Replies

Time to call the ZOT masters.
Moreover, the argument has devolved into a simple dicotomy:
Those who wish to do the right thing vs.
Those who wish to "win" at any cost.
Which follows the old dicotomy, respectively:
Conservatives
vs.
Liberals.

You've been exposed Nostrand

Hmmm... I should have realized that humor was wasted on the trogliodyte crowd. I was illustrating through absurdity, by holding up Hillary's ridiculous paranoia as a mirror to the paranoid delusions direct towards myself by some here. I thought it was an example that could be understood and appreciated here - at least by the level-headed members. It also was meant to say "you are the ones who give the rest of us a bad name." I hope and pray that it was not lost on all here.

As for calling me a "liberal", those would normally be fightin' words that I would take serious offense to, but in the relative context of the extreme-element present, it is a label that can only be worn as a badge of honor.

This whole "secularists not wanted" attitude from some is every bit as disgusting as the Democrats' "Catholics not welcome" attitude. I for one don't think religion has any place in politics and in the everyday business of governing the people.

And to even draw a comparison to me and the liberal "win at all costs" philosophy of the liberals should be an insult to every clear-minded person here.

The liberals' "win at all costs" tactics revolve around election tampering, court interventions, bizzare "accidents", threats, and good old-fashioned slander.

If any one is guilty of this sort of thing around here, it is the reactionaries who slander good ELECTABLE candidates like Arnold as "RINOs", and threaten not to vote - not those of us who simply want to vote for a candidate that can actually WIN an election.

Except I would view that counter-productive attitude as "lose at all costs". I'm tired of the religious-right single-issue voters actively sabotaging the party's efforts at mainstream appeal. Clearly, the fundamentalists do not want a Republican majority, because then we would no longer be beholden to them and they would finally become someone else's problem.

If any one is guilty of this sort of thing around here, it is the reactionaries who slander good ELECTABLE candidates like Arnold as "RINOs", and threaten not to vote - not those of us who simply want to vote for a candidate that can actually WIN an election.

You're still claiming to be from California? That you understand California politics?
How is it that you don't know who Bill Jones is, and his relevance to to the botched Bush/Rove attempt to annoint Dick Riordan as the GOP's California gubernatorial nominee?

If RINOs had the reputation of supporting conservatives after conservatives put them in office, we probably wouldn't be arguing.

You guys don't have that reputation. As a matter of fact, since Jeffords it's been very obvious exactly where the loyalty of RINOs lies. Most certainly this is useful for ending the threat conservatives represent to the ongoing incremental liberalism (I should call it socialism to be honest.) It does not, however, indicate that anything other than another RINO will be elected...because...as I say and as is substantiated by history...RINO's don't support conservatives, conservative values, or conservative ethics.

And...

I believe you're a liberal based on your inability to understand and articulate fundamental conservative values.

Moreover...

You're supporting a Liberal...and how do we know Arnold is a Liberal? He's articulated Liberal positions and policies.

reactionaries

Ahh, yet another term of endearment used by a Dem or a RINO who hates the party base. Marty, your words betray you. Or is this another "joke"?