Posted on 02/16/2006 3:36:56 PM PST by FairOpinion
Why do Republican partisan come slithering onto an independent, conservative forum pimping for the Wilsonegger gang, clearly documented liberals who have, in just over two years, accomplished the following infamy?
1) Increased the rate of taxation to the highest in California's history producing a $5B tax surplus in spite of huge increases in spending.
2) Increased the size of government employment well in excess of the established ratio to population
3) Increased government spending at almost double the rate of economic growth.
4) Almost doubled the state's indebtedness
5) Legally protected and mainstreamed deviancy
6) Diminished both personal and property rights in the face of US constitutional protections.
7) Corrupted California's constitutional protections that allow it citizen's elected representatives a voice in the legislative process
8) Are promoting a pay-for-play scheme to circumvent changes in California campaign finance laws.
Please spare forum members the The devil made them do it defense or the alternative is worse ploy, the hallmark of unprincipled partisan cowards, convinced that principles are the work of the devil in their business where partisan political victory comes before all else.
Why?
How soon you forget (or refused to read). There is mandate after mandate:
An Analysis of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Environmental Policy
Angelides is a dangerous despicable Democrat whom I would never vote for,
but his views on the environment are not much different than the current Governor.
You can try to obfuscate all you want, but the bottom line is that your actions SUPPORT ELECTION OF ANGELIDES as governor of CA.
Please explain to me how supporting Angelides, who stands for EVERYTHING, that conservatives are AGAINST, is "the conservative thing to do".
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"Angelides is a dangerous despicable Democrat whom I would never vote for"
===
Well, if you stay home or vote for some third party candidate, you ARE voting for Angelides.
Say Angelides gets 500 more votes than Arnold, and 600 conservatives proudly stay home, who could have voted for Arnold. THEY will be responsible for Angelides' election.
I guess some people are incapable of learning, even after they gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton, by voting for Ross Perot.
I was surprised. The devil made him do it excuse is typically used first when partisans are faced with facts, especially Republican partisans.
I would remind Republican partisans who come to this forum to pimp for the gang that the Wilsonegger gang has actively promoted almost everything conservatives are against:
1) Larger government
2) Higher taxes
3) Increased government spending
4) Decreased personal and property rights
5) Diminished legislative representation
6) Higher government indebtedness
I think the values of used cars just went up 50%.""
Except that they keep changing the smog laws, and are working at eliminating all older vehicles. Just another reason I moved out of there with my 79 Buick and 76 Chevy truck.
The Legislature also reneged on the provision that was inserted when smog test were started. The original law was to exempt cars older than 25 years, so that classics and those of us who like the older cars wouldn't be legislated out of our vehicle ownership. They changed the law very quietly in 2004. Even tried to ban all classic and car show vehicles. Lots of people really mad about it.
Angelides is a consumate liar. He has learned his politics at the knee of Gray Davis, and he is not to be trusted on any topic, IMO.
It's called REALITY.
Did you read that environmental agenda, FO?
It's really quite eye opening.
Davis couldn't have dreamed of implementing this leftist crappola.
And did you read this?
Angelides calls himself a champion of "progressive values." As state treasurer, he has pushed public pension funds to dump tobacco stocks, invest in urban renewal projects and pressure corporations into cleaning up the environment. A close ally of labor, he also supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
If he makes it into a general-election race, his call for increasing taxes could pose problems; Schwarzenegger has been steadfast in opposing higher taxes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-phil22jan22,0,1913189.story?page=2&coll=la-headlines-politics
Yes it is. A reality that conservatives are obviously unwilling to endorse
California would be better served if the CRP's corrupt leadership were ousted and replaced by principled folks. That they are entrenched and won't easily be removed is a reality that conservative have accepted.
Perhaps it is time that the CRP is defeated at the polls. Nothing will change the leadership quicker than a resounding defeat. Care must be take however not to throw out the baby (McClintock, Keene, Niello, etc) with the bath water (Schwarzenegger, Ackerman, McCarthy, Maldanado, etc)
It was a yes or no question, FO.
In response to your question, yes, I've read about Angelides and already given you my opinion.
I despise him and will not vote for him. I abhor leftists of all labels.
CA GOP ran two Republican conservatives: Lundgren and Simon, both were beaten to a pulp by Gray Davis, with the charisma of a turnip. For the very simple reason of CA demographics, that there are only 35% Republicans.
But I guess you just want to keep losing and giving more and more power to the Dems, all the while deluding yourself, or try to delude others, that it's better to proclaim to be conservative and help the Dems take full control of CA, than to support Republican candidates who actually CAN beat the Dems.
Let's see... if I vote for a Republican, Republicans get to add one vote, IOW, if the total number of votes without mine equals R, then with my vote the new total is R + 1.
If I were to vote for a Democrat, then Democrats would get one more vote, or D + 1, which is effectively the same as R -1 because the Republicans would have to obtain two votes to offset the vote they might otherwise have gained if I had voted R + 1.
If I don't vote for anybody and the total for either party stays the same. IOW, the total for Republicans is R + 0 and D + 0 for the Slave Party.
For you to assert that to NOT vote for a "Republican" is equivalent to voting for a Democrat is to say that R + 0 and R - 1 are equivalent because they are not R + 1, which is plainly false in two separate ways.
Finally, to assert that failing to add support IS equivalent to support of an alternative is an obvious distortion of the language.
From Dictionary.com:
The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the Party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts.
The key word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts (such as your definition of "support" FO). Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary."
You are a liar again, FareOpinion, no matter how your wishful thinking and self-deception might dictate otherwise. Your subjective definition of "support" fools no one. I am going to post this little proof every time I see your stupid assertion that not voting is equivalent to supporting the oppostion.
The assumption was that you wouldn't go and actually CAST a vote for the Dem, that the real possibilities were that you a) cast a vote for a Repub,; b) cast a vote for 3rd party; or c) abstain from voting.
My mistake. I should have realized that you are such a "fine conservative" that you would actually CAST a vote for a leftist Dem. Thank you for setting me straight.
Well, you should know.
Did you read ARnold's Environmental Platform yet? Lots and lots of madates.
Show me where I said that, liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.