Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:37:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott:
I might be one of the few people that might respond to this, so I will. But in
reality this subject is just a sideshow. Sadly, this probably has at least a
little to do with the way many Californians are going to vote the way they will
next week.
I think the subject is wholly uninteresting. It wasn’t interesting with Clinton
and it’s not a lot more interesting now with Arnold. Clinton’s thing suggests
to me that he and his wife have an open marriage -- of course, in our culture it
would be political suicide for them to admit that fact so she plays wronged wife
to his contrite womanizer, a string of affairs trailing behind him. Right --
just as boring to me as to you. Arnold is maybe a little more interesting
because there is a pattern of maltreating near strangers -- which I find bizarre
and presumptuous beyond all reckoning. To put it another way, Clinton was at
least having some kind of relationship with these various women; by contrast,
Arnold seems to just attack a woman on whim. Frankly, I find Clinton’s behavior
generally understandable, while I find Arnold’s behavior completely
reprehensible. Clinton has relationships while Arnold seems to behave almost
like a rapist. But whatever, who can know the truth of these wild allegations
one hears about from time to time. It doesn’t much matter to me.
Before you complain that Arnold is being treated unfairly by the media let me
assure you that this much airtime, for good or ill, makes him far and away the
most recognizable name on the ballot -- even if he were not a famous
international star, which he is! The media’s intense interest in Arnold’s bid
for governor has become a de facto endorsement precisely because of all the free
air time this bozo is getting. I would not be the least surprised by his
winning the governorship next week, not at all.
If you want my previous opinion on the recall read here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22209
To what was stated there I would merely add that I would never in a million
years vote for Arnold. Frankly, beyond his running as a Republican I have no
idea what he stands for or what he intends to do. And I’m sorry, but I probably
don’t even trust my own mother to do a thing on my behalf without first having
some discussion on the subject -- and Arnold is mum on nearly everything. I
heard about some vague statement about 100 days to figure out what to do. Yeah,
that’s great take your time -- it’s not as if your candidacy required you to be
more forthcoming with your views on anything. It’s ridiculous. With all the
D.C. people behind him I would trust Arnold with the CA’s economy about as much
as I trust Shrub with the U.S. economy -- which is not very far at all.
Granted, Arnold cannot probably start a costly war, but all the bills have to
paid somehow don’t they. Even McClintock thinks Arnold will simply raise taxes.
See and that’s the weird thing -- why didn’t Republicans get behind McClintock?
He’s the one that represents true Republican ideas and values. I personally
find him unworthy of my vote, but he’s a perfect 100% Republican. And here’s
the thing: if Republicans aren’t siding with the champion of their ideals, what
are they lining up to vote for in Arnold? “Sheep to the slaughter,” says I. I
have seen enough stuff to confirm for myself that Arnold is just a puppet
Republican. Much like the motive behind the recall itself, Republicans simply
cannot tolerate that they should not have the CA governor in their collective
pocket. Arnold can win it for them. That does not make him the right man for
the job.
The real partisan trap is voting for either of the two parties in our so far two
party system. Nothing will ever get done that way. Break that system now and
forever. Vote for the person whose ideas most closely reflect your own thoughts
on how to run California.
Dave! has commented here before on the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility.
I mention it because you have suggested that a person to raise taxes is NOT your
man. Well, Shrub is running up costs that will force taxes up either under his
leadership or that of his presidential successor. For the Nth time we have a
record deficit, not thanks to Shrub’s nonsensical war. Wilson raised taxes in CA
also. But the bills will have to be paid somehow, sometime. Why trust a party
that speaks out of both sides of its mouth. And by all means do not vote
Democrat -- what a bunch of fools they have been of late. The democrats are
woefully unfocused.
I would highly recommend that you go to Camejo’s site and read about the ideas
for which he stands. Maybe he will not cut your taxes, but he may not raise
them any more than absolutely necessary either. It may surprise you to learn
that he and McClintock agree on some things concerning the state budget, so he
may also not be the mythical liberal “tax and spend” type that you may fear.
All I know is that Democrats and Republicans are both tax and spend types. I
haven’t yet saved a dime under either party, not such that I have been able to
count it and credit such a savings to either side of the partisan divide. To
heck with these status quo career politicians that dig ever deeper into our
pockets.
If I seem to have Democratic, or liberal, leanings it is only because my love of
freedom and concern for certain social issues places me squarely against the
Republican agenda of Xtian control. Interestingly, I am not always in favor of
the Democrats social agenda in all respects, but more often than not I find
myself supporting their side of an issue because it is only Democrats and
Republicans that fill our legislatures. If it were otherwise, you’d find my
support for different things going to different parties. Just like the salad
bar, I pick and choose. Taking it one step further, I’d like to focus for just
one minute on how our system of government is not really designed to foster a
particular social agenda. In fact, the law should be generally neutral on such
matters. Blind justice is what we should have and it is precisely that for which
I will continue to fight. Freedom, contrary to what I heard someone on TV say
the other night, is not a license. Freedom supercedes the law. Freedom is the
justification for the law.
For years I have been throwing my vote away on losers. It is only be doing so
that we shall ever have other than a Democrat or Republican as governor or
president. To me, that’s job one -- make sure that everyone understands that the
free ride is over. That we citizens will vote for ideas and not a party.
Otherwise you might as well bend over and grit your teeth right now. Oh yeah,
and get out your checkbook, because you will have to pay for that service too!
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: (snip) (...) Though I do not condone the "groping" of women, I think his behavior in the context of Hollyweird is probably par for the course. What is interesting to me is that these women (some (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The partisian trap in California
|
| I haven't seen this discussed here so I thought I would bring it up. On Wednesday the LA Times launched a huge hit piece against Schwarzenegger, with four negative articles including a front page story about Arnold's alleged indiscressions. It (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
