Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
Please show where right-wingers called Bush dumb during the 2000 primary. Instead, most of our issues were with Bush's political views (I still ended up supporting Bush and voting for him in the general election). Bush does quite well with foreign policy and countering terrorism, but his domestic politics leave a tremendous amount to be desired, unless you're into deficit spending. Arnold would represent a continuation of that problem developing within the GOP.
You are quite adept at erecting strawmen. But we're a lot better at knocking them over here.
Eating red meat has also been shown to create serious health problems.
Do you want the government to impose vegetarianism on you?
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.
Do you then believe that the right thing for people who choose vegetarianism in their personal lives to do is to support policies that makes vegetarianism mandatory for all?
Do you believe this is the best way for a civil society to behave?
Or do you now see why I believe people need to seperate the personal from the political?
That was a rather poor strawman, as the Atkins Diet shows that red meat actually is quite good for you. However, if a state did try to limit the consumption of red meat, I would not live there. I actually don't think that homosexual sodomy should be illegal - however, homosexual sodomy is close to the same likelihood of harm threshhold that drunk driving inhabits - so the issue does stay in play. But I also don't think that the federal government has any say in the matter, one way or the other.
Do you then believe that the right thing for people who choose vegetarianism in their personal lives to do is to support policies that makes vegetarianism mandatory for all? Do you believe this is the best way for a civil society to behave?
Under the Constitution, this would be up to the states, and if a given state was so populated with idiots that they would attempt such a law, then I simply wouldn't live there, and its government and tax base would collapse under the weight of the collective stupidity there. That's the beauty of federalism - it gives people choices. But having the feds usurp powers means we can't escape stupidity at the federal level.
Or do you now see why I believe people need to seperate the personal from the political?
Two things - first of all, learn how to spell separate, and second, the personal frames the political. The Constituion limits how far that can go, but to ask that people sepArate the two is quite idiotic.
"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.
_______________________________________________________
How is it...that you've come to the conclusion that Simon is "dumb"? What might be your evidence?
----------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
I totally disagree with both statements. The DemSocialistMarxistLeftistLiberals are the classic poster children for the "Do as I say, not as I do" crowd. In other words....don't make fun of someone's public speaking cadence, word usage, pronuciation..etc..etc....because that's not being sensitive.....of course, unless it's politically valuable. The Dems didn't need any "help" from the "right" ,as they naturally are the bigger rascists, sexists, hippocrits..that ever walked. You need to take up a bunch of slack in that rope...it won't twirl.
What "right-wingers" do you speak of? That hand-wringer...Huffington? She's only a "right-winger" in the minds of the unthinking....and those sheeple that feed at the trough of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC...etc..etc...
-------------------------------------------------------
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?"
--------------------------------------------------------
IF...you are referring to Huffington and her merry band of camera hogs.....I agree she's shrill...But hardly right-wing...that's only pinned on her for "effect". You being a astute observer....probably know that. I suppose you are speaking of others................................
My guess is Arnold is "apparently" trying to blend into some sort of 3rd way type of politician.....And he's stepping on toes...on both sides of the aisle.
I will say again...if this is the future of Republican politics..I predict we will have full-on Socialism within the next 20-30 years.....if not sooner. I hope that I'm wrong.........
Fwiw-
"When I talk about "right-wingers" I'm talking about the ultra-conservative purists. (particularly on social issues)
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
You know...I suppose it's all perception. There was a time, when your "social world-view" was considered extreme...and socially dangerous. I understand your stance. But I don't agree with it.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I'm talking about the bible-thumpers that supported Keyes over Bush. I'm also talking about Simon and McClintock and their purist supporters who are focusing on Arnold rather than Davis and Bustamante. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Did the "bible thumpers" call Mr. Bush dumb? I don't recall that....You have any examples?
I'm probably wrong...and generally don't jump to conclusions but at times you come across and appear to be antagonistic towards those who outwardly show their Christian convictions.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Huffington is just an idiot. I'm not talking about her at all. She is just a huge hypocrite who couldn't take being called names for her conservatism, so she jumped ship and became a left-wing lunatic. She just wants to be a Hollywood socialite and that means you need first need some friends in Hollywood.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
LOL!! Agreed. She's at home in La-La land...
fwiw
"There was a time" is the operative part of your statement.
Now it is the common view.
There was also a time when believing that the earth was round and it revolved around the sun was considered extremely dangerous. Just like there was a time when Witches were burned at the stake here in America, and the right to own another human as a piece of property was considered commonplace. There was a time when allowing women to vote was considered socially dangerous as well.
For better or for worse, society continues to move beyond beliefs and ideas that it once held, and accept those new "dangerous" ideas.
Now I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to by "social world-view", but I am assuming you mean my position that as society relaxes its social restrictions, people must come to accept it, rather than to fight against what has already happened. I am assuming you are not accusing me of being a socialist.
I'm probably wrong...and generally don't jump to conclusions but at times you come across and appear to be antagonistic towards those who outwardly show their Christian convictions.
I support anyone in their own privately held religious beliefs, whatever they may be.
But I think religion is between you, your family, and your place of worship. Period.
I do get antagonistic when people try to shove it in my face, act holier-than-thou, assume that their beliefs of blind faith are somehow more valid than someone else's beliefs of blind faith (especially those who choose not to believe blindly at all), or want to legislate based on arbitrary religious mores.
"There was a time" is the operative part of your statement."
"Now it is the common view." ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Common or not..doesn't make it correct. And I think the argument could be made that certain "views" aren't as "common" as some would like us to think. There is evidence that suggests....that when all the smoke clears..this countries population is quite a bit more socially conservative...than your take on the subject.
There was also a time when believing that the earth was round and it revolved around the sun was considered extremely dangerous. Just like there was a time when Witches were burned at the stake here in America, and the right to own another human as a piece of property was considered commonplace. There was a time when allowing women to vote was considered socially dangerous as well.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
And you find something wrong with those practices? Just kidding....(g). Yes, humans have a wealth?? of negative examples to pull from. On the flip side.....good moral people eventually stood up..fought,...and died, to end those and other like practices.
For better or for worse, society continues to move beyond beliefs and ideas that it once held, and accept those new "dangerous" ideas. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
I "feel" you mocking me...hehehe. No problem....if you are. My mistake if you aren't. What I deem to be "dangerous"...I'm fairly sure, ( based upon what you've previously wrote...) you wouldn't. It might be just the proverbial "slippery slope" of incrementalism...that I fear. You know once you've crossed the Rubicon...it's real hard to go back.
Now I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to by "social world-view", but I am assuming you mean my position that as society relaxes its social restrictions, people must come to accept it, rather than to fight against what has already happened. I am assuming you are not accusing me of being a socialist.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Of course I don't "know" you well enough to label you a socialist yet. :O) But from a purely anecdotal perspective..it wouldn't be intellectually honest of me...to say that you didn't certainly have some characteristics of one. Nothing personal...just a incomplete observation...at this point.
As far as demanding that we just accept certain behavior, just accept irresponsibility....I will never do that. I think your position is wrong, and ultimately very dangerous.
I support anyone in their own privately held religious beliefs, whatever they may be. But I think religion is between you, your family, and your place of worship. Period. I do get antagonistic when people try to shove it in my face, act holier-than-thou, assume that their beliefs of blind faith are somehow more valid than someone else's beliefs of blind faith (especially those who choose not to believe blindly at all), or want to legislate based on arbitrary religious mores.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
I suspected as much.....And I've sympathy for your tone..and stance. I had much the same attitude at one time........It is my contention that religious folks have turned more people away from God..than towards Him. It is a travesty..and for that I am ashamed. While I believe one's faith to be a personal relationship...I also understand that sharing that relationship with others is part of the Great Commission..It is how one undertakes that Commission that makes all the difference. It would be my pleasure to expound on the subject with you in private...if you are willing. If not...I certainly understand. I've no problem with that..as I've been there...in a manner of speaking.
You must realize...that much of your rebuttal and original arguments have a distinct Democrat flavor to them. And thusly I can understand your debating stance/style better. and your attraction to Arnold...As I think you've mentioned...he's appealing to many Democrats. You know..many Dems in both Houses "call" themselves "Progressives"...and "Moderates"...and "Conservatives" too. When in "fact", and in "action" they are anything but.......And it most certainly happens on the "Grey" side of the aisle too.
Fwiw-
I wasn't mocking you. I was just trying to place it in the context of your post. There was a touch of humor, but it was intended as good natured.
What I deem to be "dangerous"...I'm fairly sure, ( based upon what you've previously wrote...) you wouldn't. It might be just the proverbial "slippery slope" of incrementalism...that I fear. You know once you've crossed the Rubicon...it's real hard to go back.
Well, this is very interesting indeed.
We seem to be making the same argument here, but approaching it from opposite sides.
My contention is that we've already crossed the threshhold, and we as a society cannot and will not go back.
Trying to turn back the clock on these things only drives you further out on a limb, and drives the bulk of society away.
I also don't think there is any such "Rubicon".
100 years ago the Suffrage movement was viewed as a "Rubicon" by the socially conservative.
Societal change is an ever advancing march.
There may be milestones along the way, but there is no great "Rubicon".
Now despite what you may be thinking, I am a reasonable person. I understand you fear that all hell may just break loose at any moment, and I feel it too at times.
But what I'm saying is you are fighting against something that you cannot stop. You are fighting against the very march of history.
I am simply advocating that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular let some of these issues go, at least for now, and concentrate on what we *can* change. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot over some politician's position on abortion when we all know damn well it doesn't matter what he thinks personally, he has no power over the issue and it is not going to change at this point.
It's like Republicans keep losing elections over this red herring issue but the conservatives don't care because they are going down as martyrs!
Of course I don't "know" you well enough to label you a socialist yet. :O) But from a purely anecdotal perspective..it wouldn't be intellectually honest of me...to say that you didn't certainly have some characteristics of one. Nothing personal...just a incomplete observation...at this point.
Well, lets get something straight. Socialism is an economic system that consists of partial or total wealth redistribution through a large bureaucratic apparatus.
It is Communism-lite, both of which being the epitome of Big Government. Your take on me seems to put me leaning much more in the direction of an anarchist. Anarchists believe in NO government. Communists and Anarchists are polar opposites. I of course consider myself pretty mainstream in my social views in reality, though. Perhaps slightly more libertarian than some, but that's it.
As far as demanding that we just accept certain behavior, just accept irresponsibility....I will never do that. I think your position is wrong, and ultimately very dangerous.
Just which behavior specifically?
Premarital sex? Shooting up smack? Playing video games and watching TV?
It would probably aid the discussion greatly to approach the individual issues that we see as central.
It would be my pleasure to expound on the subject with you in private...if you are willing. If not...I certainly understand.
It is a tempting offer, though I must warn you, I am set in my beliefs and they will not change. That much I can assure you.
And I should also warn you, I have studied world religions and universal symbolism quite extensively. This includes things like esoteric interpritation such as the Kabbalah, suffism, and Hermetica.
My approach is completely opposite from yours, and I don't think we are compatable for such a discussion.
I look at the larger evolutions of belief systems, how the beliefs came to enter the culture, and what was the benefit to the culture by introducing it. Things like that.
I would just end up telling you that that you have a political revolt against the Babylonians to ultimately thank for monotheism and you have the Zoroastrians to thank for Satan, Heaven, and Hell. I would also probably tell you that you are mispronoucing YHWH.
It would only frustrate you, I'm sure.
"I wasn't mocking you. I was just trying to place it in the context of your post. There was a touch of humor, but it was intended as good natured."
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
As that portion of my post to you was also.......No ham, no fowl.
"Well, this is very interesting indeed. We seem to be making the same argument here, but approaching it from opposite sides. My contention is that we've already crossed the threshhold, and we as a society cannot and will not go back. Trying to turn back the clock on these things only drives you further out on a limb, and drives the bulk of society away."
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Well....we disagree. I know that people can change..and idea's and ideals do change, and have changed. And changed for the better. Frankly this may as well be my central point...those that have IMO...thrown in the towel..sold their principles, and values for a "win". Those that know what's right and true....but have compromised themselves...for of ALL things...a political win.
I also don't think there is any such "Rubicon". 100 years ago the Suffrage movement was viewed as a "Rubicon" by the socially conservative. Societal change is an ever advancing march. There may be milestones along the way, but there is no great "Rubicon".
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Sure there are "Rubicon's"...In life, in careers, in relationships, in legal precedents, in governments...etc...Some may call the forming of this Republic a "rubicon"..the fall of Rome a "rubicon". The Clinton era, a "rubicon". Is there no issue that you wouldn't "draw that proverbial line in the sand" on?
Now despite what you may be thinking, I am a reasonable person. I understand you fear that all hell may just break loose at any moment, and I feel it too at times. But what I'm saying is you are fighting against something that you cannot stop. You are fighting against the very march of history.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
No....I believe it can be stopped. But not the way you are advocating..not by giving up...( although I believe you are more Democrat...in your speech and thought..than Republican..so..I would understand you just going along with it..and not wanting to fight it too much...) not by voting/promoting people such as Arnold.
Fwiw, I reserve the "right" to be wrong about you...and about Arnold. But...with the available info that I have at the moment....this is my opinion.
I am simply advocating that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular let some of these issues go, at least for now, and concentrate on what we *can* change. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot over some politician's position on abortion when we all know damn well it doesn't matter what he thinks personally, he has no power over the issue and it is not going to change at this point. It's like Republicans keep losing elections over this red herring issue but the conservatives don't care because they are going down as martyrs!
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
You know you have this type of "Talk" down..and it's awfully close to, and resembles the Dems in the halls of Congress preaching "Bipartisanship..!!" If I said it before...and I'll say it again...you are using the very tactics of the left...You yourself said you didn't vote in the last CA election....because you were "embarrassed, and unmoved" Yet you implore your "fellow" Republicans to vote in this election for a guy many of them don't agree with..and maybe would be "embarrassed and unmoved"...to vote for. What's that saying....."do as I say, and not as I do"...???? ( g )
Well, lets get something straight. Socialism is an economic system that consists of partial or total wealth redistribution through a large bureaucratic apparatus. It is Communism-lite, both of which being the epitome of Big Government. Your take on me seems to put me leaning much more in the direction of an anarchist. Anarchists believe in NO government. Communists and Anarchists are polar opposites. I of course consider myself pretty mainstream in my social views in reality, though. Perhaps slightly more libertarian than some, but that's it.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Well...okay. Anarchist never entered my mind....although many socialist's have anarchists hearts. lol!! Unfortunately...you may be correct on your mainstream views....Although I'm suspect of the "data" I've seen to quantify this.
It is a tempting offer, though I must warn you, I am set in my beliefs and they will not change. That much I can assure you. And I should also warn you, I have studied world religions and universal symbolism quite extensively. This includes things like esoteric interpritation such as the Kabbalah, suffism, and Hermetica.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
So...here we are again. We've got post after post from you...lamenting, cajoling, debating, begging??? ( g ) those dadgum "one issue" dangerous vast-right-wing unmoving Republicans that won't "change" and vote for Arnold..But you of course can "be set in your beliefs and will not change.." How can this be?
BTW...I was once not unlike you in my spiritual trek.....I'm living proof..people can change their minds, and change their hearts.
My approach is completely opposite from yours, and I don't think we are compatable for such a discussion. I look at the larger evolutions of belief systems, how the beliefs came to enter the culture, and what was the benefit to the culture by introducing it. Things like that.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Maybe I'm not as a "complete" thinker..as yourself. Or like you said...maybe it's my approach. We do look thru a glass darkly...much of the time. Although it's clear to me now.....that you like many...have some agenda's. Not saying that they are good, or that they are bad. Just that you have them...and some of them come across strongly. Hey, I've got mine too.....hehehe.
I would just end up telling you that that you have a political revolt against the Babylonians to ultimately thank for monotheism and you have the Zoroastrians to thank for Satan, Heaven, and Hell. I would also probably tell you that you are mispronoucing YHWH. It would only frustrate you, I'm sure.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Well....if I said "I love Jeshua" to most Americans..they would say "What the heck are you saying"? Or ask me if that was my wife's name..??? Ha!! So..here in American we commonly speak in the "common" language...And God is generally referred to as...er well, God. Of course you know all this...and I suppose you are joking around. Ha!!
I'm not quite sure if you are trying to overwhelm me and impress me....(and I am slightly impressed, but not a bit surprised..) :O) But like I've mentioned..and I have empathy for your positions...but I've done alot of the same mental gymnastics that you have done, attempted, completed, etc..etc..etc.. And I came to a conclusion..as apparently you have to. If I'm wrong...I've got nothing to lose.
Regards,
You compromise a whole lot more by losing completely. There is no prize for 2nd place.
Some may call the forming of this Republic a "rubicon"..the fall of Rome a "rubicon". The Clinton era, a "rubicon". Is there no issue that you wouldn't "draw that proverbial line in the sand" on?
FDR and JBJ were far closer to a Rubicon than Clinton.
Clinton created a temporary political climate that is already greatly dispersing. The previous two created much more dramatic and destructive social policies. I'm not saying I'm a fan of Clinton at all. I'm not. But his imprint on society was almost completely one of personality cult, not extreme governmental changes. His mark will quickly fade away. Of course if China or North Korea nukes us then I might be wrong about the Clinton Rubicon...
The fall of Rome was indeed a Rubicon for the Romans.
But aside from something that final, what I mean to say is that as society changes and accepts new circumstances, what seemed as a dire situation at the time deflates, and society continues on.
although I believe you are more Democrat...in your speech and thought..than Republican..
Funny, I don't feel like a Democrat...
not by voting/promoting people such as Arnold.
The anti-Arnold hyperbole has gotten pretty thick. He is not evil incarnate. The truth is that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a fine upstanding citizen and an ispirational success story for all. Like everyone else, he is human and flawed and has made mistakes. Surely you could appreciate that.
You know you have this type of "Talk" down..and it's awfully close to, and resembles the Dems in the halls of Congress preaching "Bipartisanship..!!" If I said it before...and I'll say it again...you are using the very tactics of the left...
Nonsense. When the Republicans were the minority they preached "bipartisanship", and the Democrats were staunchly ideological.
When you are up, you don't compromise.
When you are down, bipartisanship is your best chance.
We are clearly down in California. It's either compromise on Arnold, or no win at all.
Well...okay. Anarchist never entered my mind....although many socialist's have anarchists hearts. lol!!
Yes, that is true, but those are the angry youth who just wear politics as fashion and don't understand what Socialism really is. I know them well, they are my peers.
Libertarians are the anarchists at heart.
Unfortunately...you may be correct on your mainstream views....Although I'm suspect of the "data" I've seen to quantify this.
I'm not going on "data" or studies. I am going on what I see all around me in society every single day. Everytime I turn on the TV, everytime I leave the house. I tend to be to the right of most of it, even.
BTW...I was once not unlike you in my spiritual trek.....I'm living proof..people can change their minds, and change their hearts.
Well, I don't know what your background is, but I was not brought up religious. There has never been such an influence in my life. A lot of people who were raised religious in their early youth return to it when they get older. That is not an option for me.
Maybe I'm not as a "complete" thinker..as yourself. Or like you said...maybe it's my approach.
What I mean by that is that I look at religion from a detatched academic view. I feel fairly confident in assuming that you look at it from a personal dogmatic view. That is the surest way to clash.
that you like many...have some agenda's
Of course I have agendas.
My #1 agenda is defeating Democrats.
My #2 agenda is widening the mainstream appeal of the Republican party.
The combined effect of agenda #1 and agenda #2 will achieve my grand agenda of destroying the Democratic party which will disenfranchise the dirty hippy Marxist peace-marchers that I have so much contempt for.
I also have an agenda of seeing the Establishment Clause restored.
Well....if I said "I love Jeshua" to most Americans..they would say "What the heck are you saying"? Or ask me if that was my wife's name..??? Ha!! So..here in American we commonly speak in the "common" language...And God is generally referred to as...er well, God.
Well, to my understanding Jeshua is most commonly the name of Jesus in the Shanti Christo cult. Whether or not it is broader than that is of relativly no consequence, since it is still definately specific to narrow sects.
When I speak of YHWH, that is of course what has come to be mispronounced "Yaweh" or "Jehova". It is properly pronounced as "Yod-heh-vav-heh", with a mantric sort of rhythm. This isn't a "common tongue" matter.
References to "God" are, as you point out, always exclusively referencing said god, the God of Abraham.
That is why Congressional endorsements of "God" in the Pledge and on the currency are violations of the 1st Amendment.
I've done alot of the same mental gymnastics that you have done, attempted, completed, etc..etc..etc..
It's not a matter of doing mental gynastics. It is in fact quite the opposite. It is simply a matter of not allowing my emotional responses to bias my logical conclusions.
If we allow our own personal convictions govern, then you wind up with a judicially schizophrenic society, rather than one that protects and represents all people equally - which is what the Constitution intended.
And it looks like the former is what we've got right now.
"You compromise a whole lot more by losing completely. There is no prize for 2nd place."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I disagree completely. Besides you don't even follow your very own advice. You totally sat out the Simon vs. Gray election....Your argument is nearly toothless.
FDR and JBJ were far closer to a Rubicon than Clinton. Clinton created a temporary political climate that is already greatly dispersing. The previous two created much more dramatic and destructive social policies. I'm not saying I'm a fan of Clinton at all. I'm not. But his imprint on society was almost completely one of personality cult, not extreme governmental changes. His mark will quickly fade away. Of course if China or North Korea nukes us then I might be wrong about the Clinton Rubicon...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I agree with your mention of FDR...he is continually held up as a American icon....IMO mistakenly. For intentionally or not he did more than most.... to propel America down the socialist's road.
You forgot my question. "Is there no issue where you wouldn't draw that proverbial line in the sand."?
Not sure that the Clinton era...wasn't THE "Rubicon". Of course it's too early to tell....the geopolitical/social/economic/ damage. IMO...this cannot be gauged as of yet. It may be years before the ramifications are truly known. The depths of the Clinton's deceit and treason haven't seen the light as of day..IMO. And alas we may never know...
The fall of Rome was indeed a Rubicon for the Romans. But aside from something that final, what I mean to say is that as society changes and accepts new circumstances, what seemed as a dire situation at the time deflates, and society continues on.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maybe so....although many times those "dire situtations" are very real and result in very unwanted sequelae. You don't just keep unraveling the threads of a bolt of cloth without damage to it's overall integrity.
"Funny, I don't feel like a Democrat...
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Your dialect and debate style at times very much swerves to port....But hey, I've been wrong enough times...to admit that I might be wrong again.
"The anti-Arnold hyperbole has gotten pretty thick. He is not evil incarnate. The truth is that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a fine upstanding citizen and an ispirational success story for all. Like everyone else, he is human and flawed and has made mistakes. Surely you could appreciate that."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Never said he was "evil incarnate". And I certainly do not believe that. Inspirational? Yes. Fine up-standing citizen? Quite possibly....Human, flawed, mistakes..? Yes. And I certainly can appreciate that....no questions there.
But like you being "unmoved" by Simon....I've got big questions about Arnold. Surely you...can appreciate that. Can't you?
Nonsense. When the Republicans were the minority they preached "bipartisanship", and the Democrats were staunchly ideological.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Twasn't nonsense. Go back and read what you wrote. Go back and run a Lexus Nexus on the words bipartisan, & bipartisanship during a Demo majority and a Repub congress. If the Repub's "preached" it...the Demos "screamed" it..and got maximal "play"
When you are up, you don't compromise.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I wish you would tell that to the present Congress.....
When you are down, bipartisanship is your best chance. We are clearly down in California. It's either compromise on Arnold, or no win at all.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So..wait a dang minute...aren't you the guy who sat out the "real" election...because you wouldn't COMPROMISE? That dog won't hunt. Sorry.
Yes, that is true, but those are the angry youth who just wear politics as fashion and don't understand what Socialism really is. I know them well, they are my peers. Libertarians are the anarchists at heart.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And you lean Libertarian, correct? Clarify that for me...because I thought you said you just to the right of Libertarians??? Or am I mistaken...I'm being lazy here..and not reviewing.
I'm not going on "data" or studies. I am going on what I see all around me in society every single day. Everytime I turn on the TV, everytime I leave the house. I tend to be to the right of most of it, even.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anecdotal evidence....then. Okay, now I understand. Although I believe that is skewed evidence...I would certainly HOPE that you would be to the "right" of it.... Although I can appreciate the pressures and nuances of your current "peer" grouping. Very hard to be a salmon swimming upstream.
Well, I don't know what your background is, but I was not brought up religious. There has never been such an influence in my life. A lot of people who were raised religious in their early youth return to it when they get older. That is not an option for me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Church on Christmas and Easter...when I was young..maybe a total of 5-9 times...that I remember. Basically had zero organized religion. And by golly that was a blessing..... I hadn't any preconceived notions...or false teachings
What I mean by that is that I look at religion from a detatched academic view. I feel fairly confident in assuming that you look at it from a personal dogmatic view. That is the surest way to clash.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I did that detached view also.....and from a evidence based scientific geological and historical perspective...I couldn't disprove 99% of the bible. Personal dogma...had little to play in it. I'm very comfortable in my "skin" I've no reason to clash with you.....I would say that I'm a pretty peculiar individual...in relation to my faith.....and how I manifest that faith.
Sorry...I ran out of time...I will address the rest of your post when I have time....
FRegards,
BS! Barbra Steisand! Didn't Sabertooth out you as a former FReeper who had been banned?
On that same thread you where flaming anyone that question (R)nold's...anything. "Slowly" pu-lease. You've been attempting to shout down any Californian against this new Kennedy-Republican since day one. The Ends Justify The Means for you Liberal Republicans.
FRegards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
