Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

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

[Amelia]

It's comments like this that make me long for the day when every single member of the GOP - including office holders - who is a moral conservitive first and fiscal conservitive second leaves the GOP and switchs to the Constitution Party (or start a completely new one) and let the remainder see how many members they have left.

And it's attitudes like yours that make the Republican Party "the Stupid Party" when it comes to working together to get an agenda enacted.

Democrats don't all agree either, but most of the time they know how to work together to get things accomplished, rather than 'eating their own'.

[WillRain]

FYI:

WND has been advertising for weeks a book for sale which implies that the oil industry is driving the War. They are not nearly the Bush apologist you would suspect.

[kellynla]

"irrelevant?" ...a sexual predator, a groper and sexual assault is "irrelevant" to you?...maybe where you live it's "irrelevant" but not where we live. BTW what bill are you referring to that McClintock signed that you have a problem with? have a bill number? if not don't bore me with accusations...you out-of-staters are really abnoxious...you don't live here, don't operate a business here, don't work here, don't have children in schools here and don't have to pay the taxes we have to pay here...so you really could care less who wins tomorrow! Let us all know when you move here!

[Amelia]

Well this Brit happens to live in Redondo Beach so spare me the snide remarks.

Maybe you should consider updating the flag on your home page.

Are you saying that unless you live in California you're not allowed to have an opinion on FR about the recall?

That would be rather hypocritical of me, wouldn't it? It did seem as though it would help to at least live in this COUNTRY, however.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Maybe you should consider updating the flag on your home page.

Maybe you should consider not jumping to someone’s profile for a bit of ammunition before replying. :-)

[Amelia]

"irrelevant?" ...a sexual predator, a groper and sexual assault is "irrelevant" to you?...maybe where you live it's "irrelevant" but not where we live.

So far, most of what I've heard is innuendo or things that may qualify as "assault" in today's PC world, but didn't 30 years ago - they were at most uncouth.

BTW what bill are you referring to that McClintock signed that you have a problem with? have a bill number?

I said he voted for it. He won't get to sign them unless he becomes governor, which doesn't look likely.

you out-of-staters are really abnoxious...you don't live here, don't operate a business here, don't work here, don't have children in schools here and don't have to pay the taxes we have to pay here...so you really could care less who wins tomorrow! Let us all know when you move here!

If you don't want those of us who live out-of-state commenting on this stuff, why don't you keep it to the CALIFORNIA pages, or at least the Campaign Central forum, rather than clogging up the Latest Posts on the News/Activism forum with it?

[WillRain]

I was NOT there and I did NOT hear the speech BUT i have been witness to much of the debate here and I must point out that to say that one has taken an evil position or even that one is on the "evil side" (as is said of Arnold) is NOT the same as to say one IS evil.

I assume that the fundamental difference is quite obvious.

[Amelia]

Maybe you should consider not jumping to someone’s profile for a bit of ammunition before replying. :-)

Now that just wouldn't be the FReeper Way, would it?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Newsflash for the Flashman. Maybe you ought not allow your profile to be misleading.

It is, after all, for the purpose of others seeing it. That is unless you planned on just looking at it yourself.

[kellynla]

For the last time. DO YOU HAVE A BILL NUMBER?

[gitmo]

Why do you say this is a false assumption. With the very first CNN polls, "conservatives" jumped on Arnold's bandwagon, saying he was the only viable candidate. This is the french version of warfare: surrender before you see the enemy.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Well I am British so what's so misleading about my homepage?

[Jorge]

More drivel from Mr. "I'm smarter than everyone" Keyes.

His condescending Pharisaical brand of self righteousness gets a bit nauseating.

Isn't it strange that the election of various conservative Democrats around the country hasn't led to the downfall of the Democrat Party?

Exactly. Zell Miller and others have not destroyed the Democrat party.

Unfortunately the intolerance and resulting infighting among Republicans has cost them many elections.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Well I am British so what's so misleading about my homepage?

The fact that you even pose that idiotic question only serves to show you are set on playing games.

Why am I not surprised?

[Amelia]

For the last time. DO YOU HAVE A BILL NUMBER?

Actually I don't. I notice that McClintock was so morally inflamed by AB 205 that he didn't bother to vote at all, for or against it.

I based my statement on this column; I've always known Dan to be quite reliable, and when I asked specifically about that statement no one indicated to me that it wasn't true, so I must assume that it is.

[WillRain]

"...a person would come to me and say, "Well, you've got to acknowledge that we've got to get rid of Bill Clinton, that's the worse evil possible," and I tried to explain to them, no, the evil that you know, the evil that you recognize, the evil that inspires you to fight against it, that's not the worse evil you can face.

Let's analyze, shall we?

Every use of the word evil in THIS section except the first refers to a FORM OF EVIL...that is, evil that is visible. The first useage of the word, quoted from another speaker, posits that Bill Clinton is a form of that evil. Keyes does not even affirm that this postulation is correct, he merely says that SOME evil is obvious.

The worst evil you can face is the insidious evil that creeps behind your lines, that demoralizes your leadership, that confuses your commitment and your understanding and that, in the end, defeats you, not because your enemy overwhelms you but because in your confusion, your doubt, and your lack of commitment to those things, you overwhelm yourself.

Now, as a continuation on the nature of evil, he mentions a second FORM OF EVIL. This evil, as opposed to the obvious form, is the "sneaky" form. He does not describe IT in any personified form, but it is rather obviously described as a set of ideas or influances - NOT as a person.

And I'm watching it happen right now. I watched the run-up to the stem cell research decision on the part of President Bush. Now, part of me was impatient with the whole process that we were going through because I watched the media hyping the "judicious" and "agonizing" decision that he was making, and I've got to tell you, there are times when somebody comes to me and says, "Oh, I'm agonizing over this decision," and the very fact that their agonizing tells me they don't understand the decision. "

Clearly, the reference to insidious evil is NOT to the PERSON (never once is it said "this evil man" or any words remotely to that effect). Repeatedly he refer's not to Bush, but to the DECISION.

THAT is what he called EVIL, and it is a valid opinion, though certanly not the only valid one.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Why don't you take your insults elsewhere. I'm not in the mood.

[Howlin]

If you don't mind, we've all been "treated" to multiple explanations of "what he said" that night.

The Freepers who were they took it just the way we did, that he called Bush evil.

I'll stick with them.

And just as an aside, has it every occured to you all that people spend an awful lot of time "telling people just what Keyes was saying?"

[BibChr]

Thank you; and here's the documentation I was sent a while ago:

The recent bill:

The Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibility Act of 2003 would guarantee people who register as domestic partners legal and financial benefits ranging from the ability to file joint income taxes to the right to petition courts for child support and alimony.

is AB 205

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_205&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

This is the one where McClintock didn't fight at all and didn't show up to vote -- on the page you can go to the Senate votes and see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other was a bit more disguised, nevertheless it WAS done for the benefits of domestic partners: to allow transer of RE without increased taxes.

All the family groups were against it, the gays were for it and McClintock voted FOR it.

This is SCA 90

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sca_9&sess=PREV&house=B&site=sen

And within that page you can click on Analysis, Senate floor, here are those supporting and endorsing it:

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :

Support

Board of Equalization
California Alliance for Pride and Equality
Congress of California Seniors
Gray Panthers
West Hollywood City Council

Opposition

American Family Association
American Family Defense Coalition
Americans for Voluntary School Prayer
Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny
California Taxpayers' Association
Campaign for California Families
Center for Reclaiming America
Christian Coalition of San Diego County
Concerned Women for America
Desert Stream Ministries
Eagle Forum of California
Exodus International, North America
Pro-Family Law Center
United States Justice Foundation

The exact page the endorsement is on is here:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_9_cfa_20020814_130439_asm_comm.html

[WillRain]

I do.

See my last post.

It is FAR from obvious that he was "calling Bush evil"

Quite the oppisite in fact.

He WAS calling the DECISION evil - and even good men can and do make terribly bad - even evil -decisions.