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 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
at least here in America

I think that's the telling thing here, culture clash. I'm from Britain and it's very much the right here that's guilty of a lot of what you accuse the left (militarism, authoritism etc).
So I go back on my previous assertion, the left/right spectrum is useless these days.

When the left/right was pertinent it was rightist authoritism (the monarchists, which is where the modern right comes from) versus the Liberals who were anti central government, and pro individualism, pro freedom of speech.

From my own experience it is still the right that calls for authoritarianism and government control. In this country it was the Sun (which is now a right-wing tabloid) that was heralding a 90-day 'internment' of prisoners without charge as a good thing.
The left-wing media was appalled.

Thus I see the left/right spectrum as utterly useless.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, November 13, 2005 10:11 PM

Interesting question

I'll make a push for him being conservative. At least more or less towards the time line. My knee jerk response of course is that if he'd been a liberal, he would have just given the Lybian terrorists the nukes they wanted.

:)

PIRATENEWS

Monday, January 9, 2006 12:40 PM

Nazi Gay Porn Star Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger

Music videos:

Arnold the Nazi
Music by Spike Jones and the City Slickers
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6742.php

President Arnold the Nazi
Music by Counter Coup and John Lee
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6742.php

Boners at Bohemian Grove
Music by Counter Coup and John Lee
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

Snuff kiddie porn at Bohemian Grove
Alex Jones of Infowars.com interviews Senator John DeCamp author of The Franklin Coverup
music by Counter Coup and Bohemian Club
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

MP3s:

Arnold the Nazi Pottimouth
by Counter Coup, John Lee
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/6142.php

President Arnold the Nazi
Music by Counter Coup and John Lee
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/6142.php

Arnold's gay porn photos in homo After Dark magazine:
http://piratenews.org/bushgaygate-redirect.html

from September 911 Surprise
http://september911surprise.com

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, STM, Pirate TV

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(no rocket exhaust as Apollo LEM "blasted off" from the "moon")
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org
http://ufoetry.com

FLETCH2

Monday, January 9, 2006 3:20 PM

DT, there is a flaw with your argument. If we accept your theory that Perle, Kristol etc were Socialist "back in the day" so what? You said that you were once. Why is it that you insist that these folks haven't changed and then assert that you have?

(Then again you were working for Howard Dean right....?)

I have to agree with what Citizen said. In our country Conservatives built the big government that they used to run the Empire they created through military intervention. It was the left wingers that campaigned against large centralist government and waste. They were the ones seduced when they got hold of the "one ring" of big government.

To our eyes a "conservative" building up a government machine at home and an Empire abroad is the same old, same old.... That modern Conservatism has shifted is actually a positive effect of Thatcherism, not the traditional stance of the party.

GIXXER

Monday, January 9, 2006 4:06 PM

I'd vote for Arnie, with Jesse Ventura as running mate (to make sure there's someone in the White House who has some experience of politics).

Then again, maybe the other way around, since Arnie seems to be so thick, he can crash a bike even when he has a sidecar bolted to it...

SIGNYM

Monday, January 9, 2006 5:37 PM

The problem is that anyone who thinks "big government" is automatically a "socialist" in DT's book. That makes dubya a "socialist" too. DT- is there another word we can use besides "socialist"? There are various stripes of "big government" folks- some on the side of corporations and some on the side of "the people", some that believe in militarism and some that believe in environmentalism. There has to be some way of distinguishing them. (Yeah, I know- you'll say "big government" is automatically dangerous and it doesn't matter what the motives are of the party in power. I reply by saying that big ANYTHING can do big damage but also big good. Big anything requires a unbreakable check/ balance/ feedback to keep it in line and neither market forces nor democracy seem to be hacking it.)

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

CREVANREAVER

Monday, January 9, 2006 8:49 PM

For those interested in the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, here's an article by John W. Dean written in 2004.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:40 AM

Fletch,

Here's the difference:

The PNAC agenda is the same agenda they came up with then, they never stopped being socialists, they just stopped calling themselve that. Careful study of their ideas and ideals shows that they have simply adopted the socialist idea of top-down think-tank utopia into a model of corporate monopolism just as the axis powers did in WWII. They never embraced the free market, concepts of limited government, civil liberties, the values of individualism, competition and internationalism, to say nothing of the anti-trust or conservation, so they in no way have made an ideological shift from their stated position as the SWP. It's still a Trotskyite global social revolution, in particular, Shachtmanism, as it always was when they were actual socialists. Only their tactivs have changed.

Anyway, interesting point fletch and thanks for bringing it up, I still think I'm on solid ground on this one.

On the issue of old liberals vs. old conservatives, let's be clear on one thing:

People have a lot of tendency to stick labels on history that don't belong. Liberals want to think of the founding fathers as liberals, the right calls them right wing extremists.

When I use the term conservative, or republican, I'm talking about a set of ideals that was pretty consistant from jafferson and j.q.adams all the way through to newt gingrich larry craig and trent lott when they opposed clinton in the late 90s. So neo-cons aside, there is a set of traditional american conservatives more or less unshifting in their perspective. Evolving, yes, but not abandoning their previous precepts, only adding to them. This is the way in which they are markedly different from neocons, who I would argue are consistantly socialist, only adding methods to that, but never losing the core beliefs.

If leftist revisionists look back and want to call those statesmen liberals, sobeit, the words did not mean the same things then that they do now, they were not opposites, Jefferson considered himself both a liberal and a conservative. Certainly I will grant that they were radical, I would just argue that they were radically republican.

The fact that monarchists once sat on the right is no indication that republicanism is a natural evolution of monarchism, that's absurd. But I think that when we talk about ideological schools of thought, I would hope that we could stick to consistant ideological principles and schools of thought.

Socialism has always been about collectivism, general welfare and cooperative systems, and most often lends itself to utopian idealism

Republicanism has always been about free competition, individualism and limited govt., and it most often rooted it pragmatism.

The idea of a 'socialist republican' president is nothing new. Herbert Hoover was openly such, he repeatedly refered to the rise of European Socialism as a model to be followed for America in the 20th century. Could socialist republicanism work? I doubt it, I think the cost of socialism makes republicanism impossible, but that won't stop people from trying every once in a while.

CENTURYHOUSE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
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?

Socialists/leftists politics are probably the LAST philosophy the Firefly crew would embrace.

I don't think they'd embrace the right either, but CERTAINLY they wouldn't embrace those in favor of a huge central government that takes care of all via larger and larger social welfare programs, instead of having persons be responsible for themselves.

Leftist tendancies expressed in current Democrat party programs lean more and more toward communism & socialism which supress individual freedoms in the name of the 'collective good' - something the Firefly crew wouldn't stand for.

Mal & crew OBVIOUSLY believe in being able to govern their own actions and excercize armed self defense when needed - something so called 'liberals' have been trying to take away for decades.

Republican business interests wouldn't please them either, but it's not as if the Democrats aren't appealing to those same rich people as well, though thru different channels.

I doubt the right's religious base would please Mal, but consider that nearly 70% of those on the left still profess religios belief.

I would think Mal & Crew would be more likely to embrace Libertarian / Constitutionalist qualities since they emphasizes personal freedoms over socialist government rule.

When you refer to people talking about our government "going sideways" - it is and has been for quite some time. That doesn't mean it's evil, but the checks and balances that were designed to keep it in check are being removed slowly but surely. If other's think it's not "going sideways", it makes me wonder if they have any idea how our government was intended to function by those who designed it?

In my opinion any American who even tries to talk about our government is doing so in ignorance if they have not thoroughly read the US Constitution, Bill of Rights AND The Federalist Papers (written by the authors of the Constitution to explain what they intended).

A person cannot help but be lost in the woods if they haven't done that remedial bit of reading. And if they can't see that this government is taking a course far away from what was intended by the men that designed it, they are missing quite a bit.

Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are being gobbled up, and have been for decades - by both parties. As the public becomes more and more ignorant of what this government is allowed to do and prohibited from doing, we are drifting further and further to an "Alliance" of our own in the future. All of this 'one world government' stuff we're starting to embrace IS "The Alliance".

Check out my songs:
http://www.thelightningwaltz.com

http://www.myspace.com/crash_sun

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:56 AM

Signym,

Quote:
The problem is that anyone who thinks "big government" is automatically a "socialist" in DT's book. That makes dubya a "socialist" too. DT- is there another word we can use besides "socialist"? There are various stripes of "big government" folks- some on the side of corporations and some on the side of "the people", some that believe in militarism and some that believe in environmentalism. There has to be some way of distinguishing them. (Yeah, I know- you'll say "big government" is automatically dangerous and it doesn't matter what the motives are of the party in power. I reply by saying that big ANYTHING can do big damage but also big good. Big anything requires a unbreakable check/ balance/ feedback to keep it in line and neither market forces nor democracy seem to be hacking it.)

Signym,

I don't think this is fair to me. I have clearly stated the PNAC connection to Trotsky socialism many times, it's a tightly tied know, a slam dunk case. It's not that the Bush admin resembled Mussolini-style socialism, which it does, but that it has it's roots, and was thought up in the socialist camp of the third party left in America.

Bush himself is not a socialist, that's absurd, Bush is just corrupt, as is his administration. You need to be able to distill out the corruption and the Yeltsin-style theft to see the socialism taking place. The way in which govt. is being reordered, not just in the US, but in the EU, the ME and Africa with the involvement of these same individuals, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. There are at least two ways in which Bush is awful, and they're only loosely connected to one another.

I'm with you on the big is bad. Big govt. kills with far more regularity than big anything else except for big cult of Yhwh. But yeah, big anything is less than ideal. That's why we have an anti-trust. Sure there are socialist conservationists, but the problem is that a socialist state is essentially unaccountable, and should someone else come to power, the power to destroy can be extreme. Overall I think conservationism is a viewpoint disconnected from people's other political views, the question becomes not where does it stand on the political spectrum, but what solution is best for the problem.

So I'm not slapping the label 'socialist' on those who don't deserve it, I'm putting it only on those who stood up and said "hey we're socialists" and then had the ideological hand to glove and not in an oj way fit.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE