Why I Am Now Behind Arnold

me

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

You have a problem with Cosmo??

Perhaps if you understood the esoteric reference to the enigmatic Dr. Martin Van Nostrand you would get it.

[GatekeeperBookman]

I am sure you are far beyond my meager knowledge & failed comprehension-I shall leave you to the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

"I am more comfortable with an Adam Smith philosophy than with Keynesian theory."

That and his bust of Ronald Reagan are enough to get my vote.

[CWOJackson]

Is this the why I support Jefferson Davis for Governor of California Evolution thread?

[GatekeeperBookman]

You are full of it.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

You may be critical that Arnold has Warren Buffet as an economic advisor, but he has also added George Shultz to his economic team - reaffirming his firm support of Reaganomics.

[Maelstrom]

If you were at all intellectually honest, you would at the very least admit that both sides are the problem. United we stand, divided we fall. You can't only blame one side for it.

The conditions necessary to blame one side are sufficient. RINOs are the ones dividing the party. As stated a multitude of times and proven with historical example it is the RINOs who refuse to unite with the conservatives after enjoying the support of conservatives for decades.
Yes...ANYONE who is intellectually honest *can* blame one side for it.

But typically I don't fit into that catagory. It takes a special kind of bufoonery to turn me off. I just found a particular revulsion to Simon's personality, not his politics.

But you do fit into that category. You won't unite with conservatives. You have admitted it. Thus, you are the problem.

The low election turnout was a PHENOMENON.

The low election turnout was predictable. Nobody wanted to vote for Gray-out Davis and the RINOs within the party did their level best to prevent turnout by Republicans. What the hell do you expect? Again...underlining the fact that the RINOs are the problem, NOT the conservatives.

I see that quite different from the conservative single-issue voters who seemingly CONSPIRE as a group against any Republican who doesn't fit all of their criteria.

We recommend you open your eyes. It is, in actuality, the RINOs within the Californian GOP Leadership whom have DEMONSTRABLY conspired as a group against any Republican who fits the term "conservative".

I don't think conservative turnout one way or the other will impact the final outcome in this particular election.

Well then, leave us the hell alone. We know for a fact you're wrong and you refuse to see it or admit it and in fact wish conservative to bend over for yet another screwing. Forget it.

Israel has done good things and bad things. Recognize which is which and why...that is the conservative way. Blanket support or denial is for Leftists...if you know what I mean.

[Maelstrom]

You can't get much more superficial than that either...but you tried to say once that you were a conservative.

[Maelstrom]

He didn't add Friedman. Friedman is the appropriate counter to Buffet, not Schultz.

[george wythe]

Please stop posting to me.

Christians and conservatives do not use personal attacks when talking to each other. I have no interest in discussing anything with a person who cannot live by the rules of this forum.

Complain to the Administrator who removed your nasty remarks.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"I didn't vote at all in the last election. There were no Senate seats up, and Simon wasn't inspiring. And obviously enough, I wasn't about to vote for Davis. It seems the majority of Californians felt the same as I did, hence the low voter turnout.

I'm not going to cast a vote for someone whom I would be too embarassed to even admit to in mixed company. Most people are like that, as once again, I point to the low voter turnout. "

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

So, let me get this correct. You've posted dozens of times now on this thread....Hammering home your "perceptions" real and perceived..of where Arnold stands. And you've basically blamed the demise of the "R" party in Calif. on the "conservatives" that won't lay down their "standards" and vote for the RINOS.....BUT...YOU DIDN'T VOTE, in the last election?!?!?! Because you..might have to admit to voting for a "conservative" that doesn't MOVE you?!?!?!?!?!

You are an articulate guy...and have argued well on this thread at times. But this post "peeled the onion" for me. If the Pubbies continue to morph into pseudoquasiwhatever's...like Arnold & yourself. Then I think the "end" is nearer than many may think.

Fwiw-

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

First of all, I am still in the politically detached low-voter turnout age group, so go easy on me here...

I understand that from a sterilized viewpoint it looks like I did my small part to disservice Republicans, but I don't see it like that at all. I'm glad for the recall and a 2nd shot with some inspiring candidates. I'm glad it worked out this way.

It's not just that Simon didn't "move" me, he EMBARASSED me. Him as Governor would have made me feel ashamed to be a Republican. I seriously don't know how the Democrats can look in the mirror themselves after voting in Davis. I didn't want to be in their position.

[dirtboy]

Thanks for the ping, Dan. More revisionist nonsense about Clinton's impeachment to rationalize Ahhnold's stand on that particular issue.

[dirtboy]

But Arnold understood the articles of impeachment that were brought were a pretty weak justification.

No, I would imagine that Ahhnold has a few skeletons in his closet that he doesn't want subjected to similar scrutiny should he get elected. I doubt he gives a rat's backside about all the other stuff that was covered up by Starr.

[dirtboy]

Schwarzenegger could do the most harm of anybody to the party. If he comes in a raises taxes, ends Prop 13, bans guns, increases spending, how is that going to be a good thing?

Yep. It would be hard for the GOP to stand against such issues if they were favored by a GOP governor - just as Bush's spendthrift ways with tax dollars has undermined long-held positions by the GOP House.

[dirtboy]

What legitimate reason does anyone in a densely populated city have for assault riffles? I'm a strong supporter of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment

We usually don't see such mendacity in adjoining sentences - usually weasels like yourself put a paragraph or two between such a blatant contradiction. If the government is empowered to determine the legitimacy of a right, then it really isn't a right any more, as it has just become subjective.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"First of all, I am still in the politically detached low-voter turnout age group, so go easy on me here..."

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

You don't come across as "politically detached"....I'm not certain of your "right" to fume and sputter over Davis..when you didn't even bother to vote. IMO, much of your argument came across as empty..after my reading that revelation.

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

I understand that from a sterilized viewpoint it looks like I did my small part to disservice Republicans, but I don't see it like that at all.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Hardly "sterilized"..., I wouldn't use that terminology..."clean" would be more like it. LOL!! But...your not voting...makes your argument against Republicans not wanting to vote for Arnold..somewhat toothless.

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

I'm glad for the recall and a 2nd shot with some inspiring candidates. I'm glad it worked out this way.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

I most certainly understand and can appreciate that.

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

It's not just that Simon didn't "move" me, he EMBARASSED me. Him as Governor would have made me feel ashamed to be a Republican. I seriously don't know how the Democrats can look in the mirror themselves after voting in Davis. I didn't want to be in their position.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

Okay..so Simon didn't "move" you..& he embarassed you also. How did he embarass you? And how would he of "shamed" you?

fwiw-

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

First of all, the courts have routinely ruled that they can, which is my point. Whether you personally agree with them or not, the courts are the final arbitors on the Constitution, not you.

And secondly, narrow interpritations of the Constitution work in favor of conservatives on some issues.
Just as courts have been able to say that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not a blanket right for any individual to bears any type of arms he chooses, so is the Constitutional protection of abortion not a blanket right for anyone to have an abortion at any time, such as during the 3rd trimester.

Picking and choosing the powers of judicial review based on your own personal feelings on the issue is what liberals do, not conservatives.

I recognize that there are some things that stand as law that I may not agree with in my own personal life and practices. I recognize that my own beliefs do not change the legal realities on the matter. I also recognize that should I act in a way that I personally believe the law SHOULD be, rather than in the way that the law is actually interprited as, then I would risk going to jail.

People need to learn to seperate their own personal feelings and tastes from their political and policy positions.

For example, you not have to be a homosexual to believe that sodomy should not be criminal, nor should you have to be an atheist to recognize that the Government has no place endorsing religion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing with the established interpritations of the Constitution.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

He embarassed me because he is a grinning idiot and a bufoon.

I see it like this:
Liberals love to talk about how "dumb" George W. Bush is, and they like to point to this as an example of how all Republicans are dumb.

Giving them a Governor Simon as well would only lend weight to their argument.


And I would like to point out now that the liberals took their cues that Bush is "dumb" from the right-wingers' attacks on him during the 2000 primary. Just like the right-wingers are setting the table for the Democrats against Arnold now.

It seems to me, with the shrill right-wing doing all the leg work, the shrill left-wing get to just sit back and watch.

In other words: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

[dirtboy]

First of all, the courts have routinely ruled that they can, which is my point. Whether you personally agree with them or not, the courts are the final arbitors on the Constitution, not you.

Which is why we need to elect constitutional conservatives who will appoint constitutionalist judges who will interpret the Constitution as it is written, not how they would like it to be written. Electing Arnold would be a step away from that goal.

And secondly, narrow interpritations of the Constitution work in favor of conservatives on some issues. Just as courts have been able to say that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not a blanket right for any individual to bears any type of arms he chooses

The 1st Amendment allows just about any kind of speech, except for that which causes direct harm, such as yelling "fire" in a movie theater. But when it comes to the 2nd A, folks such as you would ban ownership of certain guns, not the abuse of weapons. That is incrementalism against a right - namely that preconditions can be set, not back-end prohibitions against abuse.

so is the Constitutional protection of abortion not a blanket right for anyone to have an abortion at any time, such as during the 3rd trimester.

Isn't that special - the courts create a right to kill fetuses from thin air, but then allow that right to kill fetuses to be restricted.

Picking and choosing the powers of judicial review based on your own personal feelings on the issue is what liberals do, not conservatives.

I make one choice - namely that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, not as wished. It's absolutely astounding that you would try to equate Constitutional literalism with liberals, as the two concepts are diameterically opposed. But, then again, you are bitching about the last election when you didn't even vote, so I don't expect you to grasp your own contradictions.

I recognize that there are some things that stand as law that I may not agree with in my own personal life and practices.

So vote for the guy who will do nothing to change that?

I recognize that my own beliefs do not change the legal realities on the matter. I also recognize that should I act in a way that I personally believe the law SHOULD be, rather than in the way that the law is actually interprited as, then I would risk going to jail.

Unjust laws are often best challenged by standing up to them.

People need to learn to seperate their own personal feelings and tastes from their political and policy positions.

That, quite frankly, is the most asinine thing I've seen in a long, long, LONG time. So if I'm a devout Christian (which I am not), I should vote for someone antithical to my views? That's rich.

For example, you not have to be a homosexual to believe that sodomy should not be criminal, nor should you have to be an atheist to recognize that the Government has no place endorsing religion.

However, if homosexual sodomy has been shown to be a serious health problem (which it is), then does the government have some kind of compelling interest in limiting or criminalizing such? After all, drunk drivers usually make it home without harming anyone - but in the minority of times that they cause an accident, the damage is serious enough to criminalize all acts of drunken driving.

And, above and beyond that, under the 10th Amendment, does the federal government have the power to overrule the State of Texas when homosexuality is not an enumerated Constitutional right? In earlier times, the feds had no such powers, but they've usurped them because no one stands up to them and voters are more interested in electing a name than in electing principles. As you are.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing with the established interpritations of the Constitution.

He has every right to do such. And I have every right to say he's full of crap and should not be deserving of the vote of conservatives. That is what political debate is about. And your views are little more than jello.