Satanic Schwarzeneggerians

WorldNetDaily ^ | 9-15-03 | Vox Day

[=Intervention=]

Read it again. He said "political Satanism" because it is a full-scale sellout of conservative principles. *bop*

[=Intervention=]

I'd rather be a fetish to principle than a fetish to power. Of course, asking people to support conservativism is a losing battle on FR these days...and really, if it's a losing battle here, then it's pointless out there on the streets, isn't it?

[=Intervention=]

I noticed that you didn't answer his questions. You just called him names. That's sad, Moose.

[MeekOneGOP]

Tom McClintock told Congressman Dan Burton that he wouldn't pull out, that he would be fine with a democrat win this time, as it will set him up to win in 2006.

McClintoon should be taken to the woodshed, imho ...

[=Intervention=]

Typical Arnie supporter behavior...name-calling. Surprise, surpise.

[=Intervention=]

"More from the Taliban wing of the party."

The liberals have spoken! All hail the atheistic wonders and all the great things they have done for the country!

[DoughtyOne]

Absentee votes continue to be locked away for Tom McClintock a man that cannot win.

[EllaMinnow]

I prefer to call him "McBuchanan"!

And a woodshed trip is definitely called-for.

[Registered]

I have seen an equal amount of name-calling coming from the McClintock supporters. Your analysis of name-calling is incorrect.

[Jeff Gordon]

It is better to spend 40 years in the political wilderness than to forsake one's soul for all the kingdoms of the world, much less four years in Sacramento.

Not many of the Tommy fans are willing to admit that they would rather see Cruz elected if they can not have Tommy. While I do not agree with this position, I do admire courage of the few like this Vox Day who are willing say what they really mean.

The new McClintock campaign slogan should be:

Give me Tommy or give me liberal tyranny.

[Revolting cat!]

Satanic Schwarzeneggerians

Shouldn't that read 'Satanic Schwarzenigerians'?

[Itzlzha]

Actually I was trying to lower my intake of daily idiotic post. This thread alone has filled my quota for the day.

Please, don't blovate...just refute, point by point, where the author of the article is wrong, and give examples and policies and reasons that Arnold is not how the article positions him.

Can you do it?

[Itzlzha]

Actually I was trying to lower my intake of daily idiotic post. This thread alone has filled my quota for the day.

Please, don't blovate...just refute, point by point, where the author of the article is wrong, and give examples and policies and reasons that Arnold is not how the article positions him.

Can you do it?

[Reagan Man]

If Arnold wants to call himself a conservative Republican, it would be in his best interest to step up and talk about the real issues that concern conservative Republicans.

Arnold needs to release specifics of his economic recovery plan for California, detail his planned spending cuts, take an unequivocal and unambiguous pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances, support Ward Connerly's Prop54, take a stand opposing affirmation action, commit to sealing the borders, support supply side economics, renounce his support for gay rights, agree to reduce welfare entitlements for deadbeats and illegals, dump Warren Buffet, condemn abortion on demand, drop plans for increased gun controls, support oil drilling off the California coast and support oil exploration/drilling in ANWR. Arnold also needs to step up and join in the debates.

Most California Republicans don't seem to care about the real issues when it comes to Arnold's campaign efforts. I find that pathetic and sad.

[Itzlzha]

I actually heard the interview, and it was obvious when he made that statement he was searching for words..and by the look on his face it was apparent.

Tells me he either...

A) Forgot his talking points his "handlers" fed him...(Ignorant)
OR
B) Really believes in socialist social positions, but knows that by givin them voice, he'll damage his chances; so like the Peter Sellers charachter in Dr. Strangelove, had to verbally keep himself from letting the cat out of the bag too soon...(Liar)
OR
C) Doesn't really have any core beliefs, and needs to grope his way thru conversations and questions on the issues like a blind man at the Playboy mansion! (Vacant)

Anyway you slice it, is that Governor-Quality material? Is THAT how MexiCali likes it's Governors, ignorant, or liars, or vacant?

[brownie]

I believe the question in the FR CA recall debate can be summed up as follows:

principle vs. pragmatism

I understand, to an extent, the Arnold supporters position, that it is sometimes better to be pragmatic and win, then principled and lose. I believe most McClintock supporters understand this position to some extent as well.

Thus, I think the real debate here is just how much principle it is alright to sacrifice in order to "win."

For instance, if Arnold truly ran as, and sounded like, and surrounded himself with, fiscal conservatives, and was believable that he would not raise taxes and would cut spending, I think most conservatives (not all) would be willing to be pragmatic and vote for Arnold.

Or, in the alternative, if Arnold was fairly conservative on social issues (immigration, gun control, abortion) and was "moderate" on tax and spending, I think most conservatives (again, not all) would be pragmatic and support him.

However, neither above scenario is true. Arnold has surrounded himself with liberals (both democrat and republican), with only Schultz as a token conservative. Arnold's statements have either been directly opposite of the conservative agenda, or made his support of the conservative agenda questionable, or even outright insulted conservatives. I have repeatedly asked several FR posters to elaborate any single policy stance Arnold has taken to earn conservative support. Literally, all I have heard back is that a) according to these people, McClintock cannot win; b) Arnold can win; and c) bustamante must not win.

To me, as a well educated conservative who has participated in politics and followed politics for some time, I do not see that as a convincing argument for conservative support. I do not see why pragmatism dictates support for Arnold. Pragmatism would dictate supporting a candidate who disagrees with you on some issues, but agrees on some other, important issues. I have yet to agree with Arnold on any issue - save his statement that he would not raise taxes, except in an emergency. Considering that this is the same Rhetoric used by Pete Wilson (Arnold's "mentor") during his first campaign, before Wilson won, declared the budget crisis an emergency, and raised taxes, I am fairly confident that Arnold will raise CA taxes, while increasing spending, increasing regulations, limiting gun rights, and expanding illegal immigrant rights.

So, the question remains, how much principle do we sell to get a "win." Some believe that no principle is too important to comporomise and that an "R" win is all that matters. Others think certain principles must never be compromised for any reason. I'm somewhere in the middle, believing you have to look at the whole package, i.e., what you get for what you give up. I just do not see conservatives getting anything whatsoever from Arnold.

Conservatives voting for Arnold, in my estimation, will mean - loosing any influence in the CA republican party; a significant leftward tilt in the CA republican party and possibly the national party; no solutions for CA, whose troubles will then be laid at the feet of the CA republican party; and, despite wishful thinking, no help for G.W. Bush in the presidential election.

In the end, it does not seem pragmatic to me for conservatives to support Arnold. It seems the opposite.

Now, all of the Arnold supporters can (and probably will) call me names, say that I really want Bustamonte to win, say that McClintock is a loser and selfish, and that I am a fanatical conservative that does not know how to compromise. That simply is not the case. My take on this is based on an analysis of the facts at hand, the pros and cons of compromising to support Arnold. Weighing these, my belief is that support for Arnold would do more damage than good for the GOP and CA. Now, you may disagree with my analysis, but that does not mean I am naive or an idiot, or that I am incapable of compromise or pragmatism, or even that I am a closet liberal, rooting for Bustamante.

With that said, I invite others to explain to me why I should change my mind - however, I will state that I do not find the following "arguments" persuasive

a) McClintock cannot win (so what, that does not mean that conservatives should support Arnold)
b) Arnold can win (so what, that is not an argument for conservatives to support Arnold, see above); or
c) Bustamante will win unless conservatives vote for Arnold (I'm not really sure this is a compelling argument - see my comments above).

In the past, I have participated in the flame-type name-calling emails on this issue, which both sides (in my opinion) are equally guilty of. I am attempting not to participate in that from here out.

[strela]

Sorry I'm late to this thread, guys. I had to restock the old brimstone supply for the winter, stomp some baby chicks out in the yard, and order some more Aleister Crowley books to hand out to elementary school children.

But take heart - soon, we'll have OUR candidate elected and we can proceed with the satanic takeover of California, making it Satan's very own playground on Earth. (I'm particularly looking forward to the "dogs and cats living together" part, aren't you?). All of the Golden State's citizens will be under our thrall, and we can launch schemes of unimaginable evil against the rest of the world from its shores unmolested.

Now don't forget - Codebook X28 is the current cipher. The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall. John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache. See you at the next meeting!

BUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[=Intervention=]

Of course, you didn't read the article, did you? But reading ability also seems to be in short supply.

[strela]

But reading ability also seems to be in short supply.

So does logic. But, that doesn't seem to slow you down any.

[=Intervention=]

Wait. That's not my point. My point is that when asked to defend Arnie, his supporters typically name-call. That's an independent point of whether McC supporters do the same (and in what manner they do so). My point is not simply "You do it and we don't." My point is that name-calling the poster and name-calling the candidate reflects an animus towards conservative principles in general. Poohbah, cinnamon_girl, strela, all the usual liberals on FR do this. Now this behavior reflects the mindset typical of the feces-throwing radicals at the 1967(?) Democratic national convention more than civilized folk...but when you worship accumulation of power, then all you have left to do is smear those in your way.