.

Worse...Arnold *isn't* a fiscal conservative. If you were a political saboteur, what better position could you be in than if the guys supporting your views (socialism in this case) were the two primary guys on the ballot from either party?

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

I don't think that "socially liberal" is even the right word. Based on Arnold's statements, I think he is what I am - socially *tolerant*.

Arnold's position is that he doesn't care who sleeps with whom. After a while, even the most socially conservative person has to come to grips with that fact that they have no control over it, at least in California, and just move on. That Pandora's box was opened a long time ago.

"Social liberals" as I see it are the ones who actually enjoy and participate in the "Pride parade", believe in needle exchange clinics, and support big entitlement programs.

I'm pretty sure Arnold does not support any of these things. If believing that children deserve the very best makes one a liberal, then kiss Tom Delay goodbye.

In fact, kiss most every elected Republican goodbye, because they ALL have paid the same lipservice. And kiss the soccer-mom vote goodbye too.

[Maelstrom]

ok...

Let's look at the Big Tent Theory, after all this "Big Tent Theory" very effectively kept the GOP in the minority for 60+ years after FDR. What happened in 1994? The Contract with America removed the Big Tent...and Republicans were elected. Reagan wasn't the exception...he was the freaking RULE! That's why you can't point to a conservative in the presidential office for *decades* other than HIM.

How is it that you can you still believe in the Big Tent since we now KNOW it drives away the people you *need* in favor of people you want?

Conservatives are a minority voter in California.
But then...they are more common than the conservative candidate. Which tells me you don't know much about CA politics.

The only way to win elections is to have a majority in the number of voters. There are many ways to accomplish this and the Democrats frequently use Fraud, they also infiltrate the Republicans and water down the conservative message so that the conservative voter simply can't tell the Republican from the Democrat.

You might be interested in electing Republicans...and it seems you can't see beyond that point. The (R) behind the name doesn't solve CA's problems, it creates more...and it doesn't solve the Republican's problems, it creates more.

As for your *perception* of the primary arguments against Arnold. The primary argument is singular: He isn't even "moderately" conservative. It's noteable that those liberal causes are the ones that resonate with you most.

Warren Buffet should have ended your support for Arnold if you had a bit of intellectual honesty. I'll concede that you might simply continue to support Swartzenegger out of ignorance. Buffet's selection irrefuteably denies the sole support you've expressed for Arnold (other than the superficial "he can win").

You'll have to describe to me how you think you're a conservative. You haven't met any standard I could consider. Socially, you're a liberal...and seem to think that this is the way all of California is going. Obviously that's false, at *most* sections of the major cities are that way, but cities are famous for falling into degeneracy before chaos overtakes them. Economically, you claim to be a conservative and seem to think that Arnold is as well, however, Arnold's own statements refute that concept, and his selection of Buffet demolishes the concept altogether.

I'm sorry you're offended by being reminded that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That's not my problem. I studied the issue for 4 years before my conclusion was reached. I didn't study the issue to please anyone offering grants. I'm not overly concerned by the facts of life being offensive. Homosexuality is a mental disorder.

It has a big problem too...it's the only mental disorder with political clout just as the primary disease affecting it has political clout. So, should anyone have the GALL to DARE question preconceptions concerning homosexuality, they're labelled ignorant, bigotted, or whatever demonizing term is du jour. Facts is facts, and you can choose to do your own study or believe the crap specifically tailored to persuade you that buggering one another is acceptable.

Morals dictate certain fundamental laws. Morality determines when a person is hurt by another, why, and laws are necessary to dictate a punishment. I wouldn't legislate morals against things that do not directly impact other people. So...go ahead and have a prostitute...I won't make it illegal, I'll send the photo of you and the prostitute to your wife. Go ahead and use drugs...I won't make it illegal, I'll just make sure you're never employed by anyone. Hell...if you OD on drugs, I'd rule it a suicide, and cart your corpse off to the

Let's back up a bit though...
...you say conservatives are a minority in the state. You imply that "things gotta change" and that this "change" would be the compromise of conservative principles to elect a Republican.

Since *when* has the Californian GOP...dominated by RINOs mind you...supported conservative candidates????

Yes...something's gotta change. The RINO's out there need to realize that it's time to do their fair share and support a conservative.

The "progressives" don't support the individual freedom of people in California nor America. Please do some homework on the subject. It isn't about freedom for gays...it's about dividing people into small easily conquored segments.

You don't know Warren Buffet...other than the fact he's rich.

You couldn't possibly be very old if you've spent your entire life and come up with this conclusion. IF YOU ARE...then you couldn't possibly have studied very hard.

It's far easier to accept that you're a liberal yourself rather than so absolutely ignorant about California, Republicans, conservatives, and their electability.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

You are wrong about the your Contract with America analogy.

America is fiscally conservative. The Contract with America united the Republicans behind an issue that resonated with the voters. It distacted attention away from the divisive issues that have traditionally caused the Republicans image problems.

It is note-worthy to point out that it didn't help Republicans one bit in California.

I never said that I think California is *heading* in the direction of social liberalism. Tolerance is not the same thing as "social liberalism".

Intolerance is the #1 perception that keeps Californians from voting Republican. Remember, "tolerance" does not mean liking or actively supporting something. It merely means putting up with it. Just as you "tolerate" a noisy child.

A wise person accepts that which he cannot change.

"It's noteable that those liberal causes are the ones that resonate with you most" is a completely baseless assumption. I have merely argued against the reasoning most commonly advanced to oppose Arnold. I simply do not believe they are winning issues in this state.

You and many others here seem to be operating under a delusion that this race is McClintock vs. Schwarzenegger. It is not. McClintock is not even on the radar screen, and has no chance of appearing so long as Simon is in the running.

The race is primarily Davis vs. the Recall, and then Schwarzenegger vs. Bustamante.

It is people like YOU who are sabotaging the Republican party by refusing to vote for the most conservative candidate that can WIN.
A vote for anyone other than Arnold is a vote for Bustamante.

You seem to harbor this false idea that homosexuality and other issues of social tolerance are the biggest threats California is facing. They are not.

Illegal immigration is by far the biggest threat to California, and I will choose Arnold "Prop 187" Schwarzenegger over the alternative, Cruz "Mexifornia" Bustamante anyday.

If it looks like you social conservatives manage to trash Arnold enough to threaten his lead over Bustamante, I will instead choose to actively oppose the recall.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Oh yeah, and homosexuality isn't the only "mental disorder" that has political clout. As Arnold so astutely pointed out, being a Democrat is also a mental disease.

Intolerance is also a mental disorder, but it has no political clout.

[Maelstrom]

It is note-worthy to point out that it didn't help Republicans one bit in California.

It is noteworthy to point out that Californian RINOs opposed it.

Intolerance is the #1 perception that keeps Californians from voting Republican.

Of course, but unless you're going to find a way to deal with the perception that Republicans are Aliens, you're stuck with it. Arnold doesn't change thing.
What!? you say? Republicans are Aliens? That's crazy!
However, it's the only logical conclusion given popular perceptions regarding Republicans:

Republicans want to starve the children (Therefore we must not have any children.)
Republicans want to throw the elderly into the street (Therefore we must not have any parents or grandparents.)
Republicans want to poison the air, the land, and the water (Therefore we must not be carbon-based lifeforms.)

Or maybe somebody is simply lying.

I have merely argued against the reasoning most commonly advanced to oppose Arnold.

That's just it...you aren't arguing against the reasoning most commonly advanced to oppose Arnold. Only one guy advanced that as a reason, maybe two. The vast majority of opposition to Arnold is the simple fact that HE ISN'T A CONSERVATIVE. He's far closer to being a Liberal.

You and many others here seem to be operating under a delusion...

There is no delusion in the fact that Arnold is not a conservative. That Simon should pull out of the race we agree upon. That Arnold should throw his support behind McClintock is where we differ. We seem to differ because you have the false belief that conservatives have run the California GOP into the ground. Conservatives aren't the problem here...RINOs are the problem...such as the ones the GOP has supported for the past several decades. When the time comes for the RINOs to support a conservative, they don't. That a conservative can't get elected isn't even the issue. Simon...despite being STABBED IN THE BACK by California GOP RINOs...almost *won* the governorship.

So...with that solitary single attempt...somehow you find a logical basis in the argument that conservatives are the problem. I hate to tell you this...but conservatives are the *only* solution.

The problem isn't *me* by refusing to vote for liberal Republicans. The problem is RINOs refusing to bring conservatives to the ballot, or...if they get on the ballot...ACTIVELY SABOTAGING THEIR CAMPAIGNS.

You guys have always been the problem. Having successfully destroyed NY and much of the NE, now work over CA.

And I'll be quite explicit about California's problem: They don't have enough conservatives in office.

Liberalism kills, starves, and drives economies into ruin. Liberalism knows no color, gender, nor even political party. This fundamental facet is also demonstrated amply throughout history.

As for the social context, it's not my horse...it's yours. My point has always been that Arnold isn't an economic conservative nor a social conservative. He's a Liberal. He *is* on par with Bloomberg.

[Maelstrom]

Sorry, being a Democrat isn't a mental disease. It's bourne out of either ignorance or a nefarious desire to dominate others through tyranny.

Homosexuality, however, is a mental disorder. You can trace the patterns of homosexuality and match them with other addictive behavior disorders. The histories of their onset have similar causes, the reasons for their continuation have similarities as well.

It's a learned behavior that is disgusting, at first even to the sufferer most commonly, but the suffer is made to enjoy it. The strongest patterns between homosexuality and other addictive behavioral disorders occur between it and anorexia and bulemia.

However, the pattern exists in a great many other recognized disorders. The problem with homosexuality is that people get caught up in the "sex with another" sufferer bit. Since both sufferers seem to enjoy what their doing, what's the harm?

Honestly, that's where I left it at the end of my study. Unfortunately, homosexuality requires a continuous pool of low self-esteem young people from which to recruit.

Recruiting seem ridiculous? Look at your public schools and what children are being taught. Homosexuals accounted for far fewer people in the past than they do today. Beginning in the 70's it has gradually grown.

There is both anectdotal information and nationwide information affirming exactly how it operates. Snyder High School had a "fad" of homosexuality run though it for a couple of decades. They found the origination of it, however, in a homosexual Scout Leader that preyed upon students. The community won't even realize that fewer people in that school are homosexual now that he's gone.

Intolerance?
Well...the sort of tolerance you support keeps AIDS in the headlines...when anybody with a modicum of logic understands that traditional Christian Morality ends the spread of AIDS altogether.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

The "progressives" don't support the individual freedom of people in California nor America. Please do some homework on the subject. It isn't about freedom for gays...it's about dividing people into small easily conquored segments.

I totally, completely, 100% agree with that statement.

What is sad is how you have miscontrued and misrepresented my observations about the historical changes in cultural attitudes as some kind of political alignment.

Progressive politics and relaxation of strict cultural views are two totally seperate things. I do not believe politics affects culture. Instead, it is culture that affects politics. Political views must adapt to cultural changes, or they die.

Politicians who are out of sync with contemporary culture do not win elections. The Progressive platform is advanced by the conservatives' reluctance to accept cultural changes. Progressives get elected based on their tolerant cultural views, and their socialism merely piggybacks on that.

The average voter has only a vague understanding of fiscal budget issues, and almost no grasp of the dynamic effect of economic policy, if any at all. But when the Progressive comes out and says "my opponent wants to spy on you in your bedroom", that has a tangible impact.

If we could break the reluctance of conservatives to accept popular attitudes as they are, then the voters would surely opt for the fiscal conservative over a socialist. It's a matter of taking the opposition's strongest issue away from them.

[Maelstrom]

Progressive politics and relaxation of strict cultural views are two totally seperate things. I do not believe politics affects culture. Instead, it is culture that affects politics. Political views must adapt to cultural changes, or they die.

Hold on a second. I support the absolute freedom of cultural views. There is nothing that is more free than placing cultural mores on the free market. It should not take long to realize that Morals that parallel the Traditional Christian Mores offer the greatest benefits at the lowest cost to the individual.

So give it a try California. Stop shoving *immorality* down the throats of the children and stop the incremental outlaw of Christianity.

If we could break the reluctance of conservatives to accept popular attitudes as they are, then the voters would surely opt for the fiscal conservative over a socialist. It's a matter of taking the opposition's strongest issue away from them.

It hasn't been shown that they're popular attitudes. The reason you don't have more conservatives in California is because there aren't any for which to vote. This is a function of sabotage from within the GOP, not popularity throughout California.

You can't say the conservatives are the problem when you haven't compromised toward a more conservative attitude to see if it's true. To put it another way: California Republicans aren't famous for their numerous conservatives.

[Maelstrom]

Oh hey...
...please keep this in mind in the coming months and years.

Just as Simon's loss is being used as an anti-conservative issue, so too will Swartzenegger's problems be used as an anti-Republican issue.

Do not be surprised.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

That Simon should pull out of the race we agree upon. That Arnold should throw his support behind McClintock is where we differ. We seem to differ because you have the false belief that conservatives have run the California GOP into the ground.

In an ideal world you would be correct, but perfection is the enemy of the plausable.
The truth is that Simon is far too oblivious and stubborn to drop out, and Arnold dropping out and supporting McClintock is far too great a risky that would most likely just ensure that Bustamante wins. That is a risk that none of us who want to keep California from being reclaimed by Mexico once and for all should be willing to take.

I am also not convinced that a True Conservative win in the recall wouldn't be successfully used by the Democrats in 2004 directly against Bush and the GOP.

Arnold will provide a stepping stone to better things to come.

By the way, I am not in total disagreement with your research into the root cause of homosexuality. I too believe that counter-culture is the #1 culprit. It is indeed a learned behavior in many cases, illustrated by the Classical Greeks and Romans. I also believe that sexual preference is a sliding scale to begin with, and it can be nudged.

Where I beg to differ is that I believe there are inate homosexuals. There is also a great deal of research that has been done on homosexuality and the pre-natal environment, particularly in the over-abundant presence of testosterone. Stress leads to the over-production of testosterone by the mother with is then introduced to the womb. Pregnancies during stressful periods in history have been directly linked to the subsequent explosion in the gay population. There have also been studies done linking homosexuality to an underdeveloped hypothalamus, and even a reported "gay gene".

All of this is still in the realm of theortical, and are all controversial in and out of both the psychological and scientific research communities for a variety of reason, politics being but one.
The various causes I believe are numerous, some being related to one another, and still others being isolated. It is not yet agree upon whether the cause is psychological or physiological, or some combination of the two.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

By the way, I too have dedicated much time to researching homosexuality. However, I have chosen to focus my research efforts exclusively on homosexuality in women through direct observation - primarily by studying hours of video. ;-)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep...

ROTFLMAO!!!

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

It hasn't been shown that they're popular attitudes. The reason you don't have more conservatives in California is because there aren't any for which to vote. This is a function of sabotage from within the GOP, not popularity throughout California.

I must respectfully disagree.

Bill Simon was a quintessential conservative, and he lost to the most unpopular Democrat in the entire state's history.
He was single-handedly attacked on social issues, and was defeated accordingly.

Tom McClintock also was on the ballot for statewide office and lost to a liberal.
So is it that neither of these candidates who are being touted as conservatives really are, or is it that conservatives cannot win statewide?

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

We seem to differ because you have the false belief that conservatives have run the California GOP into the ground.

I didn't say they have run it into the ground, I have only stated that they have divided the Republican vote by refusing to support the "RINOs" that could actually win.

It seems we are at an impass. You say moderates have stabbed the conservatives in the back by failing to come out to vote for distasteful candidates with zero charisma like Bill Simon, and I say that conservatives have undermined the party by refusing to support any candidate who is less than ideal.

It is two sides of the same coin, and the only ones who win in this toss are the Democrats.