Replies

I can't believe people are defending this stuff.

Why exactly is it a violation of conservative and/or (especially!) libertarian principles for Arnold to have posed as he did?

I would agree if he was doing something sexual in the shots, but it's my second-hand understanding (having only seen one, which was "just" nudity) that he wasn't. Or is this a Gay Thing (in that, I have read, one of his shoots, albeit not sexual, was reportedly known by him to be for a gay-oriented publication)?

You have a lot of nerve talking about Arnold supporters when your hero takes money from the Indians. Maybe you would like to get an education about Indian gambling by following the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988275/posts?page=158#158 As for me, I don't think much of someone that is called a "principled" conservative taking money from the Indian gambling interest. Here in my adopted State of Oklahoma, our "principled" conservatives are fighting against the gambling interest not taking campaign money. You see since moving to Oklahoma after being transferred I really do know what "principled" conservatives are -- they are my State Rep and State Senator who are fighting the Indian gambling and lottery which would lead to more Indian gambling and Class III casinos for Oklahoma -- McC couldn't carry their briefcases because his brand of "principled" conservative doesn't even come close to those two gentlemen or my Two Senators Inhofe and Nickles.

That is why I would never support McC -- he is a phoney and has a bunch of folks fooled. I will support a more moderate Republican everytime when I sense the "principled" conservative is nothing more than a shell! Even McC said that he would do nothing about abortion while Arnold wants parental notification. Now who is being "principled" then?