he will die from heart problems before than.

Yes. Of course, choose a president on the ability he has to suck his own cock.

You can picture this, a G8 meeting. Russia and the United States of America are negotiating with North Korea in order to avoid a nuclear holocaust. Kim Jong Il just caves in because the president can suck his own dick!

Wow!!!

But let's go with that theory that he can be president only if he can suck his own dick. Doesn't look like it's going to happen.

This is how I know
http://www.picrack.com/004/other/Arn...arzenegger.jpg

I've conceded that it could happen when I said "I could be wrong". It's a possiblility, I just don't think it will happen. A gentlemen's bet of $1 is all we could wager.

In fact, some of the things you mention that people thought would never happen is one of the reasons why I don't think such legislation will pass. It's inconvenient enough for Americans sometimes going across borders now. You think they're going to make it easier for an originall non-American to hold the Presidential office in this kind of climate?

not sure if that is a joke or not, but that is exactly what they are trying to do

lol

I was basically just restating what I had posted here well over a year ago. And for the record, a lot of people disagree with me, some even scoffed at me for saying it.


People really need to stop doing that. I'm without a doubt almost always right in these matters. Mike, you listening?

Why?

lol:winkwink:

I hear you loud and clear. We'll see...

link?

It's not national pride to take part of xenophobia.

Don't forget that the USA are still, at least technically, a democracy. As such, if the good people of America decide to elect someone from another country, all the power to them. I don't think Americans would be stupid enough to smack themselves in the face.

But if the good people of the USA are electing Osama Bin Laden, there is a reason. Maybe because they would chose the lesser of two evils?

There's probably a few posts of mine that say that. You're welcome to try to find them, I have no desire right now.


What, you don't believe me?







fiddy President Schwarzenburgers

If their going to change the rules to allow Arnie to be president then they also need to change the two term rule to allow Clinton to run again.

CLINTON vs CLINTON in 2016!!!!!!!!!!

who told you that? we are a republic

not saying I don't believe you, just wanted to see how good you are

Well I'll have to re-familiarize myself with the terminology. I thought we were a Republic. While much of the process is Democratic, it is still governed by things like Representatives and legistlation which stipulates things like having to be a natural born citizen to become President.

While some legislation does become outdated and needs revision, there are things that stand the test of time. I just feel this is one of them. It's not xenophobic and unfair to have this rule. We open our doors to people from other countries and they want to come here because of all the things this country provides. It is not too much to ask that in exchange you void yourself of the ability to hold the highest office in the country. They can hold virtually any other position in the country, but not President.

It think it serves a good purpose.

Actually he became a citizen in 1983, at least get your fact straight. AT any rtebefore he could run they'd have to change the Constitution which would require a 2/3 vote in Congress, presidential signiture and passge by legislators in 34 states. Very few changes in the constituion have taken less than 5 years. 2012 would probally be the earliest which by the Arnie would be 65. Yeah Reagan was 69 and 73, but still. Anyways if Kerry loses then Edwards becomes President in 2008 defeating Jeb Bush handily.

Looking at it from the opposite side, I think I'm very fair and the least bit xenophobic.

If I went to Germany and no matter how amazing my skills are, I wouldn't feel it was the proper thing to do to run as Chancellor. I would feel uncomfortable with the idea of ruling Germans when somebody born and raised in Germany could have the position. It's as if I would be displacing somebody else (a German) of the highest office in the land.

It's difficult to express. Let's say you have two men of equal ability to be President. One is born and raised in the country and the other is not. Who do you choose? My answer is the one born and raised in the country. Not a coin toss.

I will have to read about this issue more because although my answers may not seems satisfactory, I would venture to say there are probably some very good reasons why that legislation is written, that is neither discriminatory in intent nor xenophobic in execution.

What, you don't know how good I am??

to be honest, I wanted you to show the dozens of lurkers out there how good you are

Whateverrrrrrr. The guy came to the US in the early 70's, or was it the late 60's, I forget. Ever read "Pumping Iron"?

He must have taken "the pledge" along with everyone else before taking up residence in the USA. So dude, anyone that knows anything at all about the guy knows he is as American as any American in America, and has been for at least three decades, signed piece of paper or not. 'but still' what?

I hear everything you're saying, but my statement still holds up...

It could happen.

Why rail and squirm over it? What is so hard for some of you to just admit that it could happen?

They know. Trust me, they know.

If someone is going to be offered citizenship, then shouldn't that include all the rights of other citizens?

Maybe there should also be a law that foreign born citizens aren't allowed to buy land? or drive a car? or vote in elections?

If foreign born citizens are going to be denied the right to run for the leadership of their own country, why should there be limits to any other type of discrimination?

I guess when Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" he was only referring to those men who were born in the country, not the inferior men that become US citizens after being born in another country.

I can only answer that by saying

1) It seems that most rules have exceptions

and

2) Even with the Constitution ensuring that only a US born citizen can become President, many feel that we've wound up with two candidates that, well, suck for lack of a better term. Just imagine what could happen if not only did we choose from "our own", but from people from other countries. What seems to be a relatively innocent amendment can lead to all kinds of things we don't want. I can envision more bad things than good that could come out of it.

Again, this is merely an opinion and my opinion surely isn't infallible. I really haven't given it a whole lot of thought and am partially playing the Devil's advocate to see if others put forth convincing reasons to actually make the proposed amendment.

Most all of us have ancestors that came from other countries. I think someone who has been a citizen for 25 years should be able to run for president.

As far as voting for Arnold, I generally vote Democrat but it would all depend on who was running against him.

Yea, but how would you feel if someone from Mexico somehow became president and started invading countries. Bad enough when its a fucking moron from Texas.

no . . . . not even all natives have the rights of other citizens . . . . convicted felons for example

Yes, but those convicted felons at least started with the same equal rights as non-felons. They weren't convicted felons from birth. They chose to commit a crime and as a result some of their rights are taken away, but before they committed that crime, they had the same rights as others. Foreign born citizens face discrimination from the second they became citizens, there was never a time where they enjoyed the same rights and then lost them (like the felons)

I don't think that this debate has much do to with Civil Liberties or Civil Rights and enmeshing it with those only makes it more difficult to discuss.

I can ask you similar questions. Why should I have to do most business deals in English? What if I speak a different language, is that discriminatory? No it's not. It's facing a reality that we are in an English oriented business world so doing your deals in English is more convenient and sensible.

Denying somebody the position of Presidency is not the same as the other comparisons you made. The Presidency is the highest office in a country. It's not the same as any other job. It's a job that most natural citizens will never get the chance to attain. For me it seems natural to elect somebody who is a natural citizen because there would be less doubt in my mind that he'd have the nations interest first over extraneous ones, and there is less chance he has any ties or is beholding to other entities outside of the country. That's not to say it can't happen, it just decreases the likelihood.

I think your extrapolation of Thomas Jefferson's statement is taking it's essence out of context.

so what? they should be glad we let them in in the first place

Why do we seperate church and State? Does the state discriminate against institution of religion when it doesn't allow religion to take a greater role in politics? I don't think so. I think the seperation is good and necessary.

Some things do have actual merit even though they may seem discriminatory or have elements of discrimination. I'm not advocating widespread discrimination and never have (quite the opposite). I'm focusing only on the highest office in the land. Is it too much to ask that if a country allows you into their country to live your life because you want to live there, that you cannot hold this office? Hardly seems like a sacrifice or a pressing issue to me.