Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CheneyChick; BibChr; cyncooper; EggsAckley; Tamsey; Tempest; onyx; BrokenGlassRepublican
I have donned my asbestos underwear.


2 posted on 09/12/2003 12:20:53 PM PDT by EllaMinnow (Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: redlipstick
I think I'll sound like a stupid soccer mom (although I'm not a mom and don't have a soccer ball):

I think Arnold is cute. Much cuter than Gray or Cruz.

These threads are ridiculous.

The whole reason for the recall was to get rid of Gray Davis and his ilk. We have to vote for someone who can do that. Personally, I don't think McC can, but I'm still holding my fat little ballot until the end.

Hey, do they make absestos underwear in pink and with lace?
17 posted on 09/12/2003 12:28:19 PM PDT by CheneyChick (Yes on Recall, No on Bustamante.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick; onyx
Do you think Joseph Goebbels was an 'intellectual'?

Only 32 posts before we get a Nazi reference. The desperation is so thick you can cut it with a chain saw.

48 posted on 09/12/2003 12:43:35 PM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Sucking the marrow of life does not mean choking on the bone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
Note to Arnold: If You Win the Governorship, Watch Terminator II Again

National Catholic Register

August 24-30, 2003

Commentary & Opinion

by JOHN ZMIRAK

It's impossible for a satirist to improve upon the farcical situation facing voters in California.

The upcoming recall election features some 135 candidates, arranged in a random order by bingo-hoppers across the state, which include a porn "star," an Austrian weightlifter best known for playing an animatronic murderous robot and the even less life-like sitting governor, Gray Davis.

As a fiction writer, I would never have the nerve to make such stuff up. It's all too implausible, even for the great state that gave us Jerry Brown, Haight-Ashbury and EST. (To readers under 30 who might suspect that these are names of Scottish novelists or cable TV stations: Do a Google search on each for hours of guilt-free laughter.)

This landmark of American democracy in action makes Gov. Jesse Ventura and the hanging chads of Florida seem like chapters from a civics textbook. Reading The New York Times these days you'd think it had merged with the online sarcasm site The Onion.

So I'll dispense with the cheap shots and get to the point.

As much as it might all seem like a Mardi Gras parade, there are some deadly serious issues at stake in the California race. At the moment, it seems all too likely that, by sheer force of name recognition, Arnold Schwarzenegger might receive his very first position in government as the head of America's largest, most populist and once-richest state.

He'll do his on-the-job training holding the welfare of tens of millions in his bone-crushing hands. I know that at least one actor made the same leap, with enormous success: the beloved Ronald Reagan. Of course, Reagan had long been active in politics, campaigning for Barry Goldwater, and before that leading the successful purge of communists from the Screen Actors Guild. That means we shouldn't beat Arnold to death with his resumé.

I'm much more concerned about the incipient front-runner's views. As Christian leaders across California are desperate to remind Republican voters, Schwarzenegger has publicly and plainly endorsed abortion on demand and the legalization of homosexual "marriage."

These two issues alone should ban him as a biohazard - too toxic to touch. We have unambiguous statements from the Vatican that make clear it is sinful to support such a candidate, particularly when there are reasonable alternatives. Read about them online at www.traditionalvalues.org.

This isn't a case of choosing the lesser of two evils - and that's perhaps the one positive aspect of this electoral pandemonium: The structure of the recall election prevents the two parties from offering voters a choice between pro-abortion Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

If pro-life, pro-normal-marriage voters united behind a single candidate, he might very well win with only 25-30% of the vote. It's unlikely he could do much to restrict abortion in California, whose legislature legalized the procedure years before Roe v. Wade snatched it from voters' reach. But he could provide leadership, thunder from his bully pulpit or nibble away at public funding for destruction of the unborn. Small steps - little things - but real ones. The road to heaven is paved with them.

More importantly, the defeat of a socially libertine Republican would prevent the powerful pro-abortion faction in that party from growing still more influential.

The governors of major states have a powerful say in writing party platforms, boosting or crushing the hopes of pro-life and pro-family congressmen, and dishing out cash from the party war chest. It's a major blow to the pro-life cause that Republican George Pataki is the governor of New York; the only consolation is that in presidential elections Republicans have largely written off the place.

But Karl Rove and George Bush (perhaps fantastically) hope to carry California in 2004. When its newly elected governor speaks, they will feel pressure to listen. Think what it would mean to have two parties from which to choose - one that is officially, wildly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual "marriage" and another that is neutral or lukewarm on the issues. Would we bother to vote?

It's also telling that Mr. Schwarzenegger has chosen as campaign manager former Gov. Pete Wilson, who for all his virtues as a competent head of that state was a leader in trying to neutralize pro-life voices in his party. And things get uglier: Schwarzenegger has designated as his chief economic adviser Warren Buffett Jr. - a man who when he isn't enriching his fortunate investors busies himself pouring untold millions into Planned Parenthood and even worse organizations that promote forced sterilization throughout the developing world.

If I could get Mr. Schwarzenegger alone for a few minutes, I would remind him of a scene from his wonderful film Terminator II, which I saw in the theater nine times. For all its onscreen violence - don't bring the kids - the movie enfolds throughout its story a real reverence for human life, even a sense of its sanctity.

One scene I cannot forget pits the young John Connor (Edward Furlong) in an argument against the Terminator (Schwarzenegger), who came from the future to save Connor and the human race. Up to then, the Terminator had been remorselessly mowing down anyone who got in his way - like a good utilitarian. Appalled at the carnage, Connor pulls the cyborg aside and argues with him: "You just can't go around killing people!"

The Terminator is confused. "Why not?"

"You just can't."

"But I'm a Terminator."

"You're going to have to trust me on this. You just can't."

At some point, argument breaks down. You can't prove to someone that human life is sacred; especially if he doesn't feel that way about his own. It's a truth that's conveyed a thousand ways, through acts of compassion, empathy and reverence that human decency suggests and Christian faith demands.

After the exchange, the Terminator switches gears and only shoots to wound, using minimal force against police and army units - even in his mission to prevent a nuclear war. In other words, he fights according to just-war principles. This fact alone makes the film worth watching again.

So if I could corner the Terminator, that's what I'd say to him.

"You have to trust me on this. You can't go around killing people. You just can't."

J.P. Zmirak is author of Wilhelm Röpke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist (www.isibooks.org).

59 posted on 09/12/2003 12:49:39 PM PDT by SteveH (I presume it's too late to DRAFT TED NUGENT?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
I just need to take issue with his characterization of Carter and Lieberman. Socially conservative and/or deeply religious people are not deceitful. Well, maybe Carter believes his claptrap, but I am still seething from Lieberman's shameful purveying the lie, at that "debate" spectacle the other night, that President Bush was personally responsible for denying African Americans the vote in Florida in 2000. (Of course, nobody was denied the vote, except the military by a dem scheme.)

Grrrrrrrr

Rant over, will be back on topic in a sec.
72 posted on 09/12/2003 12:55:02 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
Thanks for the ping.

On a side note the tools are tooting an LA Mecha Times poll today. I love it when the weak-minded fall for the machinations of the left. Toooo funny.
85 posted on 09/12/2003 12:59:43 PM PDT by Tempest (I've lost all hope for half of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
If you use his definition of "social conservatism", maybe (R)nold is, and maybe he isn't [although I believe there have been several credible stories of his cheating on his wife, admitting to steroid use, and other drug use, as well as promiscuity and group sex].

But if you define social conservatism as adhering to certian policy positions: abortion, guns, immigration, etc., he is not.

Either way, it is difficult to make the case that he is an actual conservative on any policy issues. You might be able to make the case that he is closer to the political center than Davis or Bustamante, but it seems intellectually dishonest to claim that he is any kind of conservative.
86 posted on 09/12/2003 1:01:36 PM PDT by brownie (Moderates/Pragmatists need to go to the Rat party where they belong. Stop splitting the GOP Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
By the same standard, Osama bin Laden is a social conservative.
123 posted on 09/12/2003 1:18:36 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
And another installment of:

FLAMEFEST '03

188 posted on 09/12/2003 1:53:08 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: redlipstick
Late bump!
515 posted on 09/12/2003 9:03:22 PM PDT by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson