Leper Messiah Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin Why? He won the governor race overwhelmingly as a Republican in an extremely Democratic state, in spite of the fact that there were multiple Republican candidates (two of which had a significant percent of the vote) and only one Democrat. Most (if not all) of the propositions he backed passed. All the experts say he appeals to the moderates, which are usually the people who decide an election. i consider myself quite firmly proven wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 What you simply don't understand is how important our constitution is to us. I understand that you weren't talking about the constitution three posts ago, and now you are. Let's go back to YOUR OWN reasons for not wanting Arnie to be allowed to run for president. you can't compare one human being owning another human being with someone choosing to immigrate here and not being allowed to run for president.The relative severity of injustices is irrelevant. If legislation is unjust, it should be rescinded. I think you'll agree on that simple point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbrothers Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL I understand that you weren't talking about the constitution three posts ago, and now you are. Let's go back to YOUR OWN reasons for not wanting Arnie to be allowed to run for president. The relative severity of injustices is irrelevant. If legislation is unjust, it should be rescinded. I think you'll agree on that simple point. I most definately was. My "own reasons" are drawn from adopting, understanding and taking an oath to defend that constitution. Go back and re-read what I said. The constitution is not a living document. It was written over 200 years ago and has been tested time and time again. Constitutional amendments were made difficult to achieve to protect the document from trendy and ill conceived changes. You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularity of one beloved individual. I personally like Arnold. I am a big fan of his movies. Just because he kicked arse in the Terminator doesn't mean that he would make a good president. I'm not even going to debate his performance as governor with the context of what we are discussing. But he is governor because that is allowed by the state constitution of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by ronbrothers You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularity of one beloved individual. I personally like Arnold. I am a big fan of his movies. Just because he kicked arse in the Terminator doesn't mean that he would make a good president. I'm not even going to debate his performance as governor with the context of what we are discussing. But he is governor because that is allowed by the state constitution of California. Anyone KNOW his performance in California? in any case I'd rather have MOST people than Bu$h, "MR patriot act and war for oil" (some one who'd drop the economy and try to distract us with a war to "bring democracy to the middle east!" that time and effort can be better spent HERE!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I most definately was. My "own reasons" are drawn from adopting, understanding and taking an oath to defend that constitution.Ah, so you admit that you were propounding your own reasons? Excellent. Let's discuss their validity. You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularityYou run and change such a "sacred" thing, if something in it is unjust and/or doesn't make any sense. Just because someone was born in another country, doesn't make their commitment to America any less valuable. And there are many people with divided national loyalties in America, Fanatic Israel-supporters for example. You wouldn't like one of them to be President, would you? Of course not. So, once again we see that this portion of the constitution makes no sense, and is unjust to thoroughly patriotic Americans who happened to have been born on another continent. So of course one should change it, just as one should abolish slavery, or any other injustice of any level of severity. So your own reasoning is invalid, and that portion of your constitution that prevents foreign-born Americans from running for president is pointless and unjust as well. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 15, 2004 Author Share Posted November 15, 2004 I guess discriminating aginst forien born people to prevent them from being president is like discriminating aginst blacks to make them slaves! arnold is as american as any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Hmmm. Maybe one day, Jesus will come back. Then he will want to run for President of the USA. People will change the amendment for him. Yet he was born Palestine and is popular like Arnold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Hmmm. Maybe one day, Jesus will come back. Then he will want to run for President of the USA. People will change the amendment for him. Yet he was born Palestine and is popular like Arnold. Jesus never tried to get the Roman Governors job on his first trip down.... what the hell would he want the US presidency for anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by Leper Messiah Jesus never tried to get the Roman Governors job on his first trip down.... what the hell would he want the US presidency for anyway? ... I guess humour is truely lost on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbrothers Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL Ah, so you admit that you were propounding your own reasons? Excellent. Let's discuss their validity. You run and change such a "sacred" thing, if something in it is unjust and/or doesn't make any sense. Just because someone was born in another country, doesn't make their commitment to America any less valuable. And there are many people with divided national loyalties in America, Fanatic Israel-supporters for example. You wouldn't like one of them to be President, would you? Of course not. So, once again we see that this portion of the constitution makes no sense, and is unjust to thoroughly patriotic Americans who happened to have been born on another continent. So of course one should change it, just as one should abolish slavery, or any other injustice of any level of severity. So your own reasoning is invalid, and that portion of your constitution that prevents foreign-born Americans from running for president is pointless and unjust as well. QED. Look at it this way. Pay special attention to what I'm saying here, because it is with the greatest respect possible. The constitution does not allow a foreign born citizen to become president of the United States. That's it. End of story. Consider this: should I be allowed to run for Prime Minister of England? No, I don't think so. If my daughter married Prince William and he (God forbid) died. Should she somehow become the next Queen of England? No, I don't think so either. Neither would be appropriate. I may be wrong, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that England's laws and/or traditions would forbid either scenario. I have no business trying to lobby to change either. England is not my country. England and her society was built and defended by English muscle and blood. It is a soverign nation. My views are not based on isolationism. My desire to protect and preserve the laws, borders and culture of America are based on the same idea which I applied to your country. I have just as much respect for the same for your country. I would rise in defense of the same. I would be just as unsettled at the sight of someone burning your flag as I would mine. We are neighbors. We are extended family. But I would take just as much liberty defending my back yard as you would yours. And I would defend your right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 So you're fully against ammending the constitution to ban gay marriage? And in fact...are against EVERY ammendment to the constitution? Because those were added to change it, which in most cases I would say was for the better, but it's okay because they all happened before your time? Am I missing something? It's okay to ammend the constitution as long as it happened way back when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopster Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Of course, because change was just an issue in the old times and doesn't happen anymore and never will again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 The constitution does not allow a foreign born citizen to become president of the United States. That's it. End of story.Pay special attention to this, Ron: It allowed slavery before it was amended, as has been pointed out many times. The constitution is- rightly- not set in stone, as any document written such a long time ago should not be set in stone. We live in different times, and just as slavery is not acceptable now, neither is the idea that being BORN in a country makes you in some way more loyal than LOVING a country. We live in a global culture. Such ideas have been made obsolete by freedom of travel and ease of immigration. Consider this: should I be allowed to run for Prime Minister of England?If you'd lived a decade or two or three in England, had taken an oath of citizenship and had become a pillar of the English community and had altogether demonstrated your immersion into English culture, yes, you should be allowed to shoot for the position of Prime Minister. Of COURSE you should. Why shouldn't you? That's the whole point. That's what's unjust about the concept of second generation fiddle-faddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. This is in the Constitution too. I agree that changes to the Constitution should not be taken lightly, but the fact that something is currently in the Constitution is not the end all of discussion in amending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 They would have no trouble amending the constitution if they WANTED to. Constitution issues aside, what I wonder is: Would Arnold make a good president? What was his performance in California? And what would he do if he WERE president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I wouldn't vote for Arnold for President...and neither would I support a Constitutional amendment allowing immigrants to be President. Arnold ran for governor as a conservative-leaning moderate, and he has done a lot to fix the mess that the ever-liberal Gray Davis left here, but in my opinion, he isn't conservative enough to win my support. I didn't vote for him for governor because it was painfully obvious that he was presenting himself as a conservative by ripping off ideas and policy promises from the real conservative candidate, Tom McClintock (who, if you haven't guessed, I voted for). Really, the only reason he won the governorship was by name recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Arnold ran for governor as a conservative-leaning moderate, and he has done a lot to fix the mess that the ever-liberal Gray Davis left here, but in my opinion, he isn't conservative enough to win my support. what kind of mess did he leave and what did he do to clean it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 that's funny, it almost like you're saying only liberals can mess things up. Gray Davis was just a bad leader, it had nothing to do with his stances on things or his party association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 17, 2004 Author Share Posted November 17, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith that's funny, it almost like you're saying only liberals can mess things up. Gray Davis was just a bad leader, it had nothing to do with his stances on things or his party association. Agreed! Democrats make the best leaders! I didn't say liberals were bad leaders. I was just asking the details of Arnold's term for governer to determine is potential performance as president!( if people didn't like him in his own state, that would be a sighn that somthing is wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I was talking to rccar. My bad for not quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborgninja Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog At least he was a self made man as far as I know! Opera Winfry started out poor and knows what its like! she gives to the poor and buys people cars! Was Arnold just a foreign guy who just got into acting, and he made it himself? or was hee BORN rich and has NO connecection to the common man? Is he a Democrat or Republican? What does she MEAN California was destroyed??? (Maybie it was destroyed from the RICH people's perspective becuase they are only getting 25 million instead of 30 million! that won't likely HAPPEN, but its just a thought...) U have made a good point he is a forgein alien which means he can't run for preisdent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog (if people didn't like him in his own state, that would be a sighn that somthing is wrong.) People like him in his own state. Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin He won the governor race overwhelmingly as a Republican in an extremely Democratic state, in spite of the fact that there were multiple Republican candidates (two of which had a significant percent of the vote) and only one Democrat. Most (if not all) of the propositions he backed passed. All the experts say he appeals to the moderates, which are usually the people who decide an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 If people like him in his own state, then that leave the question: do they like him for his politics or just his movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyborgninja Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog If people like him in his own state, then that leave the question: do they like him for his politics or just his movies? just the movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog do they like him for his politics or just his movies? Hard to say. My guess is that it is some combination. A lot of people I have talked to don't like him at all, because they have trouble taking him seriously because of the movies. Personally, I don't like the way he uses his movies when he's talking about politics. However, voting on propositions I found that I was voting the way he was campaigning for on many of them. In fact, I think I disagreed with him on only one. I like him for his politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.