Replies

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.

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.