Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:48:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
310 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
(snip)
| |
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.
|
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 who remain to wish anonymous -- huh?) are stepping up
now just days before this election to reveal bad behavior allegedly conducted
almost 30 years ago! Puh-leeze.
| |
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.
|
Agreed.
| |
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!
|
Say again? He already is by far and away the most recognizable candidate
without any “help” from the partisan hacks at the LA Slimes. And now with
their latest “revelation” that Arnold is a nazi, the verdict is in: LA Times =
partisan platform for the Left (which is okay, actually, but what I object to is
the dishonesty of them claiming to be “objective”. Disgusting and pathetic).
| |
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.
|
You must mean network television-- the LA Slimes is trying its best to derail
Arnold’s gubernatorial bid! Even then, I think the only de facto desire on the
part of the media is to make $$$;-)
| |
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?
|
I will tell you why. You are correct that Republicans would much prefer
McClintock, but they are taking a realist stand in this recall. By the numbers,
it is felt that McClintock cannot win, and so Republicans are holding their
noses and voting for the lesser of 2 evils-- Arnold over Davis (no recall). The
(R) after Arnold’s name might possibly be a powerful tool in Bush’s re-election
bid.
| |
“Sheep to the
slaughter,” says I. I have seen enough stuff to confirm for myself that
Arnold is just a puppet Republican.
|
Are you kidding me? He is a Republican nightmare! A fiscal conservative but
a social LIBERAL! Eek:-) In reality, the guy is probably the perfect
compromise between Repubicans and Democrats!
| |
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 idea is that at least the state is in the hands of a “Republican”. We shall
see how he fares.
| |
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.
|
Think about it, Richard. Arnold is that man. He is no normal Republican and he
isn’t a Democrat. He is an outsider. This is exactly how Jesse Ventura got
elected in Minnesota-- we were tired of “politics as usual”. Jesse did some
good things, and Arnold will do good things.
The secret is not to vote third party. Nothing will ever change (or at
least for a long, long time) that way. New ideas need to infiltrate the parties
and change must come from within. Arnold will soon be in the china shop--
perhaps he will be able to break some glass while he is in office.
| |
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.
|
Your bigotry aside, I have to wonder: How do Democrats preserve freedom more
than Republicans? They want government to run and regulate everything.
That’s not supporting freedom in my view.
| |
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.
|
The credo of the Losertarian party. Look how much traction they have gotten...
The Democratic party has been hijacked by Leftist wackos, and they are starting
to feel the effects of it-- losing elections. Party ideas can change, and
real change will only come from within them. A good start would be to take
career politicans from both sides and line them up and shoot them;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Let's for a moment assume these women are being 100% honest. The difference between coming forward back then vs. now is maybe the difference of having a bad momentary encounter vs. the bad guy becoming your elected representative. Think about (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) According to one guy who witnessed one of Arnold's excesses, Arnold said that's how he did it in Austria, so Hollywood has nothing to do with it (in fact, most of these incidents date to his pre-Hollywood period - maybe he learned them at (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| 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 (...) (21 years ago, 4-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
