A vote for McClintock is a vote for HER

9.23.03 | Mia T

[68 grunt]

I've heard your drivel. Don't agree. Isn't there a drug thread for you to play on?

[68 grunt]

Oh my goodness, so bitter. And you like Roark, and all. My goodness!

[Ravenstar]

Then why don't you take a poll here on Free Republic and see how many would vote for McClintock "if he could win". If you get more than 50% of the people here I would suggest you need to take a better look at your convictions and not give them up so fast. Just because there is evil in the world is no reason to surrender to it!

Ravenstar

[68 grunt]

christy - just go ahead and vote your man, bustamecha.

[68 grunt]

I didn't call you one name. Your reading skills certainly need improvement.

[Ravenstar]

It is not irrelevant as it is the type of thinking you are promoting.

Ravenstar

[Helms]

[68 grunt]

Sorry you don't like the truth, christy.

[68 grunt]

Tolerance? Diversity? Compassion? Love? Inclusion? Understanding? Yep, I'm guilty of promoting these things.

[BibChr]

As you know, FR is IN NO WAY representative of California. (Which is good and bad! < g >)

Here's a fact: four weeks of campaigning, and McC STILL doesn't have the majority of the GOP minority behind him.

There's NO WAY he gets the majority of the GENERAL vote in less three weeks.

If I voted my convictions — i.e. only voted for perfect candidates — then I could never vote for another man. They're all mortal, they're all fallen, they're all flawed.

Sacrificing the families of California so I can feel good about my vote is not one of my convictions. Giving the governorship to the worst people in the state so I can make an empty gesture is not one of my convictions. Flushing my brains (and my vote, and my state) down the toilet is not one of my convictions.

Dan

[Mia T]

I don't respond to mindless ad hominem; I will merely point out that the premise wasn't mine... It was offered by Grand Old Partisan. Follow the link.

In my response, I was merely analogizing his theory to a KNOWN, DOCUMENTED attempt by the dems to divide the right by artificially pumping up McClintock, feeding into his obvious political rigidity.

[68 grunt]

Solipsism? A theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.

Are you talking about McSelfish?

[jjm2111]

"Isn't there a drug thread for you to play on?"

Exqueeze Me? Is the nastiness and sarcasm really necessary?

[Mia T]

At this point, the overriding goal is to wrest control of CA from the clintons, a necessary precondition for victory in our war against the terrorists.

[jjm2111]

"At this point, the overriding goal is to wrest control of CA from the clintons, a necessary precondition for victory in our war against the terrorists. "

I don't follow.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

If Bustanut were to win, would we want to leave California to the Dems come next Presidential election?

IMO, if Arnold can draw middle-of-the-road dem votes by the fact he is related to a Kennedy by marriage only (not politically related), then dingdong dems in Cali get what they deserve. Maybe he is a DINO :o)

I think if/when Arnold is elected, many conservatives will be pleasantly surprised.

[Teacher317]

You rail against disingenuousness on a thread titled "A vote for McC is a vote for HER"?!? Interesting.

I do have to admire the way the shrillness of the (R)nold supporters is increasing with time. "A vote for McC is a vote for Bustamecha" wasn't herding the sheep well enough, so now it's Hillary... who's next, Hitler or Satan? (And how are they any worse than Hillary? Overplaying the hype with 3 weeks to go isn't a good idea.)

If someone wants their values reflected through their vote, so that all Californians can see that there are many conservatives in the state, what business is it of anyone else, especially FReepers, to insult them, tell them they're wasting their vote, and try to whine/coax/cajole/bully them into voting differently?

(R)nold supporters surely aren't doing much in the way of using political debate or philosophical reasoning to support their position. Their entire argument is: it's better to have an (R), any (R), than a (D). Therefore, vote (R), no matter what his politics are. (Is this how Jeffords, Chaffee, Specter, etc were elected? Do we want MORE of their ilk?) That's almost as lame an argument as the Dems current presidential I'll-bash-Bush-best uni-platform.

[Ravenstar]

I was thinking more along the lines of Double speak aka defeat is victory. Flush your principles so you vote for the lesser of two evils so you won't end up with evil....but you do!

Ravenstar

[Mia T]

see #84

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

-- Mia T, THE ALIENS

[Ravenstar]

So let there be no whaling or gnashing of teeth when Auhnold shows his true demorat colors! here at FR.You have been warned!

Ravenstar