Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

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

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hmmmm... Sharp Stick, meet everyone else LOL

[BlackElk]

If you support Schwarzenkennedy, you belong in a N.O.W. meeting. Their ideals are his very own.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Yeah. They love him. That's why they've turned their shrieking and whining guns on him.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Hadn't you been inducted into NOW already by someone else? Whats the secret handshake?

[eskimo]

So, there are no hierarchies in your world? If one favors Arnold, then one is "immoral"?

Never even mentioned Arnold. I did, however, question the priorities and the apparent "immoral greed" of those who advocate handing America's future over to the amoral liberal types just for a brief opportunity to participate in the present political game.

[Erik Latranyi]

If Ronald Reagan could appeal to pro-choice Democrats, then why can't Arnold Schwarzenegger appeal to pro-life Republicans?

Do conservatives not disagree on some issues? Think about gun-control and the "instant check" system. Some conservatives agree to a background check as long as it is instant while others want no check whatsoever.

What, then, is a 'pure' conservative?

Who will decide which individuals are allowed to call themselves conservative and which are not?

Is adherence to an ideology that never advances logical or rational?

[Robert_Paulson2]

not far off the mark...
does he actually get paid for what he does? yup.

[hchutch]

Excellent questions. I'd like to see some answers.

[BlackElk]

Permission granted.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Hadn't you been inducted into NOW already by someone else?

No, that was the He-Man Woman Haters Club (Women and Armadillos Allowed).

Whats the secret handshake?

If I told you, it wouldn't be secret, now would it?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Who will decide which individuals are allowed to call themselves conservative and which are not?

It's only the "special" ones on FR that know. Didn't you know that, silly?

Is adherence to an ideology that never advances logical or rational?

Aaah......this is a good question. Of course the answer is "yes", but there is so much more to it and it brings up the obvious next question.......

Is what they say they want really what they want or is it better to chase an illusive (read impossible) goal so that they always have an issue with which to identify? Remember that some of the icons of this elite (cough, cough) group could not raise a red cent if they weren't out there spouting the lines that the unappeasables are waiting to hear.

Never mind that they never get out of the gate with their tactics.....it sounds good.

[Poohbah]

Who will decide which individuals are allowed to call themselves conservative and which are not?

There are ALWAYS going to be volunteers for Comrade Mkihail Suslov's old job...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Oops........DOH !!!!! The answer to question to in post #591 is "no".

Sheeeeesh. Am I falling victim to brainwashing? LOL !!!!!

[BlackElk]

That is certainly true that pro-life is my litmus test but it is one that I share with those who recognize each child conceived as a child of God and as a brother or sister in the human race, regardless of whether the child has worthy parents or arents who think that killing the child is OK.

Whether or not someone is a human being is strictly a matter of DNA, all of which is present in the first cell and not identical to either parent. That is a matter of scientific fact.

Whether a person is a civilized human being is a different question. No civilized human being supports the slicing, dicing and bloody hamburgerization of unborn human beings. That may not be obvious to you. It is obvous to me and I will act accordingly.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I mean question "question t-w-o"; not t-o. It must be a faulty keyboard. ' *)

[Howlin]

What, then, is a 'pure' conservative? Who will decide which individuals are allowed to call themselves conservative and which are not?

Oh, somebody will be along pretty quick to tell you. :-)

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

*snicker* They are consulting their manifesto as we speak.

[sinkspur]

Never even mentioned Arnold. I did, however, question the priorities and the apparent "immoral greed" of those who advocate handing America's future over to the amoral liberal types just for a brief opportunity to participate in the present political game.

I can't vote in California; I'm not in this game.

[Robert_Paulson2]

It's how he gets his money from the red meat right...

[eskimo]

I agree. From what I see Ca. is doomed short term. Putting Arnold in there because he appeals to some Rinos will hurt us long term.

Perhaps the message Keyes, and some others as of late, have attempted to convey is that America's political entities are infested with too many who would burn our country's future to satiate their own greed.