[larryw408]

I'm confused. Arnold doesn't want to impose a building moratorium and instead let capitalism decide; he doesn't want to force the purchase of a specific kind of insurance and instead let people decide how to live their own life, and on that basis that he's labeled a RINO?

Granted, Arnold is a RINO, but those two positions seem to be clearly conservative.

[Amerigomag]

Granted, Arnold is a RINO, but those two positions seem to be clearly conservative.

Alright. So far so good. But here's the question that should be asked.

If the Austrian is the governor when the flooding occurs will he declare a state of emergency and spend your state and federal tax dollars to bail out the foolish?

Allowing unrestricted development is neither liberal nor conservative. It's capitalist. There is a constant confusion between the two, even among conservatives, and especially when assigning motive to the Austrian's public pronouncements.

[bordergal]

It's only conservative if the uninsured are not bailed out with taxpayer dollars. What are the chances of that not happening?

[John Jorsett]

I'm confused. Arnold doesn't want to impose a building moratorium and instead let capitalism decide; he doesn't want to force the purchase of a specific kind of insurance and instead let people decide how to live their own life, and on that basis that he's labeled a RINO?

Granted, Arnold is a RINO, but those two positions seem to be clearly conservative.

That'd be great if it weren't for the fact that the first thing the state would be pressured to do would be to "help the victims," with taxpayers funds, which it would almost certainly do. Even if you told people up front that the risk is entirely theirs, the political heat would make it nearly impossible to maintain that stance when there are destroyed homes and disrupted lives on TV every night. We require mandatory car insurance for that reason: some people wouldn't buy it, and we don't leave people lying in the street if they can't afford to pay.