Thread: You're kidding, right?

>Is this the point where we can all agree that they're really, really reaching?

no this is a legitimate threat... if i remember right the military looked into this for bringing down enemy helicopters... so did the russians...

but not sure its plausible for terrorists...

and further the president being a citizen is for a reason((i.e. our protection), and its an integral part of our constitution... dont be I am sillyI am sillyI am sillyI am sillying dumb asses and give congress the impression they can just change whatever they want...

and besides... if Arnold was president, that would me demolition man was prophecy...

>http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en

well they can if they have 2/3rds majority on one side

like back in 1840-1860, that whole slavery and civil war thing-a-ma-bobber

edit:
hahah my clipboard sucks, but ill keep that link up there, because that new google thing is cool. but i'm reffering to what was said in previous post

> if Arnold was president, that would me demolition man was prophecy...

Eesh, that would be scary.

> (i.e. our protection)

How?

There is a subtle but meaningful difference in what I said and what you're calling silly. I simply meant that in the collective mind of the founding fathers and the founding general public they could not be sure about what was truly in a foreigner's heart. Whether the public still feels that way only an election could determine, but I personally think that in this modern era it would be acceptable for a naturalized citizen (who meets other stringent requirements) to be a presidential candidate because, as you said, looking at the simple act of being born elsewhere without any other requisites is not an accurate gauge of who a person is or what his/her motive is.

I was embellishing a little bit so I could use the word "uterus", I'll admit. Regardless, if you think that it could work, why are you against it?

The written word does not properly convey an author's emotions much of the time.

This is a problem frequently encountered on here. I'll just take whatever you say in the best light possible and we'll use that.

I did vote for him for governor, by the way, but I'm unsure as to whether or not I'd vote him in as president.

I'm pretty damn liberal, but I may have voted for him for governor, too (if I lived there, of course). He had some pretty terrible competition between Cruz "Giant Racist" Bustamante and the other freaks that ran. I'd probably have voted Coleman, though.

She'd have my vote, though.

Hehe, sneaky sneaky

Cruz "Giant Racist" Bustamante

Hahahaha.

and the other freaks that ran.

Come now, Mary Carey is not a freak. ;P

I'd probably have voted Coleman, though.

HAHAHAHA!

Hehe, sneaky sneaky

>:) Uh oh, looks like someone's paying attention.

Regardless, if you think that it could work, why are you against it?

I'll tell you exactly why. I think about those old wig-wearing, grey-haired, balding founding fathers. I have the utmost honor and respect for them what they did for the world. I picture them sitting around in the capital, Philadelphia, and forging a document called the Constitution of the United States of America containing all the rights and protections they could possibly imagine, then I picture Arnold coming along and wiping his sweat off on it after a short workout (he's old now) and it makes me nauseous. Truthfully, I'm like most American's, in that the constitution is very meaningful to me and I don't think changes to it should be taken lightly. Should it have originally restricted the citizenship of potential presidents? At that time, yes. They were afraid of the Brits or the Frogs coming over and damaging our country. Is that fear still valid today? Maybe, maybe not. Will that fear still be valid in the future? Ahh, who's to say? Perhaps that's why they didn't set a time limit on that restriction (although they did permit anyone who was a naturalized citizen at the time of the signing of the constitution to become president). Maybe they put it there for a good reason and we should keep it intact. I can't guarantee myself that if a foreigner is ever elected president he won't do something detrimental to the people of our country and all around our planet. Nothing bad may ever happen, but just because you live in a nice neighborhood, it doesn't mean you should feel comfortable leaving your front door unlocked. That's just the way I feel.

> I can't guarantee myself that if a foreigner is ever elected president he won't do something detrimental to the people of our country and all around our planet.

Honestly, though - how could a foreigner screw up the country any worse than a natural born citizen?

Why don't they just tint the cockpit windows? Or give the pilots some cool shades. With all the bright landing lights they should still be able to see even at night. Like it is a major thing that they couldn't think of a solution?

On terrorism in the media....

http://opednews.com/wade_121004_santa.htm

"It is a pre-9-11 mindset to think that it is ok to have someone sneaking across our borders and “visiting” homes late at night, dropping off unmarked packages.”

"When asked if these packages were actually referred to as “presents” by the incarcerated, Mr. Ridge replied, “Yes, there is apparently no end to his twisted sickness”. "


If GWB can legislate to allow Arnie (non US born citizens) to be Pres, why not legislate so two terms is no longer the limit?

I find it hard to understand how ALL the errors in exit polls (and most machine malfunctions) are in GWB's favour.
From what I have been reading on the government protocols for certifing voting software and ensuring only certified versions are used, GWB could pass anything he wants.

Particularly with the people who are involved in Florida, Ohio and Diebold ect (given their conflicts of interests).

>>Well, I'd guess it will die down a bit at least until the next election nears.

Not if John Titor was right....