Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Social Conservative

Intellectual Conservative ^ | September 12, 2003 | Bruce Walker

[Princeliberty]

Arnold is not a phony?! Neither is Bill Clinton
or Jesse Jackson I take it.

Arnold can't even take a position without it
being written out for him after lots of polling.

Arnold all about Hollywood and it fakeness.

By the way, you can live however you wish but
if you are pro-abortion, pro special rights for gays
etc... you are not a social conservative.
Being a social conservative is believing the right
thing and living it!

So neither Carter nor Arnold are social conservatives.

Even Arnold says he is a social liberal!

[Afronaut]

Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. As soon as one is aware of being "somebody," to be watched and listened to with extra interest, input ceases, and the performer goes blind and deaf in his over-animation. One can either see or be seen.


~ John Updike ~

[CyberCowboy777]

You keep posting things that imply that Tom supports illegal in their stay in America.

Is there some policy shift I am unaware of? Is Tom supporting Illegal immigration?

[shellylet]

Can't be too much worse than here in the central valley, although you do have that darn humidity!
I like the Houston Texans though! :)

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you for your kind words, my friend. I have a ton of respect for you as well.

But we will have to agree to disagree. I won't even go into the reasons why here and now. I've made my views abundantly clear, and I'm sure you've read them.

Perhaps it would behoove us all to pray a little harder for your state, for wisdom, and for all of our leaders--including the many who can be found here. The earnest prayers of the righteous avail much.

Regards,
EV

[shellylet]

Come on Cowboy! Stay in your saddle there!
The implication is that if McClintock stays in, Boogermante wins!

[EternalVigilance]

Wow. That is quite a quote. Never seen that before.

[shellylet]

Very wise words, indeed!

[CyberCowboy777]

I ask if Arnold or the author was lying in #181:

“This is a joke and you are defending it! Arnold himself said he was a social liberal. Was he lying? Or is the author lying - a supporter of Arnold? “

Then in #199 you said I that I said Arnold was lying:

“It is a logical fallacy to make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying because of another person's opinion.”

That is a lie – I never made a “make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying”.

Now please retract and apologize.

[tpaine]

Jim R. has asked repeatedly that material from one thread not be dragged into another, and has asked that "cross-thread" flamewars not be engaged in.
290 -strela-



You seem to be FR's foremost authority. What is the reasoning behind asking that opinions expressed on one thread not be 'dragged' into another?
IE -- Should a gun grabbers stance on one thread be ignored when the poster pretends to be pro-gun on another?
311 -tpaine-




You might want to ask Jim R. that question. Its his rule, I only follow it.

"Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread." -JR-
-strela-


Weird, -- I ask you about ~your~ interpretation of that rule, with an example.

-- And instead of an answer, you post JR's quote.
-- Which only proves that you made a big supposition, as per my example, -- which dealt with related thread matters [gungrabbing opinions].

Perhaps you aren't as big an authority on these matters as you suppose?

[Tempest]

"You keep posting things that imply that Tom supports illegal in their stay in America."

???? Nooooooo... It's meant to state that every pole shows that Tom can't win and that by supporting a spoiler, you're effectively enabling the election of Bustamante or Davis. Even the CA chamber of commerce poll shows that if Arnold were to leave the race McClintock would still lose because he can't get enough support from the moderates.

[CyberCowboy777]

My premise was that the Chicks were left leaning and that they would support Arnold over Tom. I stand by that guess.

Please provide proof that Dixie Chicks, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and Alan Colmes have supported Tom.

[strela]

(CyberCowboy777) “This is a joke and you are defending it! Arnold himself said he was a social liberal. Was he lying? Or is the author lying - a supporter of Arnold?

Then in #199 you said I that I said Arnold was lying: “It is a logical fallacy to make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying because of another person's opinion.”

Where in that sentence did I ever say, "You are lying?" Please point it out to me.

That is a lie – I never made a “make a blanket claim that Arnold was lying”.

I display a general garment and you claim its cut to your fit. How instructive.

Now please retract and apologize.

I have nothing to retract. Now buzz off.

[CyberCowboy777]

I see.

So not falling in line with whom certain republicans think I should support makes me a liberal supporter and Tom an illegal supporter?

That is sophomoric and sad.

[Tempest]

Celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. As soon as one is aware of being "somebody," to be watched and listened to with extra interest, input ceases, and the performer goes blind and deaf in his over-animation. One can either see or be seen.

So true I can see how it's corrupted once humble men into making frivolous power grabs. . .

Ahem.... I hope your not talking about little ole me.

[strela]

Perhaps you aren't as big an authority on these matters as you suppose?

You "suppose" too much.

[truthandlife]

Strela is very good at puting words in people's mouths. I would not waste any more of your time debating her.

[x]

Yes and no. It's possible to be a social or cultural conservative without being a determined free marketeer. There have been Democrats who were social conservatives, particularly in the rank and file.

One could respond that big government and the welfare state inevitably threaten traditional cultural values. But it's also been argued that globalization, commercialism, and corporate power likewise threaten social and cultural traditions.

The question of just what "social conservatism" is, has to be a live question, not a matter of partisan dogma. British debates over just how "socially conservative" Thatcher and Blair are reflect the complexities of the topic.

And a tolerant respect for those traditions that make it possible for us to work together and keep society going also has to be included in "social conservatism." The author has a laudable respect for institutional traditions and social concord that many who are more activist and determined in their political views neglect.

But being "social conservative" has to mean more than being a good mixer or a faithful spouse. Someone who is "personally opposed to abortion" but committed to a "woman's right to choose" isn't really a social conservative, as the word is understood in contemporary America. Someone who encourages or winks at immorality can't be a "social conservative" according to the established understanding either.

It's not necessary to persecute those whose practices deviate from the norm. I wouldn't regard that as a part of "social conservativism." But one does have to uphold moral standards in one's own life and recognize their importance in the public sphere.

There are personally decent and personally corrupt figures in public life. The former are preferable by far. But some of our recent social troubles can be attributed to personally moral people who failed to uphold public standards.

Our language ought to reflect the fact that in addition to the public morality of fiscal integrity and the purely private morality of one's own sexual conduct, there are social and familial mores that public figures ought to promote, encourage and defend. The author's language doesn't recognize this sphere.

Arnold may be a decent guy and a good family man, but calling him a "social conservative" tends to rob the expression of meaning. things a little, one can imagine John Kerry or Hillary Clinton qualifying as "social conservative" under the author's definition, and when you reach that point, there's no point in using the expression at all.

[Itzlzha]

LOL! Hey...why am I in a diaper...and what's this commie beeyotch doing on my arm?!? (Not directed at strela, btw)

(straight line, let's see what happens...)

[strela]

It is considered the act of a coward to make a post referring to somebody but not ping them to the post.