Official Arnold Schwarzenegger for CA Gov. Thread!

[Guest MikeSC]

The int'l press is very left-wing (as is most of the world) and virulently anti-U.S.

                                -=Mike

I'm curious (and I mean that, I'm not trying to be smarmy), what exactly do YOU personally consider "Left-wing"? I know what I consider to be left-wing, but I don't know what you yourself consider it to be. Here is a definition of liberalism (from dictionary.com).

 

The state or quality of being liberal.

 

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.

An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

Liberalism

A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.

A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

 

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

What is liberalism? For starters, modern liberalism has virtually nothing in common with classical liberalism (modern conservatism is actually classical liberalism).

 

What IS liberalism today? A belief that personal responsibility can be explained away. A belief that dealing with people as members of a group is preferrable to dealing with them as individuals.

 

Or, in the most basic terms, a belief that gov't is more capable of living your life than you are.

-=Mike

[MrRant 0]

Ah-nold teams up with Buffett

California gubernatorial candidate brings in billionaire financial guru to advise campaign.

August 13, 2003: 5:46 PM EDT

 

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday billionaire financial guru Warren Buffett has joined his campaign as an adviser.

 

Buffett, influential chairman of the financial firm Berkshire Hathaway Inc., will serve as senior financial and economic advisor to Schwarzenegger, a Republican seeking to replace Democratic Governor Gray Davis, who is blamed by Republicans for the state running an enormous budget deficit.

 

"I have known Arnold for years and know he'll be a great governor," Buffett said in a statement. "It is critical to the rest of the nation that California's economic crisis be solved, and I think Arnold will get that job done."

 

The campaign said Buffett would gather a team of "prominent" business leaders and economists to advise Schwarzenegger, an actor derided by Democrats as lacking the experience to manage a state the size of California, which has the world's fifth-largest economy.

 

In a statement, Schwarzenegger described Buffett as "the greatest investor ever, my mentor, and my hero."

 

"Warren has a common sense approach to business issues and an integrity that is unmatched. That's the same way I want to approach governing. Warren always tells it the way it is," Schwarzenegger said.

 

Buffett, who has sided with Democrats recently in criticizing President Bush's dividend-tax-cut plan, will not be paid for his services, the Schwarzenegger campaign said.

 

Republicans led the campaign to recall Davis, taking advantage of public dissatisfaction with the state's $38 billion budget deficit and a lingering energy crisis. Hundreds of candidates, including Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, former child actor Gary Coleman and former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth, have joined the race to replace Davis if he is recalled in an Oct. 7 vote

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Buffet doesn't only just side with Democrats regarding the tax thing as the article states, he IS a Democrat.

 

 

....And that, my friends, is the end of our little recall circus. Seriously, Buffet is one of those financial wizards who makes huge amounts on investments but never plays it risky. He'd have to fuck up HUGE to lose now.

[Vyce 0]

Arnold is playing this fairly well so far.

 

But the Republicans in that state had better get their heads out of their asses if they want to retake the governor's office. Right now, Arnold is the Republican with the best chance of winning the whole thing - so if they're smart, they'd better stop this "he's a liberal, not a conservative!" bullshit.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They won't. The far right group controls the money in this state, and they try (and fail) again and again to take the power.

 

Arnold has his own massive checkbook so he doesn't need them. But the fact is that if he had to get elected the old fashioned way with the party support he'd never get it.

[Guest JMA]

What IS liberalism today? A belief that personal responsibility can be explained away. A belief that dealing with people as members of a group is preferrable to dealing with them as individuals.

 

Or, in the most basic terms, a belief that gov't is more capable of living your life than you are.

              -=Mike

That seems a little too socialistic a definition to me, which is just the extreme of the left. I'm a liberal, and I don't classify people in groups. I'm for racial de-construction. Which means not definining someone's race by their skin color. And not putting labels on people, such as "black" and "white." I believe strongly in social liberalism and everything that is associated with it.

 

I have no real opinion of economics (as I admit I'm not well versed in the subject). I despise nationalism and religious fanatics (of ANY country and ANY religion). I hate theocracies and believe they should be torn down forcibly. I believe terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia should be taken down. All in all, I believe in the sanctity of life. I follow an ideal similar to that of the Good Samaritan, as in if someone needs help--help them.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That seems a little too socialistic a definition to me, which is just the extreme of the left. I'm a liberal, and I don't classify people in groups. I'm for racial de-construction. Which means not definining someone's race by their skin color. And not putting labels on people, such as "black" and "white." I believe strongly in social liberalism and everything that is associated with it.

Either you just ineptly walked into a bear trap, or you've been sent by the righties on this board to discredit the left.

[Guest JMA]

Either you just ineptly walked into a bear trap, or you've been sent by the righties on this board to discredit the left.

Trap, eh? Shit. I was afraid of that. I should really learn when to just shut up.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

All in all, I believe in the sanctity of life. I follow an ideal similar to that of the Good Samaritan, as in if someone needs help--help them.

Too easy.

 

You believe in the sanctity of life and helping those in need, yet you believe strongly in social liberalism, which includes abortion. Please explain.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Easy explaination, same reason I'm pro-choice:

 

Because government has no business legislating medicine.

[Guest JMA]

Too easy.

 

You believe in the sanctity of life and helping those in need, yet you believe strongly in social liberalism, which includes abortion. Please explain.

Simple. I don't consider a fetus to be alive during the first trimester. I know you're Catholic and all, I just don't agree with you. Also, many conservatives are also social liberals (even some on this board).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Too easy.

 

You believe in the sanctity of life and helping those in need, yet you believe strongly in social liberalism, which includes abortion. Please explain.

Although you personally may believe in the sancticty of life, etc, and not like abortion, you cannot stop all women from wanting abortions by putting your ethical/religious/etc beliefs on them. Outlaw abortion in America, and American women will go to Mexico and have abortions there, with poor medical technology that can damage the mother as well. But some people will go that far for their abortions.

 

So while you may not like abortions, the alternative is worse and involves even more pain and suffering.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Although you personally may believe in the sancticty of life, etc, and not like abortion, you cannot stop all women from wanting abortions by putting your ethical/religious/etc beliefs on them.

All in all, I believe in the sanctity of life.

 

So while you may not like abortions, the alternative is worse and involves even more pain and suffering.

Good.

 

This argument is always beyond me, btw. Why not legalize rape and murder for the same reasons?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

...how would legalizing rape prevent women from leaving the country to...

 

Never mind, you're an imbecile.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

...how would legalizing rape prevent women from leaving the country to...

 

Never mind, you're an imbecile.

Oh you hair-splitting moron.

 

To paraphrase JOTW:

 

Although you personally may believe rape is horrible, and not like it, you cannot stop all women from being raped by putting your ethical/religious/etc beliefs on rapists.

[Vyce 0]

While I'm anti-abortion ideologically, I'm effectively pro-choice.

 

Not because I'm wrapped up in this whole "it's a woman's body!" philosophy.

 

I'm just a true guy - I don't want to deal with any fucking illigetimate children.

 

Some of you are with me, I'm sure.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Um... abortion is a medical procedure. Rape is a violent, dehumanizing crime. How the hell are they anything alike?

 

My take on abortion has always been this: ideally, I don't think the federal government should be involved in the debate, but they need to guarantee abortion rights for all women. Otherwise, girls and women will go to Mexico or back-alley "clinics," for their abortions, where a pocket knife and folding table are the "facilities."

 

Since it seems to matter all of a sudden in this thread, I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal and foreign policy conservative.

[EricMM 0]

No one likes abortion.

 

But no one likes Chemo or open heart surgeries or other traumatizing procedures.

 

But to save a life, sometimes we have to do some shitty things.

 

Personally if you want to avoid pregnancy, I think you should use a pill or a condom or a implant. If you get pregnant I think you should go through birth and adopt the baby away.

 

But to ban abortion means that people who need abortions to save their lives won't be able to get them, and that is wrong.

[Guest JMA]

Getting back to Arnold, he too seems to be a social liberal. He's pro-choice, wants EQUAL rights for gays, ect. Plus, he won't be swayed by fundie groups. And back to the subject, it's perfectly fine to be pro-choice and believe in the sanctity of life, IMO.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My take on abortion has always been this: ideally, I don't think the federal government should be involved in the debate, but they need to guarantee abortion rights for all women. Otherwise, girls and women will go to Mexico or back-alley "clinics," for their abortions, where a pocket knife and folding table are the "facilities."

Thank you for describing this better than I could.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Um... abortion is a medical procedure.  Rape is a violent, dehumanizing crime.  How the hell are they anything alike?

 

My take on abortion has always been this: ideally, I don't think the federal government should be involved in the debate, but they need to guarantee abortion rights for all women.  Otherwise, girls and women will go to Mexico or back-alley "clinics," for their abortions, where a pocket knife and folding table are the "facilities."

 

Since it seems to matter all of a sudden in this thread, I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal and foreign policy conservative.

Unless you think abortion is a violent, dehumanizing crime, which happens to be my view.

 

The notion that something being a common occurance makes it permissible is ridiculous. The point is to deter women from killing the human living inside them. If they aren't deterred, then at least the abortion is more painful and more difficult.

 

Euthanasia (sp) is a medical procedure too. That doesn't make it ok.

 

But to ban abortion means that people who need abortions to save their lives won't be able to get them, and that is wrong.

Obviously, I'd prefer to ban all abortions... because you can remove the fallopian tube in ectopic pregnancies or induce labor in order to save the mother's life. But it is a tough sale.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Unless you think abortion is a violent, dehumanizing crime, which happens to be my view.

This by itself isn't TOO idiotic, but...

 

The notion that something being a common occurance makes it permissible is ridiculous. The point is to deter women from killing the human living inside them. If they aren't deterred, then at least the abortion is more painful and more difficult.

 

So, rather than protecting our own living fully-grown adults, you want to... Oh gee. To take a line from the gun people: When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws are having abortions.

 

I could buy a case for regulation, but...

Obviously, I'd prefer to ban all abortions...

 

The hell? What about cases of rape or incest?

[EricMM 0]

see in cases of rape and incest I think it's still more humane not to kill the fetus, and give it for adoption.

 

If it sounds like an awful thing to be pregnant for nine months for being raped, of course it is. But killing a baby even worse.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sigh. You know what other idiot votes for in the interest of his own comfort and beliefs, remaining anti-abortion even in rape/incest cases?

 

That's right:

 

 

A tip for the clueless: Incest Babies aren't a good thing. They're pretty screwed up developmentally, and that heritage passes onto their children, and so on.

 

EDIT: By the way, you guys better be glad you'll never have to live down the shame of carrying some random rapist's baby.

[EricMM 0]

A tip for the clueless: Incest Babies aren't a good thing. They're pretty screwed up developmentally, and that heritage passes onto their children, and so on.

 

So they're better off dead? I see.

 

By the way, you guys better be glad you'll never have to live down the shame of carrying some random rapist's baby.

 

At least I wouldn't have aborted an innocent baby's life.

 

It's not about which choice is right in this case, it's about which is more wrong.

 

And let me say that I've never said Abortion should be illegal at all.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And let me say that I've never said Abortion should be illegal at all.

Sorry, that heat had been building during Spicy's posts and I accidentally let it oun you.

 

As for saying that incest babies are "better off dead", actually the idea is that it's the mother's place to make that decision. No, nobody's going to go around saying "excuse me miss, is that an inbred baby? Oh, well, we have to abort it now. Cmon, we're taking you down to the facility." It's obviously a complicated emotional process for the Mom, too.

 

So no, we're not losing all the incest babies for the healthyness of our population's genetics, but giving the mother a choice because it's her body.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The hell? What about cases of rape or incest?

Abortions in cases of rape and incest place culpability on the wrong party.

 

Incest babies will be screwed up developmentally... And? What about those who are mentally retarded or have Downs Syndrome? Should they be killed also?

 

So, rather than protecting our own living fully-grown adults...

Are you saying you might support the use of infanticide?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Are you saying you might support the use of infanticide?

I'm not well-versed enough on the subject to say yes or no to that question. I know that some methods are less humane than others, but that's about it.

 

I will say what I do support and that's that I believe that the earliest stages of birth are merely a potential for life, a potential for life and an actual life are two different things that ought to be seperated.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

Too easy.

 

You believe in the sanctity of life and helping those in need, yet you believe strongly in social liberalism, which includes abortion. Please explain.

Simple. I don't consider a fetus to be alive during the first trimester. I know you're Catholic and all, I just don't agree with you. Also, many conservatives are also social liberals (even some on this board).

what would happen if your mother aborted you in that first stage? or anyone else for that matter.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

what would happen if your mother aborted you in that first stage? or anyone else for that matter.

Well, he wouldn't be here obviously, but by his logic he wouldn't have been killed either since he was never alive in the first place.

 

I don't think anybody in this thread has said people SHOULD be getting abortions. I came close to it when I said a mother probably doesn't have to have an inbred baby or a rapist's baby ("Hey, ___, you're pregnant?" "Yeah." "Who's the dad?" "I dunno.... Some guy who attacked me in the parking garage.") should have the choice whether to do so or not. But nobody has explicitly said "Hey, these people should be having abortions!"