[Tamzee]

So, is it rational to support candidates whose stated views entirely contradict the principles of the party he lays claim to wanting to be a leader of? Now, is there something radical or offensive about that simple question?

Nope, I'm happy to answer that one... calling a fellow Republican a "communist", though, that one falls in my category of offensive.

To answer your question, no it wouldn't be rational to support candidates whos stated views "entirely contradict" the principles of the party we support together. It is only YOUR OPIONION, though, that Arnold's views "entirely contradict" Republican principles. He fails to push the principles that YOU find most important, obviously homosexuality and abortion, but those two positions are not the ONLY ONES on our platform. Other Republicans feel that the position of California Governor doesn't have any power over such legal rulings anyways and Arnold does support many conservative principles that the Governor CAN enforce.

It is a difference of OPINION and STRATEGY, not fake or real Republicans.

[EternalVigilance]

I simply stated that the only people I've heard use that term are communists...which is true.

Is that an epithet you normally hear conservatives flinging about?

[EternalVigilance]

To answer your question, no it wouldn't be rational to support candidates whos stated views "entirely contradict" the principles of the party we support together. It is only YOUR OPIONION, though, that Arnold's views "entirely contradict" Republican principles. He fails to push the principles that YOU find most important, obviously homosexuality and abortion, but those two positions are not the ONLY ONES on our platform. Other Republicans feel that the position of California Governor doesn't have any power over such legal rulings anyways and Arnold does support many conservative principles that the Governor CAN enforce.

I'm sorry, but you are being disingenuous.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm sorry. It is possible you aren't being disingenuous, and are simply very naive.

I don't know you enough to know which it might be.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

And like I said, I don't believe the courts should be prohibiting people from saying words. That is an equal violation of the 1st Amendment.

As I already said, the 9th Circuit went about it incorrectly, by banning the whole Pledge from school rather than striking down the unconstitutional law. The Pledge was Altered by Joint Resolution 243 passed by Congress on June 14, 1954. It is Joint Resolution 243 that should be struck down on Constitutional grounds, rather than trashing the whole Pledge because of one bad law.