Posted on 07/02/2005 2:33:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
I'm reading some articles from 1966 from the LA Times which tells me that it is probably legit, even if not exact.
Christopher seems to have been running the "A vote for Reagan is a vote for Brown" campaign. LOL.
George Christopher (R), commenting on his gubernatorial opponent, Ronald Reagan (R):
Los Angeles Times, Feb 16, 1966
"Surely we should not seek a candidate who is not contemporary in his thought and who recklessly talks about disbanding the United Nations, dismantling the Social Security system, declaring war on North Vietnam and repealing the graduated income tax."
Hey, that sounds like a needed addition to that little bit I got up already. History does repeat itself doesn't it.
LOL. There are some more pearls where those came from. I'll type some of them up and post them to you over the next day or so.
What was your source of the other quote? Was it on the internet, or did you pull it from the original article?
Obviously, calcowgirl -- I had no clue about the book, and you and the others you ping do. Continuing to nit at me, is not very conducive to discourse. I was genuinely attempting to understand what you and your "pinger's" were communicating. Treating me as some half-witted idiot (RHINO, SLAVE, naiive) -- was probably exactly how my posts appeared to you who are on the same page with CO's writing. I bet it was a big yuk-yuk for each of you. Knowing so much, and attempting to "educate" an naiive (I believe that word came up too) must have been truly an onerous, albeit generous task.
I do have positive responses to yours. Give me a chance to collect my breath.
Obviously, calcowgirl -- I had no clue about the book, and you and the others you ping do.
I posted nothing that had anything to do with C.O.'s book, nor the content therein. The things I have commented on were things you included in your original post when you entered at post #59, pinging me and several others (conservative and moderate actions, party politics, socialism, new parties, etc).
Continuing to nit at me, is not very conducive to discourse. I was genuinely attempting to understand what you and your "pinger's" were communicating. Treating me as some half-witted idiot (RHINO, SLAVE, naiive) -- was probably exactly how my posts appeared to you who are on the same page with CO's writing. I bet it was a big yuk-yuk for each of you. Knowing so much, and attempting to "educate" an naiive (I believe that word came up too) must have been truly an onerous, albeit generous task.
Please direct me to what I said that you interpreted in this way. I can't find anything I posted that even resembles this and I certainly had no intention of implying any such thing. The only thing I am seeing that might have been misinterpreted, was my post that said "Exhibit 1--for the umpteenth time". That was referring back to the item mentioned in my first response to you that I was so sick of seeing other people justifying this administration's actions by saying it is "better than Bustamante", something to which you said you agreed. It was not directed to anything that you had posted, but only as an example of continuing behavior by others. My apologies if you misinterpreted that. In retrospect, I could have stated it better.
In post #127, I did disagree with you that C.O.'s viewpoint about a conservative politician's chance at "winning" was unique since he comes from Santa Cruz county. Is that what you found offensive? Or perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying?
Not one FReepmail I received from calcowgirl or anybody else was derisive in that vein. We did wonder why you seemed to ignore the hard data I had posted without comment. We have enough trouble dealing with what I call the Arndroids (a relatively witless bunch of vicious cheerleaders) without now having to deal with what appeared to be a better educated and possibly a professional Party researcher/opinion-molder. I know for a fact that there are such paid partisans on FR. None of those I've identified are as formidably pleasant as you (although you usually write more words than post sourced facts however wide-ranging and interesting your thoughts might be).
When a thread turns into a reasonably rational and polite discussion, as this one did (sadly rare on FR these days), one of the most tiring things I deal with is people who respond to but a fraction of the elements of a total case, or write as if we aren't all reading all the posts on the thread with the links supplied (which in my case is a lot of pretty powerful and well-supported stuff). It isn't fair to the poster or the debate not to address every point, because they took the time and thought to produce a coherent and supported thought. When the respondents do engage in what appear to be strategic omissions, you have to go back and show what they didn't address and the conversation gets both disjointed and testy.
As you know, posting here is not as if you were standing in a public square in a small group. One can lay out two or three posts before an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) comes back to respond and may not do so in the order of those points. The first poster can't know if the respondent has read them all or not, so when they respond to the first of what may be several posts to come, the conversation is already messy. Internet fora are just not conducive to normal conversation. It's a good thing in that one doesn't talk off the top of the head so readily, but it does tend to induce people to talk past each other.
The reaction I had from others to your posts was more concern than mirth. You are a long term FReeper, write persuasively, and were representing what I saw as a carefully couched variant on the old Republican "incrementalism" carrot, which, in my experience as well as those to whom you refer, invariably works out to be incrementalism towards the left. So the consensus was, 'Let's keep the conversation going and see where it goes,' although there was research into your posting history.
We're a tough bunch (the conservatives you've met on this thread). We write well and post sourced facts. To varying degree we've conversed for years. We've been burned badly by the "moderates," first Simon and now Arnold, and are now holding their feet to the fire, seeing as Arnold has proven worse than even my predictions. Believe me, if we decide finally that you are a high-powered-New-Majority-paid-shill-suddenly-showing-up-with-a-fat-contract-to-do-opposition-research-on-the-opinions-and-ideas-of-California-Reepers, we'd be pow-wowing hard to figure out what to do with you. :--)
When I meet what seems to be a worthy opponent on a point of political debate, I usually hope for the best and hold concern for the worst. Upon encountering you (me being an incautious entrepreneurial sort), I offered a ton of material by both link and email, including some half baked ideas. I was effectively giving you ammunition against me should the worst of my concerns prove true (a Christian thing to do). That was an act of trust on my part, trust that your intelligence would, upon reflection, turn your thinking sufficiently to at least acknowledge the coherency of the points made therein. The heartburn comes with the observation that you were almost too polite and obstinate when it came to your lack of response to the specific points and facts, of which I had both linked and sent a bucketload. Not knowing how much of it you had read and noting that your posts didn't look as if it was much of it, I prodded, if not very gently. (Us authors gets touchy when we thinks our stuff didn't work.) Male ego and all that.
Huh???
You're coming across as being much too thin-skined to have been here as long as you have. First allow me to point out that I would not classify myself as being completely "on the same page with CO's writing." He and I have butted heads now and then, but we treat each other with respect, and as far as I can see you were treated that way too.
When someone with as much on his plate as CO takes the time to make a detailed post to bring you up to speed, you should not feel belittled, or insulted; you should be at least somewhat grateful. There is no attempt here to diminish you that I can perceive. Can you point us to that to which you object?
LOL, AFIK you haven't read enough pages to be there. :-)
How many pages does it take?
LOL! Enough that I don't get posts like this one:
CO, this statement is an eye opener. I had begun to believe that we didn't share the same views on this, due to comments that you had made in a previous thread on a similar subject. Clearly that is not so. It now appears that we are in near-lockstep agreement. Words can be funny things at times.
It's not that words are funny things. You tend to read into them in terms of conventional battle lines from which I don't operate because, from what I can tell, you haven't read enough of my recommendations for how environmental management markets could work. For example, you have assumed that my preferences were for land preservation as responsible stewardship of natural resources, where I have NEVER advocated anything of the sort. I have always maintainded that nature needs our care, particularly when we have massively and rapidly altered the global boundary conditions under which it operates (particularly nitrogen, water, and carbon cycles). I also have said many time that we had best know what we're doing when we monkey with natural systems because mistakes are VERY expensive if not virtually impossible to reverse, which is why I think markets in risks and use of offsetting assets are the way to go.
I don't think nature is as resiliant as you apparently do. I give you Central Asia, most of Africa, and (if we don't get it together) the American West. Tens of millions of acres of weeds and exotic bugs on top of heedless over-use do have their adverse consequences that can be permanent without massive investment. We do agree that preservation of such is a very destructive thing to do.
Thank you. I'll come back tomorrow evening and read it.
The earth is a tiny little ball surrounded by and affected by the enormous energy generating forces of outer space (which include constant gama ray bombardment) and sun spots, not to mention the humungous heat generating power of volcanoes and ocean currents.
It is arrogance of the highest magnitude to think that mankind, who is akin to an amoeba on the butt of an elephant, can affect the earth's climate to any signifigant degree.
Yes, it might be a few degrees hotter in the city (due to heat retention in cement) and we might be able to warm up the atmosphere a tiny fraction if we were to light all the forests on fire at once.
But in the end, wouldn't most of the heat dissapate into outer space. And wouldn't the constant action of evaporation and rainfall continue to cleanse the earth of any particulates which would possibly be a detriment.
If there was ever a Jekyll-Hyde politician it's Arnold. Sometimes he makes me happy I live in the People's Republic of California and other times---like after reading this idiotic idea---I'm ready to pack up and move, but where???? ;)
Since you wrote this, you have nearly a hundred posts to your name.
Methinks you have caught your breath. I'm not holding mine.
Methinks that we've heard Alia's swan song, as far as this thread goes.
Yes, I think this conversation is over. Looking forward to reading what you sent. Thank you.
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.