Equating Arnold's Boorishness and clinton Rapes At Once Patently Absurd and Irrelevant

10.6.03 | Mia T

[KantianBurke]

"a vote for McClintock ensures our loss of the war on terror"

That's probably the silliest proposition I've come across on FR in a long time. Of the arguments against McClintock some are legitimate but announcing that if you do vote for the man you're aiding Osmama Bin Laden is patently absurd. What's next? "When you vote for Pat Toomey, you're only helping Arafat?" Hyperbole anyone?

[Mia T]

Wrong. Check my words. I am not discussing his ideology. I am assessing his political skills. The man has no concept of what it takes to be a politician... and worse... what it takes to be a politician in a diverse state like CA.

McClintock's rigidity alienates the other side; little will your agenda would be accomplished with a gov McC.

[Walkin Man]

Schwarzenkennedy is a Republican clone of Bill Clinton.

It is so obvious a blind man could see it.

[MamaLucci]

Good morning, Mia T.

Those freeper's griping about Arnold's alleged groping do not see the BIG picture....namely, hillary!'s fat a$$ occupying
the White House.

[Mia T]

For the incontrovertible logic, re-read my post 12.

P.S.Why do you suppose clinton is sticking his neck out on this one, stumping for davis, a sure loser? Why do you suppose clinton has warned the dems that the recall is w-a-a-aay bigger than gray davis?

Try to think beyond your provincial mindset. Acts often have unintended consequences. This grotesque outcome is an unintended consequence of voting for a certain loser, McC, if it keeps CA in dem hands. At the very least, mark your ballot with your eyes open.

[PISANO]

EVERYONE HERE said Clinton's groping made him UNFIT for OFFICE

The difference is that CLINTON did it WHILE in OFFICE and LIED about a sexual assault case UNDER OATH while IN OFFICE. No one EVER said Clinton was UNFIT for office because he 'groped' someone 25 years ago in his college days!!

[KantianBurke]

"incontrovertible?" Please. Spare me. Now if you want to use terms to describe your positions such as "irrational," "hysterical," "hyperbolic" and "silly" on the other hand...

Good day to you.

[Mia T]

good morning, ML.

Luv the way you put it. You hit the nail on the... ;)

I am really disappointed. It is so obvious that the dems with their simultaneous smearing of Arnold and false praise of McC, are playing the McClintockians-- and reactively, the Arnold-ites like fiddles.

I would have hoped that we were all too smart to fall for it... and that we would look beyond our own indulgences and idiosyncrasies to the greater good.... especially when so much is at stake.

[Mia T]

Careful. You are one step--perhaps one half step-- removed from ad hominem.

[MamaLucci]

I must ask. Do you think NY City was better off with Rudy Guliani, a liberal Republican, or David Dinkins? And, yes, those are your only two choices, because the political reality in NY City is that a conservative Republican can not win. Sometimes people have to compromise, and that includes compromising SOME of their beliefs, to achieve at least partial victory. The stakes in CA are very high, and in retrospect, I now understand why the White House backed Riordan over Simon. It's quite simple. Riordan could have won. Bill Simon and Tom McClintock are both unwitting tools of the clinton mob, who FULLY intend on reinstalling Ma Clinton to the white house.

[Mia T]

great analogy bump!

[KantianBurke]

The thrust of my argument was not centered on whether or not it makes more electoral sense for a conservative to vote for Arnold or McClintock. As a resident of Virginia the issue doesn't apply to me and I've heard decent arguments from both sides. My problem is with the over the top analogy that a vote for McClintock dooms the War on Terror. As I said in my previous post, that's probably one of the most asinine and idiotic statements I've ever come across on FR.

[MamaLucci]

"the over the top analogy that a vote for McClintock dooms the War on Terror."

Not if you extrapolate it out to it's logical
conclusion....ie: If Arnold loses, California stays in
democrat hands, hurting GOP chances in 2004, possibly
ending the WOT.
BTW, Mia T happens to be one of the more brilliant minds on
FR, and she is neither an ass, nor an idiot.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[KantianBurke]

"If Arnold loses, California stays in democrat hands, hurting GOP chances in 2004"

That logic's been disproven. CA went to Bubba while under a GOP gov. in 92. Another example would be how the state of MA has had a GOP gov. for over a decade and yet has voted faithfully for the Democratic ticket for over a generation. Having an R in the gov's mansion doesn't determine how the Presidential electoral votes will go. I would further argue that having CA remain in Rat hands could concievably be a liability rather than an asset. To put it bluntly, in 04 you think the Rats are going to showcase a state in which they have total control over and have driven to total ruin?

As for the poster Mia T, irrespective of your positive opinion as to her intelligence, posting paranoid hyperbole isn't something most rational folks would want to champion.

[Mia T]

that logic's been disproven. CA went to Bubba while under a GOP gov. in 92.

Your logic is confused... but irrelevant, in any case, i.e., my logic: a GOP gov doesn't ensure a GOP win in 04, but a dem gov ensures a loss.

 

But it's irrelevant in any case because in '92, the clintons hadn't yet arrogated the democrat party as their own.

The clintons own the democrat machine in CA. The clintons have done their best to institutionalize voter fraud in CA. The clintons have stuck their necks out in CA (Now that should give you pause....)

A GOP CA win for gov will at once diminish the clintons, render CA competitive in 04 and reduce the probability of a missus clinton affront in the immediate future... all of which auguring well for winning the WOT.

[MamaLucci]

a GOP gov doesn't ensure a GOP win in 04, but a dem gov ensures a loss.

A point that only the most obtuse, asinine, irrational, idiot would understand. ;)

[pollywog]

Is it any wonder why the Republicans are called THE STUPID PARTY?

COnservative In Name Only

You have that right. Nothing conservative about a party that would compromise their platform, allow backroom endorsing of Arnold from 17 GOP members.

This reminds me of the Circus Court that tried to stay the re-call election. We are now ACTING like the liberal Democrats.

[churchillbuff]

Who is the bigger hippocrite here? Us with Arnold? Or the Dems, with Clinton?

Both

[KantianBurke]

- shrugs shoulders, rolls eyes - Have a good afternoon.