Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

World Net Daily ^ | 10/6/2003 | ALAN KEYES

[Roscoe]

Roe v. Wade is federal, not state.

"I support a woman's right to choose. I support the state's current family planning programs..." --Arnold Schwarzenegger

The state's current family planning programs, which provides taxpayer funded abortions, isn't mandated by Roe v. Wade.

[outlawcam]

Oh, no you don't... trying to trick me into answering those insipid little questions...

My goodness. Far be it for me to challenge your assertions.

If I accused you of something that is untrue, without any justification, I will apologize. Now what did I accuse you of that isn't true?

[PuNcH]

All Republicans are not anti-immigration. Sorry, but its true.

Do you actually mean illegal immigration?

[BlackElk]

You could not be blamed for feeling a bit of relief that Sinkspur afflicts the Roman Catholic Church as minor clergy and not yours. Note that Sinkspur's assault on Keyes is an assault on Keyes's Catholicism. Dr. Keyes believes in the Catholic Faith and some feel shown up when Keyes also acts upon his Faith.

If we Catholics ever become totally arrogant towards other actual Christians, we must always remember dioceses like Fort Worth. Their notorious bishop (Delaney) is dying. Hopefully Rome will send a Catholic to thoroughly clean house next time.

[OK]

"The Republicans who vote for Schwarzenegger will owe Bill Clinton an apology for having given the nation the impression that they sincerely believed character to be an issue for those claiming high office."

Bump

Republicans have truly lost their way in supporting Arnold, the 80% Democrat. They have become what repulsed us about Clinton supporters. He is our guy right or wrong. Yechh.

[Reagan Disciple]

I don't get the Dubya-NY-Pataki reference since the GOP never won NY under Pataki anyway.

Unless you doubt that California comes into play in terms of Boxer's seat which could be a great win for the national party, especially if Tom runs for it and gets it backed by a popular gov.

Another example - Rudy is a good bet to oust Hillary in 2006 and he is no where close to being conservative. Would you rail against him simply because he's pro-choice and risk having Hillary on the national stage in 2008 or do you throw your support behind him because he brings a greater good to the national effort.

Arnold should be viewed in this light as well. And if he can help Tom go after Boxer and win - all the better.

[BlackElk]

You could not be blamed for feeling a bit of relief that Sinkspur afflicts the Roman Catholic Church as minor clergy and not yours. Note that Sinkspur's assault on Keyes is an assault on Keyes's Catholicism. Dr. Keyes believes in the Catholic Faith and some feel shown up when Keyes also acts upon his Faith.

If we Catholics ever become totally arrogant towards other actual Christians, we must always remember dioceses like Fort Worth. Their notorious bishop (Delaney) is dying. Hopefully Rome will send a Catholic to thoroughly clean house next time.

[PuNcH]

The Democrats (along with a few Senate Republicans) established the principle that flaws in one's private life should not be considered barriers to holding public office. I've come to the conclusion that we need to use this prinicple to hurt the Dems.

The use of that "principle" by republicans will only hurt the republicans.

[carton253]

Probably...

[OK]

Arnold..."will damage the Dems and help Bush in 04."

Help Bush do what? He has increased the domestic budget more than Jimmy Carter. With friends like that...

[PuNcH]

My point is that you cannot force the Republican party into the "just conservative need apply" category... which is what the Tom vs Arnold hallabaloo has seemed to settle into.

Everytime a republican blames Perot for 8 years of Clinton when it is actually Bush's own fault they are in essence claiming that they are owed a vote regardless of their pathetic performance.

If the constitution is not a litmus test for republicanism then the republican party has become pointless.

[outlawcam]

You believe that if you just accuse someone of refusing to answer you insipid little question, that it makes it true.

By the way, if you had bothered to make an argument, I would be more than happy to let both of ours rest on their merits. I have not said that "because you don't answer, my argument is true." I actually took the time to make an argument, and, for whatever reason, you refused to engage. If I must, I have no choice but to accept your refusal and let others judge what that means.

[carton253]

I agree that Bush41 lost the election all by himself.

I don't know if I agree about the republican party and the constitution. I would like the Constitution to be the litmus test... as would many here on this forum... but, as I survey my co-workers around me, I'm afraid that the Constitution does not hold the same worth to them. Over half of them wouldn't even know what it was.

[PuNcH]

Probably...

You "probably" mean that it's perfectly ok for republicans to support illegal immigration?

When you have strayed so far from the constitution you are an extremist who will undermine the whole. Disregard for the constitution and the rule of law is not a valid "republican" position and certainly not a conservative one.

[lilylangtree]

Termite the Gropinator is just another Bubba Clintoon or a former Sen. Bob Packwood when the subject is women. No respect for women mentality but just how fast can a woman spread her legs for these men. Tom McClintock is the better qualified and better experience than all the CA candidates.

[sinkspur]

Note that Sinkspur's assault on Keyes is an assault on Keyes's Catholicism.

Fabrication is not something you do well, Elk.

In fact, it's very close to lying.

I've said NOTHING about Keyes' faith; it's his arrogant, I'm-so-much-more-moral-than-the-rest-of-men haughtiness that I'm lampooning.

And I'm not the only one who sees this.

[OK]

"He called Bush evil"

Well, ask yourself what George Washington would think. I am only referencing domestic policy here. Think Patriot Act trashing of the constitution, think huge increase in unconstitutional social spending, think limp wristed response to unconstitutional judicial rulings, etc.

[carton253]

My argument is not with you... nor was my post. You jumped in the middle my exchange with Black Elk to scold me... and even then, you didn't present the argument in its proper context... and your conclusions are laughable to say the least.

If Black Elk has a problem with my answer to him, then let him post it.

[ElkGroveDan]

Socko....great answer! I'll have to remember that.

[BlackElk]

Deacon:

If you are not pro-sodomy, then why were you a supporter of the sodomites in the Texas sodomy case before the SCOTUS even decided it and why do you support Schwarzenkennedy who supports the "domestic partnership" of lavenders not as crime but as some sort of civil right to be enforced by legislation??