• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Would Arnold be better than Bush

Shelly21

Diamond Member
May 28, 2002
4,111
1
0
Now that Arnold is the new leader for California, we all know that Ronald Reagan was a big part his inspiration, so in theory, would he be a better president than Bush?

(This is, of course just a hypothetical question considering that he can't actually run for the president)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
LOL... who knows. I think we should at least give him some time as Governor before we start judging his performance!
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL... who knows. I think we should at least give him some time as Governor before we start judging his performance!

Maybe that wasn't frost, but hell did, in fact, freeze over :)
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
 

Shelly21

Diamond Member
May 28, 2002
4,111
1
0
You're right, it is a bit early.

Do you guys know where he stands on most of the issues? Perhaps he will run for the senate in the future.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
As long as he doesn't start yelling "You're either with us or against us", relatively speaking, he can't be all that bad...... for a republican
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
a) Arnold will never become president.
b) It's ridiculous to believe that a person who's more on your side ideologically will make a better president.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,388
73
91
Originally posted by: Shelly21
You're right, it is a bit early.

Do you guys know where he stands on most of the issues? Perhaps he will run for the senate in the future.
All I know is what I have read. He is supposedly a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
Wow that's amazing..especially when you take into consideration that 16 of the last 20 years in Ca they have had Republican Governors!

 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
Wow that's amazing..especially when you take into consideration that 16 of the last 20 years in Ca they have had Republican Governors!
we're talking about courts. Also compare to texas (use to be a democratic stronghold) Everyone knows that texas switched political spectrums as did CA but judges are there for LIFE!!!.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
More hot air. Some hard facts and numbers please, and sources to back them up. You made a statement about CA judiciary, and presented no hard facts.

 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
More hot air. Some hard facts and numbers please, and sources to back them up. You made a statement about CA judiciary, and presented no hard facts.
FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
Wow that's amazing..especially when you take into consideration that 16 of the last 20 years in Ca they have had Republican Governors!
we're talking about courts. Also compare to texas (use to be a democratic stronghold) Everyone knows that texas switched political spectrums as did CA but judges are there for LIFE!!!.
So are you suggesting that from 1983 to 1999 Ca Republican Governors didn't appoint their fair share of Judges or were the ones those Republicans nominated liberal too. If I recall the very Liberal Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court Rose Bird was removed from office during that time. Didn't they also reinstitute the Death Penalty during those years ?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly



FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
I'm confused, I thought we were talking about CA's Courts.

 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BigJelly



FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
I'm confused, I thought we were talking about CA's Courts.


I thought we were talking about all courts. I showed CA courts as an example that liberal ideologues are more previlent in than conservative ideaologues.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BigJelly



FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
I'm confused, I thought we were talking about CA's Courts.


I thought we were talking about all courts. I showed CA courts as an example that liberal ideologues are more previlent in than conservative ideaologues.
I didn't see you show anything. All you did was make unsubstantiated claims. Hey if you are right then more power to you but for what you said to be taken seriously you need to at least back it up. Hey no doubt there are some old Liberal Judges hanging around from way back in the Jerry Brown days but over the last 20 years Republicans have been in CA Governors Mansion for 16 years. Did they appoint a bunch of Liberal judges during that time? As I referenced to in my other post CA's Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court was removed and the Death Penalty was reinstituted.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
More hot air. Some hard facts and numbers please, and sources to back them up. You made a statement about CA judiciary, and presented no hard facts.
FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
It's not only good, it's fundamental. Maybe you should read up on this:
How many Bush nominees have the Democrats blocked, and how many were approved? Get your facts straight, and then get back to us.
Since you like reading so much, maybe you should read this, dumbo.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
More hot air. Some hard facts and numbers please, and sources to back them up. You made a statement about CA judiciary, and presented no hard facts.
FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
It's not only good, it's fundamental. Maybe you should read up on this:
How many Bush nominees have the Democrats blocked, and how many were approved? Get your facts straight, and then get back to us.
Since you like reading so much, maybe you should read this, dumbo.
Proof of liberal ideologues in judicial control

Thanks for keeping this non-personal



Also not saying all Liberal ideologues, but you assume ALL conservative ideologues. Both parties are doing it i'm just pointing out democrats do it too.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Arnold is much more liberal than bush on social issues (ie gay marriage, abortion). He probably would make a better president for that reason.
How much time deos a presidents term in office get devoted to these types of issues?!?!? Hardly any! How can you make such a decision based on their stance on an argument which will not really affect their job?

It's almost like saying Bush is better just because he uses a crest, while arnold uses colegate.
Packing the courts with ideologues does have long lasting effects.
Yeah look at CA courts :Q. They are the most backward and ideolistic. Look at both sides before you assume your side doesn't do it.
The courts are packed with ideologues--liberal ideologues. Prove me wrong, explain how the CA courts are moderates.
You are the one making the accusation, so you prove it, and don't waste my time asking me to prove the negative.
CA courts. There i proved that the courts are with liberal ideologues. More proof for those who need it: Democrats have stopped new judges from getting in; hence, not packing with conservative ideologues. Republicans blocked some but not majority of Clintons (think only 2 but maybe wrong). Your turn...
More hot air. Some hard facts and numbers please, and sources to back them up. You made a statement about CA judiciary, and presented no hard facts.
FACTS:
1.) DEMOCRATS ARE NOT LETTING BUSH'S NOMINATIONS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2.) REPUBLICANS DIDN'T DO THAT (SOME WERE STOPPED BUT NOT ALL)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reading is good.
It's not only good, it's fundamental. Maybe you should read up on this:
How many Bush nominees have the Democrats blocked, and how many were approved? Get your facts straight, and then get back to us.
Since you like reading so much, maybe you should read this, dumbo.
Proof
dated last summer. Come up with something current. How many Bush judges have been blocked, and how many have been nominated to date? When you get an answer, come back.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY