Arnold Schwarzenegger for president?-OR- If I had a nickel for every time I read the phrase....
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 07:00
VIEWED: 7135
PAGE 1 of 6
I like the movies Predator, Total Recall, and Terminator 2- a lot. I own each and have seen them too many times to tell. I mostly agree with the politics of those films. I do NOT agree with Arnold's politics, however, but I do NOT go to Arnold fan websites screaming bloody hell about them. So it puzzles me as to why someone would come to FFF knowing the show and movie portray governments as less than trustworthy, and try to promote near total confidence in any one world leader, or economic system.
If I had a nickel for every time I've read the phrase 'leftist bull
' since I found this site, I'd have, like, over $2.50 by now!
Way I see it, most fans of FF are just gonna be the types to want to nail those in power when they lie, to dislike war, and to choose individual rights over corporate power. It's just the kind of persons this show draws in.
If Bush-fans (or Bush-worshipers) come her, isn't it just to fight? To come here to call someone 'The L Word', or pinko when they say they're sensing something goin' sideways with our government or leaders is kind of pointless, don't ya think?
It may be best to ask yourselves this: Am I a closet liberal? Why am I watching FF instead of Rambo III? Am I testing my core political beliefs by hanging around the RWE board? Would I actually vote for Arnold for president?
Just a thought, ain't workin' on my Psych thesis or anything...
Chrisisall, waxing philosophically political
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris
Actually, clearly about half of us are republicans, just a minority support Bush because
though we oppose monopolist power like walmart, we also oppose big govt. power, like the left is generally pushing, particularly in the form of the democrats, or socialists, and favor individual freedoms.
So, just try not to blanket attack the right when attacking Bush, because that just forces the divide. ANd in the divide, conservatives probably outnumber liberals.
I think this was the flaw in the left tactic in '04. It should have appealed more to conservatives with a "we're not exactly like you, but neither is Bush" or something. I got the feeling that most of the left press was sort of "conservatives are evil, it's all they're fault." Which was bound to make them vote more for Bush.
I'm not a closet liberal. I think Joss is a closet conservative. I think in general, conservatives have been a lot more pro-individual than the left. It's jsut that the neocon slant since Reagan has been building into Bush. Bush is clearly more of a n authoratarian theocrat. I think overall, I'd say he's probably most similar to the govt. in Iran. When I say PNAC is socialist, I don't mean to say Bush himself is a socialist. Bush is a selfalist. But the theocrats and the neocon socialists found a common grounnd in support for big top down structures.
Arnie can't run for president. I might vote for him.
I'd vote for McCain, or Hagel. The only dem who could get my vote currently is Feingold.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dunno about this site, there's a fairly heavy slant toward the left, just lately a few of our members have been AWOL, SergantX just got his new job, I believe Rue's got himself an extra restrictive real life these days, and even Signym ain't been around so much.
Anyone heard from Ruxton?
As for Liberals and that, it's probably good to remember that things like Free Speech, Individualism, Equal rights et al, are in fact classical Liberalism.
It's the proof of the pudding that the old Left/Right spectrum is utterly useless these days. So many things fall outside of it.
For instance Libertarians were Right-wing folks that integrated Left-wing Liberal ideals into their own; they really transcend the old left/right spectrum.
Also in all reality Totalitarianism is the opposite of Libertarianism, so it also transcends the Left/Right spectrum.
I don't see how the PNAC is Socialist. I mean they don't want equality for all; they don't want public (not state, public) ownership of production/business either.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, this closet conservative has no problem with left or right, as long as it ain't too fringe-y, but I attack Bush as a person who's choices I strongly disagree with; I pay no particular mind from what political direction a moron emerges.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Actually, clearly about half of us are republicans, just a minority support Bush
So, just try not to blanket attack the right when attacking Bush, because that just forces the divide.
And the liberal in me detestes big government, so as Book would say, where does that leave me?
Liberal libertarian, I guess.
I'm off to Arnold.com to ask why he backed Bush, when everyone knows Bush is exactly the type who would put Skynet into place!!! Dumb Neo-Con Gymrat!
Chrisisall, the Barbarian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had hopes for Arnold, a Republican with Democratic tendencies. Instead he's repeatedly shown himself to be like every other politician, perhaps never more clearly demonstrated than when he had a road dug up, just so he could organise a press conference around him filling in the hole.
Still, given his recent 0 for 4 display of public support for his proposals, I think that the phrase "Arnold Schwarzenegger's political career" will bear the same cadence and weight as "Tom Arnold's acting career".
Roll on True Lies 2.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thing is, Bush isn't a conservative (well, he's a culturally conservative). He doesn't want to make the government less invasive, or smaller, or more defensive of basic freedoms. He's in the pocket of the Blue Sun Corporation.
As a closet libertarian, I cheer on every time River says "People don't like to be meddled with," or Mal says "Put all the planets under one rule, so they can be ignored and interfered with equally." Maybe that makes me a conservative, but I'll curse Bush as long and loudly as any of my liberal friends, just for different reasons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
PNAC is essentially the same group of people who have reformed several times into different groups. Their actual organizations like PNAC hold together for 10 years or so usually, then they go and form another group, but most of them have been in politics since the 50s,60s,70s a few started in the 80s.
PNAC itself started in '97, but these people used to be the neoconservatives of Reagan. Before that, some of them were the Social Democrats, others from the Torsky-socialist group, SWP., etc.
Neocon, is a slang term, meaning a socialist who supports a republican. Social Democrats are openly socialist, as were the trotskites. A fair number of these people were actually members of the American communist party, as late as the late 80s for some.
The term neocon was coined by their fellow socialists who thought it was the duty of socialists to remain loyal to the democratic party.
This crowd, Wolfowitz, Perle and co. are loyal socialists. They support global social revolution, social militarist doctrine, large scale social programs, giant govt. heath and welfare. They are true believers. People make the mistake that they are corrupt corporatists because they are in bed with corrupt corporatists, but they are the socialist revolution.
As I said to Chris, this isn't conspiracy theory stuff. These guys wrote all about the compound majority and all of that in various left wing academic publications. It's pretty well established.
This is who they are. I can see why they don't advertise the fact. But this is why I worry about people like Cheney, Jeb, the whole signatory list. There are a few signatories who don't show up on the list on the site anymore.
But my basic feeling is that 'conservative' should be eternal. It doesn't need redefining. Conservative American politics should be the same as Nixon, Eisenhower, TR, or when John Quincy
Adams first started the National Republican Party.
BTW, I believe that the anti-govt. left you describe exists, but it is much less influential in the political left, at least here in America, and probably worldwide, than the anti-govt. right.
That coupled with my pro-business, and anti-war/RTL stance makes me solidly a member oif the right, not really considering joining the left any time soon, but makes me no closer to Bush and Co.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris,
I refer you to my recent post to Citizen. I think the anti-govt. feeling, though itself not tied to it, is much stronger in the right. I largely think this is because big govt. is essential to the installment of the majority of points on the platform of the political govt. but is totally disposable to the right platform. While this does not preclude the big govt. right from existing, it does not grant it the same sort of permanent stay that the left does.
Technically, why republicans back a republican president is that, in theory, a republican president is under a sort of unspoken obligation to support the republican party platform, and any republican legislation that may come along during his term. But Bush, esp. since the re-election, has repeatedly failed to support republican ideas, and so the point may be moot.
Arnie, it is sort of well known in social circles, hates W. Bush, but is a clsoe personal friend of his father's. This may put him in an awkward position. He failed to mention W's name on a list of GOP candidates Californians should vote for, and he did buck Fush on a couple of measures like Stem Cell Research. He also was somewhat unhappy when Bush showed up in CA to support his ballot measures. Probably that last was that he knew Bush was a vote loser. Sort of like when Osama Bin Laden comes out to support your campaign.
I find that my overall conservative slant doesn't interfere at all with my ability to attack Bush like he was a rabid rodent. Clearly, if PNAC et al, as they have before, thought that there was 1% more chance of getting into office as a democrat, they'd be a democrat. I think the same basic crowd, with a couple of personel changes, was behind Clinton, and will be behind Hillary. None of this really has anything to do with right or left.
I think I should, perhaps in cooperation with some opponents on the left, make up a good right/left Dichotomy. It would probably end up in a grid like that test, but with more poigniant points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BELAGOD
As a closet libertarian, I cheer on every time River says "People don't like to be meddled with," or Mal says "Put all the planets under one rule, so they can be ignored and interfered with equally." Maybe that makes me a conservative, but I'll curse Bush as long and loudly as any of my liberal friends, just for different reasons.
Yay to that. I'm not closet about it though :) But yeah, Bush is a chimpanzee, his govt. is a mix of Neocon-socialists, Corrupt Corporatists (represent small groups of large Saudi-dominated corporations, not representing corporate America as a whole) and Christian fundementalist extremist.
Only the last of the three is conservative, and they're our shameful looney fringe, in the way the commies are the lefts shameful loonie fringe.
The corporatists are, of course, party-less. They will side with whichever has the most $$$ to offer. Point of fact, Halliburton, prior to being in office itself in the person of Dick Cheney, had closest ties to Bill Clinton of anyone, as he was the one who essentially gave them control over the US military, and gave them no end of contracts.
PNAC themselves, and their members, are life long socialists, but for the most part party-less as well. They used to be partisan democrats, back int the 60s and 70s, but now they will support whichever party they think will get more power in office. Many of them supported Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and will probably next support Hillary. Their ideological bent is global socialist, and their political partisan bent is which ever way the wind blows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which brings me to my next very important question:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Their ideological bent is global socialist, and their political partisan bent is which ever way the wind blows.
Is Emmett 'Doc' Brown a liberal or a conservative?
Chrisisall, hijacking his own thread!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME