BP = before present. 
I am no expert on global warming, but see enough conflicting "scientific" information to make me a skeptic. I also see many politicians and activist organizations using questionable "science" to impose unwarranted and burdensome laws and regulation on business and society, driving us to more socialism (while at the same time enriching themselves from businesses benefiting from implementation of same regulations). If those promoting this type of wrong-minded action have an (R) by their name, they can only be held accountable by other (R)s.
Our two party system provides a system of checks and balances. When one sways too far left or right, the other side will reel them in. Instead of judging an action based on the letter by one's name, I try to look only at the action. If a politician proposes a tax increase, does it matter whether they have an (R) or (D) by their name? If a politician promotes use of emminent domain, violating an individuals right to private property, does it matter whether they have an (R) or (D) by their name?
You seem to want to explain the phenomena happening in the party on 'sore losers.' You are way off base here, IMO. It has to do with keeping a set of checks and balances in place. The current administration is promoting actions that swing too far to the left and greatly deviate from a platform of smaller government, freedom, etc. If (R)s don't oppose this, who will?
When the various actions taken by this governor are highlighted on these threads, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are taking us in the wrong direction, many party faithfuls attempt to justify these actions by bringing up Bustamante, McClintock, etc. The election is over, done, kaput. Those comments are tiresome, and despite being proven wrong with links, analysis, etc., continue to be posted here time and time again. They are successful in doing one thing: taking the focus off the real issue, that we have an administration that is proposing leftist actions with absolutely no opposition.
Gray Davis was viciously attacked (rightfully so) for proposing to use debt to fund the State's operating expenses ($8 Billion in bonds). Yet party faithfuls fully supported an action far worse than this when proposed by the current administration ($15 Billion in bonds). I see post after post talking about how we need to support the reforms proposed by Arnold on the upcoming ballot. Yet, if you read some of those reforms, you find that they do not improve the things they are touted to be (e.g. the 'Spending Cap' measure authorizes yet more borrowing--to the tune of about $10 Billion).
Many people on these threads seem to think principles no longer matter, dismissing them by calling people "idealogues." Should we abandon all of our ideals, as long as there is an (R) in office? Ideals are the thing that distinguish (D)s from (R)s. Both have ideals, they are just very different. I will continue to oppose things that further the socialist ideals of the (D)s. Those things include many of the actions proposed by this (R) governor. Taxpayer subsidized 'after school programs', taxpayer subsidized solar roofs, taxpayer subsidized hydrogen highways, taxpayer subsidized stem-cell research, socialistic conservancies for economic development, continued high spending on social programs, etc. etc. etc.
The latest action taken by Arnold, standing with Kofi Annan, Al Gore, Gavin Newsom, et al at World Environment Day, declaring war on Global Warming is just another example of the leftist ideals being promoted by an (R) administration. Writing an editorial for a foreign publication, promoting this leftist dribble, is even more outrageous.
If it had been Gray Davis doing this, instead of Arnold, what would be the reaction here at FR? I think you know the answer. I need to steal from NormsRevenge tagline here:
"To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON
Fantastic discourse! Bravo!! Encore!!! (In other words... I really liked what you said!!!)(Spoken in a way I always thought I would hear FReepers speaking!!!)
sorry, i do not have a subscription to the wall street journal. i buy it at the newstand.
they've covered this global warming in an excellent manner.
just last week the reprinted again in an editorial the graph of temperatures from the middle ages to the present.
like you, i am not an expert. i'm repeating what i read.
the graph shows an increase in temperatures from about 1000 a.d. to 1500 a.d., and then the temperatures drop significantly, only rising again recently.
now here's the grab: the wsj says that a liberal scientist did a "study" and concluded that the medieval temp rises did not happen! the wsj says he's wrong.
anyway, if one accepts the liberal scientist, then the result is the so-called "hockey stick graph", i.e., withOUT the medieval temps, then the graph is horizontal until you get to the 20th c when the temps go up.
hockey stick, get it?
lol! the wsj says it's a joke. they've said this for years.
ken
The current administration is promoting actions that swing too far to the left and greatly deviate from a platform of smaller government, freedom, etc. If (R)s don't oppose this, who will?
What is more important to point out is that Schwarzenegger ran on the platform of smaller, more fiscally responsible government. He posed as a fiscal conservative invoking fiscal restraint. Since he won, HIS budgets have increased the rate of spending growth by 50%. While he ran, Arnold invoked regulatory restraint citing the teachings of Milton Friedman. At the same time, he published an environmental plan that promised the exact opposite. Arnold promised that he would not be a tool of special interests, while he was SIMULTANEOUSLY dragging down big buck donations from Wall Street, big real estate developers, and energy interests, ALL of whom stood to cash in on his proposals.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has systematically violated his promises in spades to such a degree as to render them callous and calculated dishonesty at the time they were made. His supportes were warned that such was the case and conservatives were loudly ridiculed for making Arnold's true colors apparent. Who will hold him accountable before his supporters by making that record visible? The media won't do it. The GOP won't do it. It's up to conservatives to do that job lest we get more of this fiscally and economically disastrous governance. That's why I do it, because I am sick and tired of "moderates" claiming that such management is an economic panacea and not the corrupt corporate gravy train it really is. It won't and can't work and I won't have conservative Republicans painted with that brush as a consequence.
BP = before present.
You seem to want to explain the phenomena happening in the party on 'sore losers.' You are way off base here, IMO. It has to do with keeping a set of checks and balances in place.
I understand. What I was referring to specifically in this context was the awful brawling I saw in this forum; which continues to rear its head. And as you write below: I fully concur: the below is as hollow and idealogic as a counter-retort (jumping to the "well, it coulda been worse"):
When the various actions taken by this governor are highlighted on these threads, instead of acknowledging the fact that they are taking us in the wrong direction, many party faithfuls attempt to justify these actions by bringing up Bustamante, McClintock, etc.
I've very much enjoyed the discourse I've had in this thread; in that I've gotten to learn much. What I've tried to suggest, throughout my posts, my hopes that both sides of CA gop might find more productive ways to address these issues than "flame throwing" at the other guy's "candidate". That can be difficult to do; I know this.
Perhaps you can help me understand another thing, cacowgirl.
You have referred here to the "moderate" GOP supporters as "party" faithfuls (or "loyalists" as per Amerigomag in another post). If indeed the conservative side of CAGOP IS the "genuine" party of the Republican Party -- doesn't that make them the true party loyalists? I don't understand why the "moderate" supporters would be referred to as the "loyalists/faithfuls", therefore.
But if this reasoning is not quite apt, and, let's assume, the GOP as a whole, as Carry_okie has asserted in post #77, this thread:
Yes. The GOP leadership is the party of socialists who want someone else to pay the taxes. The Slave Party is the party of socialists who don't care about taxes because they've got all their money in tax-exempt foundations. Big difference, isn't it? You heard it here first. :--)
Why try to stay and work within a party that is already "Socialist"? I've pals involved in the Constitution Party. And, those I've corresponded with express the same sentiments about the GOP as some in this thread. My thinking here is: If indeed one holds the position that the GOP is now socialist, or all about money and coopting "true conservatism" -- why continue to fight for a principle within a party some see as already "sold out"?
It's usually a big yuk-yuk in this forum when die-hard Dems fight for a party platform within the Dem party that has already sold out.
Not quite the same, but along the same lines, when my "church" was infiltrated and sold out to liberalism -- it was very painful. There were legal battles. People worked hard to retain the "core" of the church faithful. Ultimately, the church faithful found it simply wiser to start their own diocese. Now what is happening? More are leaving the "sold-out" church, and joining the more orthodox.
On its face, the difference may be obvious -- "we need the money"; but this also happens within religions and churches vis a vis donations and real estate.
Lastly, if indeed it is a shared view that the GOP is sold out to Socialism, I can certainly understand the viewing and calling names of any still supporting the GOP as "sell-outs". My suggestion? While telling them they are sell-outs, why not promote at same time your own newer party; or even to call yourselves the "Constitutionalist GOP". (That wouldn't work, I know and because it, as a name, tends to lend support to the GOP.)
Many people on these threads seem to think principles no longer matter, dismissing them by calling people "idealogues"
Calcowgirl, "idealogues" come in every brand, shape and color -- all across the aisle.
I'm glad you are bringing up principles. But, what I witness, by the very nature of the brawling during "total recall" -- moderates were coined as ideologues for being "party loyalists". It goes around and around...