Ya!! it sounds far fetched, but this guy just may be the next putz to run this evolving fascist nation;
http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=9090

Could this guy win?.
If the Amendment becomes law, I am able to run for pres. :rolleyes:

Or how about an Iraqi US president?. LOL...

Godless.

yea though the purpose might be sketchy, the amendment itself isn't bad.


A country of idiots shouldn't be run by idiots. That doesn't mean Arnie should be elected but the reasoning (if any) behind having only Americans run for the presidency is a tad bit absurd. Unless anyone wants to challenge?

Passing constitutional ammendments is practically impossible, that's why so few have been passed despite thousands of proposed ammendments. Still, if anyone can get it done, it's Arnold. The guy came to the US with nothing but a plan to suceed in weightlifting, then acting, then politics. Conservatives love him because he's the terminator, despite the fact that he's actually fairly liberal. It wouldn't surprise me to see him elected president. The need for a constitutional ammendment is the only thing holding him back.

A. A constitutional amendment wouldn't pass.
B. He couldn't get a nomination, even as a Democrat if he switched parties.
C. Even if an amendment passed, and he got a nomination, he wouldn't be elected.

BTW, I love the guy, he's really great for California and he's doing a great job.

f the Amendment becomes law

The amendment is already law. He should not become President. That law should not be changed.

I'm of the opinion that such change should be a matter of principle, and not of immediate cause. Constitutional amendments should not be specific, like "flag burning", anti-abortion, or gender-discriminatory, and while this amendment passes that test, it should not be raised with a specific candidate in mind.

To the other, Schwarzeneggar is almost the consummate Reaganite inasmuch as he's a recognizable figurehead at the center of a larger operation. Even though this may be a reasonable fashion of government, the people will need some time to adjust to the idea of electing a slate, but that seems to be what the GOP is after. Of course, these are American voters, and these voters have raised an actor-turned-California-governor to the presidency, so it's actually likely that he would win the presidency if we changed the birth requirement.

For some reason, Americans really really want their lives to look like movies or soap operas or some stupid sh@t like that. It wouldn't be so bad if people aspired to some of the better novels and poems out there, but who has the time for such complexity? The role of entertainment and diversion in social progress quite obviously escapes the majority. The notion that such a role exists seems quite beyond the grasp of the larger portion of our society.

Even middle America suffers from this mixing of political cause with reason. It's sensational, breaks up the monotony of a really big sky.

Remember: Democrats say they'll make you smarter, more attractive, and they'll get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans will tell you what's wrong with government and then set about proving it. Middle America may distrust the Hollywood elite, but they'll believe anybody who comes at them promising a better tomorrow through greed, superstition, and fear.

For some reason, Americans really really want their lives to look like movies or soap operas or some stupid sh@t like that. It wouldn't be so bad if people aspired to some of the better novels and poems out there, but who has the time for such complexity? The role of entertainment and diversion in social progress quite obviously escapes the majority. The notion that such a role exists seems quite beyond the grasp of the larger portion of our society.

The role of a good president is his charisma, not good deeds done. People forget about politics and things so-and-so has done, but not how they present themselves and make people feel when they see and hear him during a speech. Kennedy and Reagan? They weren't so great politically, but they were great, charismatic leaders.

To me, I feel as if the role of president should be purely charismatic. It's not as if the president has to do all the hard work as that's what his advisors and other cabinet members are for. All the president has to do is say yes or no to a proposal which his advisors and cabinet members give him a good/bad probability so the answer the president gives is gonna be pretty obvious. Not to mention they can manipulate the president with any information given to him so they're the ones that basically run the show.

So I would love for Swartzenegger to be president so long as he has qualified and trustworthy people working for (running) him. Ahhnold can do aneething. Heck, he'd probably solve this whole "war on terror" in less than a year! Usahma.. I vill squahsh you like a bug!

- N

The role of a good president is his charisma, not good deeds done. People forget about politics and things so-and-so has done, but not how they present themselves and make people feel when they see and hear him during a speech. Kennedy and Reagan? They weren't so great politically, but they were great, charismatic leader

- N

Its funny but here in England Reagan was never seen as charismatic,he was seen as a moron.There was even a weekly skit on him in a comedy show on TV at the time called The Presidents Brain Is Missing.
It wouldn't suprise me if Arnie became President.I just wonder why Americans feel comfortable voting for people who are either not very bright (Bush 2 and Reagan) or with no experience (Arnold)

Remember: Democrats say they'll make you smarter, more attractive, and they'll get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans will tell you what's wrong with government and then set about proving it.

Such foolish generalization! How many matches did it take for that strawman T?

I haven't been here long enough to know left from right but I see failed logic when I see failed logic.

hah... very very possible considering the precedents of GWB and Reagan. These days governorships are the easiest road to the presidency- senate records always turn out to be bad news in campaigns (ahem).

Funny how its so postmodern, especially the dictum that 'life mimics art'. Swartzenegger's Austrian accent has become literally part of our lives, his body our ideal of perfection, in a way his foreign nature has defined what it is to be American.

I like the idea of this constitutional amendment. Why shouldn't a foreign-born citizen have the opportunity to become our President?

What I don't like about this is the possibility that Schwarzenegger will try to run for the Presidential office. It's not kuz he's a movie star, although that is a bit weird. He just isn't an ideal candidate to me. I'd prefer someone else, someone that leans more liberal than he does.

I'll give him this: He is a better choice than Bush. But then again, who isn't?

I'll give him this: He is a better choice than Bush. But then again, who isn't?

Well for now I rather have Bush :eek: Rather than Pat Robertson!. :bugeye:

But seriously folkes; what good can come from such an amendment. What would be the criteria?. You can become president of the US after a year of living here? or do you have to be loaded like Arni? Or do you at least have to be governor of California? once. LOL.

Actors don't make very good presidents thus far, Yea! I know some conservatives may scream Reagan!!. was this, or that. But I clearly remember his campaingn. He showed the expence of food items and how much they cost, after eitght years of his presidency someone took those same items of food and showed the inflation of their cost. Regan did nothing to lower prices, he did nothing to raise the middle class' standard of living, he did nothing to help the poor. Fact is there were more poor people after his eight years, than when he got into office. So can someone explain why he is considered a great president?.

Godless.

If one isn't born in this country, he isn't likely to have the interests of this country as his highest priority over his fatherland; this is especially true in our age of zealous nationalism. What if our interests suddenly conflict with those of the country of birth of our President?

On the other hand, why not? Suppose a person came here at age two or three, speaks the language perfectly, is a citizen, etc. He's just as concerned about our politics as those who were born here.

Heheh, when Bush was elected I laughed. If this ammendment passes, I'll cry.

Is the United States one of the few countries that demand place of birth as a prerequisite for the head office? Of is it more common? Anyway, it shouldn't matter where you were born, as long as you are a citizen for x number of years.

Considering the next batch of wannabe Republican presidents like Trent Lott, Jeb Bush, and John McCain, I think Arnold is the best pick. His social stances are moderate-to-liberal, while he doesn't seem to be ideologically hardened on economics. However, can anybody imagine the Terminator negotiating with the new Palestinian leader and the Israeli PM to bring an end to that conflict? I know Reagan was an actor too, but he wasn't an iconic meathead action hero. Arnold's fame and reputation as a movie star far exceeds anything Reagan did in Hollywood. I don't know what his cred would be in high-stakes international situations.

How many matches did it take for that strawman T?

It's an old joke. And it still holds true to a certain degree. Certes, it was Bob Dole, a Republican, promising more than he could possibly deliver as president in 1996 when he rescued Slick Willie from the Sistah Souljah flap, but liberalism is most often derided as being a pipe dream; liberals are said to have their heads in the clouds. Or, as the older context has it, Democrats will tell you what you want to hear. They're political cocaine: easy to try and you're willing to crawl back at the slightest hint of another fix. Of course, that makes the GOP heroin, so ... yeah, we all could have been contenders.

However, a harmony of old and new comes from the Republicans, anyway: they fear the very things that make us human: inefficiency, compassion, knowledge of the unpleasant, &c. I cannot stress strongly enough that the stuff of the George W. Bush presidency is so foul as to bring stern condemnation in Reagan's day. This wolf in sheep's clothing calling itself American freedom, the ultimate surrender to our fears, was believed to be the potential result of such corruption that it was damn near sinful to believe a good man like (fill in the blank) capable of. I mean, I'm lucky. My father never was much for throwing punches. And it's a good thing, because there were a few times he would have, were he prone to take a poke. And I promise you, §outh§tar, truly and personally, that to describe dispassionately the mere facts of George W. Bush's presidency as conjecture on a possible future for the United States of America was, indeed, an offense worthy of considering violence. The foil-vested, shiny-happy-miserable utopia of the ants was a far-fetched but occasional argument against liberalism, and while we're still a fair leap from the foil clothing, that Orwellian accusations and nostalgic recollections of Goering are not only commonplace but, within a certain reasonable context, fair issues to argue, is something history as recent as the 1980s saw as an argument against liberalism.

Tax and spend. Big government. Socialist-utopian nightmare, lobotomies for the smart, and mass executions of the Sabbatarians.°

Give or take a few points for the absolute hyperbole, historical continuity is at least as ironic as Rupert tripping over Pluto and smashing into Uranus.°

But, strangely, as the conservative beast morphs into its ferocious form, we find one thing true enough: for all we've heard from Republicans over the last 25 years at least about what's wrong with government, this little demonstration called the George W. Bush White House is rather a neat example.

And, for the record, I don't know how many years I am removed from the original quote. Nor do I know how far removed I am from mere knowledge of its original source. Or form. It could be a Dennis Leary joke for all I know.
____________________

° mass executions of the Sabbatarians - Theoretically, that includes Wiccans, but nobody really cares about them, anyway. If the Sabbatarian joke seems obscure, ask one. It's likely there's some paranoid conspiracy theory in play. I so wish I had retained a copy of a tract I read a few years ago in which a theory among Seventh-Day Adventists held that the UN would institute a one-world government and arrest all the Sabbatarians as nonconformists. Of course, other theories hold that the pope is the Devil, and that witches and Marxists conspire with Satanists (e.g. Catholics, if we throw the papal theory in there) to bring about a Communist revolution and institute the thousand years of Satan's reign, or some-such. Really, they'll write novels about this stuff. Or, worse yet, thick scholarly volumes in which impressive fancy is passed off as fact with, to borrow a phrase, nearly Biblical certitude.

° Rupert tripping over Pluto and smashing into Uranus - I'm actually going to have to look it up. What the hell is Rupert's real name?

One of the more sensible comments I saw on this topic when it first came around last year, was that it might well be a good idea to have such an amendment. But, it should not come into force immediately, or people holding office now shouldnt be permitted to use it to run for PResident, or some such other limitation. The basic logic was that its silly to meddle with the constitution effectively for one person.

Tiassa,

Would you then say George Bush's policies are un-American? Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? I see him as the ultimate American - from a historical perspective. I am still confused when people find this 'imperialism' to be shocking; there is nothing new under the sun.

As for liberalism being a pipe dream, everyone has their head in the clouds. Bush practices Grantism, so what? Sometimes we see the president's dirty underwear, othertimes they are very adept at hiding it. To complain and single out Bush is unnecessary - would you rather have an IQ cutoff point for presidential eligibility ;)?
The people voted for him alright so he obviously must be doing something that works. Maybe he gives the people what they want, not what is good for them. But then no one knows what is good for the country - not you, not me, not him; it's no longer that simple.

Conservatism as a ferocious beast? What would liberalism be then? Raging dragon? Conservatism is not itself unreasonable - just the people who skewer it. Liberalism on the other hand.. to dangerous.. to risque. That is not what the people want.

What do the people want?

Theoretically, that includes Wiccans, but nobody really cares about them, anyway. If the Sabbatarian joke seems obscure, ask one. It's likely there's some paranoid conspiracy theory in play. I so wish I had retained a copy of a tract I read a few years ago in which a theory among Seventh-Day Adventists held that the UN would institute a one-world government and arrest all the Sabbatarians as nonconformists. Of course, other theories hold that the pope is the Devil, and that witches and Marxists conspire with Satanists (e.g. Catholics, if we throw the papal theory in there) to bring about a Communist revolution and institute the thousand years of Satan's reign, or some-such. Really, they'll write novels about this stuff. Or, worse yet, thick scholarly volumes in which impressive fancy is passed off as fact with, to borrow a phrase, nearly Biblical certitude.

:D The benefits of freedom. And for this you find fault with conservatives..? There is no standard on what should be taken conservatively and what should be taken liberally - it is all arbitrary. So what is the problem here - what's wrong with the government, or what's wrong with us?

Not only is this amendment a bad idea, they are trying to push it forward as an amendment for those who are born outside the country to have equal rights. Right... Orrin Hatch, the leader of equal rights movements.

The biggest fear I have with this ammendment, is that if it somehow gets put through, there will be a constitutional convention - and that is the very last thing we need under the Bush administration. Anything can be changed there.

For more on the Schwarzenager fiasco - www.arnoldexposed.com

Watch out, all the Communist sleeper cells from the olden days will be eligable for the presidency. They've been waiting all this time for the right moment, now it's time to strike! :p

- N

Who can know forsure if Arnie realy WANTS to be president?? Certainly by 2012, he could be sick + tired of politics. It bores me already , and Ive only voted once..

In principl though, this amendment sounds like a good idea. I mean, theres really nothing legal to stop a bankrupt, a convicted criminal whos just left jail, a psycotic madman or a pimp from becoming president! A respected + famous US citizen, who proves himself a decent governer but who just happened to be born a foreigner, seems like a beter choice than very many of our native borns. As others on this thread keep saying, better than Dubya!

I think its the rule in australia that you only need to be a citizan. That requirement makes a lot of sence. To start with you cant run if your not on the electrol role and non citizans cant be on the electrol role. If you are willing to become a citizan and not just be a permedent resident then why shouldnt you run for office? You have surposedly showed that you want x country to be YOUR country and you probably know more about it than MOST of those born there anyway

Perhaps the bad feelins for Arnie are because hes so diferent from your average politician - stong + goodlooking for a start!

Watch out, all the Communist sleeper cells from the olden days will be eligable for the presidency. They've been waiting all this time for the right moment, now it's time to strike!

The fascist are here all ready!. are we going to wake up the communists with this new admentment now?. We just might do a tiny bit better with the commies!. cuase these fascists are mucking it all up!.

:D

Godless

First, I'm a republican.
Second, I voted for Bush.
Third, I voted for Arnold.

Fourth, there is no way in hell this guy is breaking down that amendment. I fully support his governorship, but I'll be damned if he's president.


I seriously get pissed every time it looks like he's trying to do this... I'd rather ruin his political career and the republican reforms in this state, then have him rise to the presidency.

He should know his place and be grateful for it.

Fourth, there is no way in hell this guy is breaking down that amendment. I fully support his governorship, but I'll be damned if he's president.


I seriously get pissed every time it looks like he's trying to do this... I'd rather ruin his political career and the republican reforms in this state, then have him rise to the presidency.

He should know his place and be grateful for it.

You honestly believe this is all of Arnold's doing? Heh.

- N

The fascist are here all ready!.

you cant say just anyone with righter-wing views than you is a fascist. I doubt President Arnie would REALLY make a 4th reich of the USA..

you cant say just anyone with righter-wing views than you is a fascist. I doubt President Arnie would REALLY make a 4th reich of the USA..

Man get your head out of your arss!! and realize that the fascistization of this nation has been going on for a very long time.

Ever since the Pearl Harbor, the US government has been getting bigger and bigger with ever more increasing laws, and more laws, upon more laws, of an ominous nature against the populance of this country. You have been fooled, lied to, and given false information. Not your fault really.



Pearl Harbor (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm)

click (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103)

click (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p431_Lutton.html)

Global US deployment 1950-2003 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm)

And today; Oh!! the similarity is just too awsome not to question it!;
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/reichstag_fire__september_11.jpg
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1559920.php

Bush's grand daddy: click (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html)

I know it's a big pill to swallow, but if you want to stay in Disneyland I don't blame you.

Godless.

if you want to play the cartoon game...
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/AmericanHaters.gif

Typical American idiot; doesn't read a god damn thing, and thinks that taking on a billion muslims is a game!.

But hey how about a round of hands for those who voted in Irag! ;)
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050131/cagle00.gif

Godless.

Typical American idiot; doesn't read a god damn thing, and thinks that taking on a billion muslims is a game!.
I'd insult your country and culture, but you haven't declared it as far as I know.


Besides, I was talking about your asinine arguement. I can counter any cartoon you put up with two of my own.

I can counter every snide remark with one of my own.


For example:
"thinks that taking on a billion muslims is a game!"
can be countered with
"thinks that the freedom or tyranny of millions of muslims is a game"


Come back when you want to talk... I can't be cowed with stupid remarks or cut outs from the funnies.


and for your recent comic...
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.01.30.IraqisVote-X.gif

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

Man get your head out of your arss!! and realize that the fascistization of this nation has been going on for a very long time....

I know it's a big pill to swallow, but if you want to stay in Disneyland I don't blame you.

Some v scary links there mate. So when exactly is democracy goin to be openly abolishd here in America?

So when exactly is democracy goin to be openly abolishd here in America?
never.

I was also about to say, before I had to hangup - if we had been getting more facsist since to 1940s, the civil rights movement wouldnt hav got very far. Nixon wouldnt have had to quit either, since facsist government was always corrrupt + watergate could hardly hav meant a thing. And why would Bush - far from a soft-liner as presidents go - try to give iraqis freedom to vote after beating Sadam, insted of just occupying Iraq forever to hold down the oil suplies?

Perhaps I like Disneyworld, films like Pearl harbour + such.. but perhaps Godless is too fond of conspiracies, Clancy novels etc. Hes probably a firm doubtr of the moon landings.

I'm glad that the assault weapons ban was lifted. Now we can properly defend ourselves from Big Brother.

Unfrotunately, those who buy the weapons will most likely support Big Brother....

Karmashock,
Fourth, there is no way in hell this guy is breaking down that amendment. I fully support his governorship, but I'll be damned if he's president.


I seriously get pissed every time it looks like he's trying to do this... I'd rather ruin his political career and the republican reforms in this state, then have him rise to the presidency.

He should know his place and be grateful for it.
What do you mean by all this? Care to explain your rationale?

As for your hippy/extremist comic we all know that SUVs and oil are the real supporters of extreme Islam. Explosives aren't free.

jennyRater,
And why would Bush - far from a soft-liner as presidents go - try to give iraqis freedom to vote after beating Sadam, insted of just occupying Iraq forever to hold down the oil suplies?
It's far cheaper this way. Keeping troops on active duty is very expensive, and life-costly, not to mention terribly inefficient. When we return soveriegnty to Iraq, we no longer have to worry about all the very costly civilian infrastructure we are currently maintaining.
We basically cut them loose and buy their cheap oil.
After Gulf War II, they'll be desperate to sell; not to mention all our corps. will have control.


I think President Arnold would be awesome. Who wouldn't want the Terminator on their side? I'm all for changing the constitution.

I'd insult your country and culture, but you haven't declared it as far as I know.

That only shows how much of an idiot you are.

Besides, I was talking about your asinine arguement. I can counter any

Yea dumbass and Hitler also did retort those who opposed him!. :rolleyes:

Come back when you want to talk... I can't be cowed with stupid remarks

Join the Army idiot!!. ;)

Other than reading it if I would point it out you don't even know your own Hystory. For example:
Déja vu all over again on IRAQI ELECTIONS AND THE NAIVETE OF JOURNALISTS: "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam." -- Peter Grose, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' The New York Times, Sept 4, 1967, page 2. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

It's hystory repeating itself.

BTW I'm an American, the only difference is I took my head out of my ass!!.

Godless.

Roman,
If you weren't born here, then you don't get to be president. His accent alone disqualifies him. The president must be 100 percent pure American.

I don’t care what sex you are… women can be president… in fact, Rice would get my vote.

I don’t care what race you are… the fact that I said Rice would be fine kind of makes that clear.

I don’t care what religion you are… A Muslim could be our president… in fact, that might be helpful in this situation. However, I do have an issue with atheists.

I DO have a problem with people that weren’t born here aspiring to the presidency.

He can be a congressman, senator, or governor.... heck… he can be anything he wants BUT the president.

No f’ing way.
===============================
That only shows how much of an idiot you are.
... why the continious infantile insults? are you 12? grow up.

It says you're american... what state?

Yea dumbass and Hitler also did retort those who opposed him!. :rolleyes:
your comparision is less then meaningless.


Other than reading it if I would point it out you don't even know your own Hystory. For example:

vietnam was a huge cockup... a lot got messed up there and we have learned our lesson. You seem to forget that many of the people in power now went through that event. Iraq will succeed.

It's hystory repeating itself.
defeatist tripe.

BTW I'm an American, the only difference is I took my head out of my ass!!.
you're pointless.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

why do you have an issue with atheists?

at least they wouldnt hide there views in religious garbage of ANY perswesion.

If they said gays should\shouldnt marry they would have to back up there position with more than "god said it was evil"

saying that people have leaned there lession doesnt make it so. As of now more people are being killed in afganistan and iraq than were during the "war". In afgainstan the taliban look like being able to take over and in iraq well, in a few years i dont think there WILL be an iraq. Civil war is iminite and i just wonder wether bush will pull out and leave them to it or stay in and lose massive casultys. Either way its his fault for every death

Truly when you meet someone with their heads up their ass, I feel proppeled to inform them of the fact.

*Train wreck of an election

By James Carroll | February 1, 2005

IN THINKING about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week's train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now.http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/01/train_wreck_of_an_election/

Iraq officials admit irregularities in poll
Wednesday 02 February 2005, 3:29 Makka Time, 0:29 GMT
Tens of thousands of Iraqis - mainly Sunni Arabs - may have been denied their right to vote on Sunday because of insufficient ballots and polling centres, Iraqi officials have said.

Officials began compiling election results from around the country on Tuesday, but they said many citizens arrived late on Sunday to find ballot sheets had run out, possibly skewing results.

If true, the allegation that many voters were turned away could further alienate Sunnis who already say that they have been left out of the political process.http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B410976F-73A0-496F-A62A-CB01C3FAE6C5.htm

Gorbachev Calls Iraqi Elections “Fake”http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/01/31/gorbacheviraq.shtml

The Vietnam turnout was good as well; http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1403103,00.html

Have a nice digging your head out of your ass!.

And BTW don't take it personal, been rude is my nature ;)

Godless.

In an interview with the Interfax news agency, he [Mikhail Gorbachev] said the elections are “very far from what true elections are. And even though I am a supporter of elections and of the transfer of power to the people of Iraq, these elections were fake.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin also welcomed the parliamentary elections in Iraq, calling it a “step in the right direction” and a “positive event”.

Lol, yeah, no doubt that Putin feels that fake elections are a positive event and a step in the right direction. ;)

- N

why do you have an issue with atheists?
I have an issue with people that tell me my religion is stupid and then get pissed when I try and spread mine. Its hypocritical. They ahve a belief system and I have one. If they leave me alone, then they get left alone. If they try and convert me, I get to try and convert them.

If you can't take the heat...
===========================

I don’t care what religion you are… A Muslim could be our president… in fact, that might be helpful in this situation. However, I do have an issue with atheists.

Wouldnt a SATANIST be worse than an athiest? An I shuder to think of a muslim presidency trying to send our armed forces on some kindof holy jihad! If church + state are suposed to be separate, having a leader comitted to not believing in God might bethe best option.

If you want a president with definit religious belief, then why does it bother you which nation hes born in? Faith croses all borders, + a catholic in America can be more loyal to the Pope than the pres.

what religion are you ,karma, if I can ask?

Satanist would be about as bad as a Druid... a kook by any definition and therefore not the person I want there.

As to atheist... no, you misinterpreted the constitution. No state religion is the point. Having someone of faith in office is not a violation and I honestly feel more comfortable with someone that has known and solid moral values. A moderate Muslim American that was born in the US would be fine with me... so long as all his politics are acceptable with me obviously... but that goes for anyone I’m going to vote on.

religion?.. Protestant... that puts me in the majority of americans... about 57% plus are in this general grouping.

I would vastly prefer an agnostic in office than justabout anything else. Someone willing to say "God? Well, I don't know and don't care. We have enough on our plate now so we don't need to worry about the afterlife ontop of everything else." As long as they can overlook their religion for the duration of the term, I am fine with it no matter what it is.

The ideal President should be concerned with one thing only. The tangible good of his country. I don't care if he has to resort to Machiavellian schemes or unscrupulous tactics. If they help more than they hurt, I want him to use every dirty trick in the book.

I have an issue with people that tell me my religion is stupid and then get pissed when I try and spread mine. Its hypocritical. They ahve a belief system and I have one. If they leave me alone, then they get left alone. If they try and convert me, I get to try and convert them.

If you can't take the heat...

Well usually athieists just tell one how bad their religion is when that religion person IS spreading it on them. On the defensive, ya know? Don't go bothering other people with religious crap when they most likely don't wanna hear or deal with it. If someone is interested with your religion, those people will come to you. Don't do unwilling things to people, plain and simple, and this applies to anything in general, not just religion.

The ideal President should be concerned with one thing only. The tangible good of his country. I don't care if he has to resort to Machiavellian schemes or unscrupulous tactics. If they help more than they hurt, I want him to use every dirty trick in the book.

Hear, hear!

And some people can say the war in Iraq would be a good thing that resorted to unscrumpulous tactics to put into effect but hey, it hurts us more than it helps, so it won't work.

- N

I would vastly prefer an agnostic in office than justabout anything else. .

me too. Politics in this life should asume theres no outside or highr justice to help us out - God or aliens or whoever. its up to people to do the right thing + make right decisions, if we want to live in a decent world.

The ideal President should be concerned with one thing only. The tangible good of his country.

Caring for people in other nations helps too! a real "ideal would be tangible good of the huuman race." I know - that is more a ideal than a reality.

if we adopted a system similar to the EU, globalised it then made it either extremely socialist or communist. that wolud be a functioning goverment

Caring for people in other nations helps too! a real "ideal would be tangible good of the huuman race." I know - that is more a ideal than a reality.
Yes, it does help. Good will comes handy when something bad happens to you in turn. Hopefull the rest of the world will help you out at such a time if you once before helped them in their time of need..

Yes, it does help. Good will comes handy when something bad happens to you in turn. Hopefull the rest of the world will help you out at such a time if you once before helped them in their time of need..
*sigh...... :rolleyes:

The ideal President should be concerned with one thing only. The tangible good of his country. I don't care if he has to resort to Machiavellian schemes or unscrupulous tactics. If they help more than they hurt, I want him to use every dirty trick in the book.
Hmm... could it not the manipulation of religion be a machiavellian scheme? Civilizations of the past have always found religion useful. I am religious, but I still find the subtle manipulation of its tenants to be of value. Quite aside from that, I think a moderately religious society is a more unified society. There are accepted social and moral norms. I do not extent such things to technological or scientific development, which I think should be given a free hand as much as possible. But a society without recognized moral norms is a society with no conscience. Such a society will inevitably seek only to satisfy its own pleasures, which can in its turn only lead to decadence, degeneration, and the ruin of the civilization.

Therefore, religion is good on those grounds alone whether it god exists or not.

From Plato to Machiavelli, all shrewd minds have seen the value of religion.
=========================================
if we adopted a system similar to the EU, globalised it then made it either extremely socialist or communist. that wolud be a functioning goverment
I think it would be the beginning of the end of western civilization. A point in time that would reviewed by historical scholars a thousand years hence in the decline and fall of the US and EU… a sad and pointless loss… especially when the vacuum would be filled by a set of regional hegemonies… none of which you would be particularly happy with.


Oh well… if it happens then it should be remembered that some lessons can only be learned the hard way.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Hmm... could it not the manipulation of religion be a machiavellian scheme? Civilizations of the past have always found religion useful.
Yes, to manipulate and enslave people.
Still, many civilizations of the present world find new ways to enslave people, and once again people are so ignorant they cannot see what is going on....

I am religious, but I still find the subtle manipulation of its tenants to be of value. Quite aside from that, I think a moderately religious society is a more unified society. There are accepted social and moral norms.
Religious societis are bad. Spiritual societies.... that is another thing.
Still..... there can be unity without religion.

I do not extent such things to technological or scientific development, which I think should be given a free hand as much as possible. But a society without recognized moral norms is a society with no conscience. Such a society will inevitably seek only to satisfy its own pleasures, which can in its turn only lead to decadence, degeneration, and the ruin of the civilization.
Which is precisely what is happening..... :rolleyes:

Yes, to manipulate and enslave people.
Still, many civilizations of the present world find new ways to enslave people, and once again people are so ignorant they cannot see what is going on
that is only a use of it. Frankly, ALL ideologies are susceptible to this, so I don't see why you'd single it out. Religions are only different in that they tend to be less flexible, which if anything makes them harder to manipulate.


Religious societis are bad. Spiritual societies.... that is another thing.
Still..... there can be unity without religion.
Though not without indoctrination, which is where all the ills you would attribute to religion come from. There is nothing wrong with religion, it has the potential to be bad but that is true of most things.

Which is precisely what is happening..... :rolleyes:
I can't think of any field the US is holding back that isn't prohibited in europe too. If you bring up stem cells, I swear I'm going to get annoyed. You can study them all you like in the US. You just aren't going to get federal funding if you go out side of the a specific grouping of those cells.

So private enterprise can do anything it pleases, and public institutions just have to use the current stock.

is there a problem here? no. It's over blown political nonsense.

that is only a use of it. Frankly, ALL ideologies are susceptible to this, so I don't see why you'd single it out. Religions are only different in that they tend to be less flexible, which if anything makes them harder to manipulate.
Ahhh... I don't think so. Meaning in religion is very often manipulated. Ever heard of the Roman Chatolic church? :rolleyes:

Though not without indoctrination, which is where all the ills you would attribute to religion come from. There is nothing wrong with religion, it has the potential to be bad but that is true of most things.
No, you don't get it. Religion is doctrine. Everything that is not doctrine in Chirstianity, Islam and all other "religions" is spiritual and good. You need to understand the difference between "religion" and "spirituality". In the Bible, for example, Jesus talks about how people were trying to profit in the churches. That is an example of religion. Spirituality, in the other hand, would be "love one another". Still, that is worthless if people don't really do it and understand it.

I can't think of any field the US is holding back that isn't prohibited in europe too. If you bring up stem cells, I swear I'm going to get annoyed. You can study them all you like in the US. You just aren't going to get federal funding if you go out side of the a specific grouping of those cells.

So private enterprise can do anything it pleases, and public institutions just have to use the current stock.

is there a problem here? no. It's over blown political nonsense.
So..... the US doesn't seek to satisfy pleasures? What about cars, cellphones, food (obesity), etc.......? :rolleyes:

Ahhh... I don't think so. Meaning in religion is very often manipulated. Ever heard of the Roman Chatolic church? :rolleyes:
Ever hear of the USSR? Anything can be perverted. Christianity has Protestantism, what has communism got? Any ideology is susceptible, religion being more static is less susceptible.


No, you don't get it. Religion is doctrine. Everything that is not doctrine in Chirstianity, Islam and all other "religions" is spiritual and good. You need to understand the difference between "religion" and "spirituality". In the Bible, for example, Jesus talks about how people were trying to profit in the churches. That is an example of religion. Spirituality, in the other hand, would be "love one another". Still, that is worthless if people don't really do it and understand it.
religion without doctrine will not fill the same space in society and something else will. Frankly, I don't think it will be any better and it will likely be worse.

So..... the US doesn't seek to satisfy pleasures? What about cars, cellphones, food (obesity), etc.......? :rolleyes:
Where did I suggest this? I challenged you to cite where religion is holding back science in the US and you post this? How is this even relevant? I said nothing about pleasure, decadence, or even morality in that quotation. Perhaps you cited the wrong thing?

Ahhh... I don't think so. Meaning in religion is very often manipulated. Ever heard of the Roman Chatolic church? :rolleyes:
Ever hear of the USSR? Anything can be perverted. Christianity has Protestantism, what has communism got? Any ideology is susceptible, religion being more static is less susceptible.


No, you don't get it. Religion is doctrine. Everything that is not doctrine in Chirstianity, Islam and all other "religions" is spiritual and good. You need to understand the difference between "religion" and "spirituality". In the Bible, for example, Jesus talks about how people were trying to profit in the churches. That is an example of religion. Spirituality, in the other hand, would be "love one another". Still, that is worthless if people don't really do it and understand it.
religion without doctrine will not fill the same space in society and something else will. Frankly, I don't think it will be any better and it will likely be worse.

So..... the US doesn't seek to satisfy pleasures? What about cars, cellphones, food (obesity), etc.......? :rolleyes:
Where did I suggest this? I challenged you to cite where religion is holding back science in the US and you post this? How is this even relevant? I said nothing about pleasure, decadence, or even morality in that quotation. Perhaps you cited the wrong thing? :)

Yes, we need more religion in politics.
http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/01/10/tomo/story.gif

Ever hear of the USSR? Anything can be perverted. Christianity has Protestantism, what has communism got? Any ideology is susceptible, religion being more static is less susceptible.
Oh...! So the Catholics that killed millons in the Inqusition are better than the Protestants....? :rolleyes:

religion without doctrine will not fill the same space in society and something else will. Frankly, I don't think it will be any better and it will likely be worse.
Religion without doctrine is free and natural. It would solve all the problems that doctrine has caused.

Where did I suggest this? I challenged you to cite where religion is holding back science in the US and you post this? How is this even relevant? I said nothing about pleasure, decadence, or even morality in that quotation. Perhaps you cited the wrong thing?
You did say those things before. That is what I was pointing out.

Would you say that the loud opposition to Stem cell research in the USA is religiously driven? It looks like it from the UK.
And lets not forget the new attempts to promote creationism, called 'Intelligent Design".
So, the USA has some religion and science issues, though less than some other countries.

Oh...! So the Catholics that killed millons in the Inqusition are better than the Protestants....? :rolleyes:
I didn't say that, and you're dodging a very clear point that I've made. Religion, like any belief system, can be perverted. Protestants being not joined on a central authority are LESS susceptible to such things then Catholics. Of course, if the pope is a good guy, then the Catholics are less susceptible then the Protestants. Look at the crimes of something like communism. How long was it around (less then 100 years)? Catholicism was around for far far far longer. So obviously it had more time to be distorted. Furthermore, it went through the reformation, which dealt with most of the problems. The USSR collapsed in that attempt. It was held together by nothing but power and when that threat was removed it fell apart.

Bitch at religion all you like, it makes better sociological sense then just about any other system at least from a civilization perspective.

Religion without doctrine is free and natural. It would solve all the problems that doctrine has caused.
Who is to decide what is natural and what is not? Furthermore, what does it matter one way or the other?

How natural is the Internet? Should we get rid of it?


Things are good because they WORK. Religion, whatever you may think of it, does work.

You did say those things before. That is what I was pointing out.
All you're doing is dodging my point... I'll make it again.

I can't think of any field the US is holding back that isn't prohibited in europe too. If you bring up stem cells, I swear I'm going to get annoyed. You can study them all you like in the US. You just aren't going to get federal funding if you go out side of the a specific grouping of those cells.

So private enterprise can do anything it pleases, and public institutions just have to use the current stock.

is there a problem here? no. It's over blown political nonsense.
===========================
Would you say that the loud opposition to Stem cell research in the USA is religiously driven? It looks like it from the UK.
And lets not forget the new attempts to promote creationism, called 'Intelligent Design".
So, the USA has some religion and science issues, though less than some other countries.
In first case, all that has done so far is get FEDERAL funding stripped from stem cell research in when it doesn't cover the current batch.

Is that going to slow down research? Not really. They wouldn't accept federal funding anyway as it would make it hard for them to get patients. Most of the research is private anyway. That research that is not private can use the current stock of test subjects. All the bitching on both sides is just political nonsense.

As to creationism, that isn't going anywhere. I fully reject the creationist movement and I'm a strong Christian. Most Christians in the US want them to leave science alone. However, that goes both ways. There have been some attacks on Christianity by the scientists and all of it has been completely baseless. They kicked the hornet's nest and so they get bitten. Leave the religious people alone and they'll leave you alone.

Piss them off and they'll go on a tear.

Religion without doctrine is free and natural. It would solve all the problems that doctrine has caused..

thats what the Qakers have, right? Religion without writen services or preaching - they just come togehter and share a quiet spiritual hour. Helps calm your soul I think - maybe more than prayers + songs.

... most protestant sects have little or no 'ritual'... but doctrine implies rules and maxims... which no religion could amount to much without.

Id gues Arnie's 1st maxim is "no pain no gain"!

thn of couse theres "I'l be back".. I can just imagin him saying that at a press confernce during his next election campaign.

good point... this has gone far off topic...

Arnie is always entertaining... I crack up everytime he calls the opposition "girly men"... just f'ing great.

Yeh, who else can make the worlds worst 1-liners seem like real wit? my brother got a 2005 calender with a diferent "Bushism" for each day.. Schwareneg-isms would be much more fun!!

If he was president, at least we'd never be short of comedy raw materail.

Id gues Arnie's 1st maxim is "no pain no gain"!

thn of couse theres "I'l be back".. I can just imagin him saying that at a press confernce during his next election campaign.

Heh, I guess you must have missed those. He says his catch phrases all the time. Heck, during the election debates, he said "I have the perfect part for you in Terminator 3" instead of most likely wanting to call the girl a bitch. Then of course there's also the famous "Grey Davis, I will squash you like a bug" or something like that.

Arnie is always entertaining... I crack up everytime he calls the opposition "girly men"... just f'ing great.

Yeah, his pronounciation is funny with that phrase, heh.

Hey, and you said "f'kin!" :O

Schwareneg-isms would be much more fun!!

And we also get to have fun trying to impersonate his saying too. :p

- N

Yeh, who else can make the worlds worst 1-liners seem like real wit? my brother got a 2005 calender with a diferent "Bushism" for each day.. Schwareneg-isms would be much more fun!!

If he was president, at least we'd never be short of comedy raw materail.
He's still very much an actor. If he wants, his accent disappears completely. He's actually made it stronger since he became governor. The same goes for those one liners. He knows they're good theater and so makes sure to use them for that alone.


I don't know if you're from California, but there is a big disconnect between our political figures and the people at this point. It's not getting any better either. Arnold was put into power largely because of that. He might be weird, but he's closer to what California wants then what we had.

The way the California government works, having control of the senate is really really powerful. The only way to overrule it is with state referendums. These are votes by the people of California on specific issues. The raising of taxes for example or changing the gambling laws... It allows the people to act as senate and with more power.

For Arnold to use this power he has to get the people stirred up in his favor every time referendums come up for vote.


Just an insight into our regional politics. Every state has its own issues... these are ours.

I didn't say that, and you're dodging a very clear point that I've made. Religion, like any belief system, can be perverted. Protestants being not joined on a central authority are LESS susceptible to such things then Catholics. Of course, if the pope is a good guy, then the Catholics are less susceptible then the Protestants.
Oh, so you think that the present Pope is not a good guy!?
If he is a good guy, whatever happened to all the scandals of priests abusing and assaulting children!?

Look at the crimes of something like communism. How long was it around (less then 100 years)? Catholicism was around for far far far longer. So obviously it had more time to be distorted. Furthermore, it went through the reformation, which dealt with most of the problems.
The reformation didn't change Catholicism at all. The reformation only created the Protestants.

Bitch at religion all you like, it makes better sociological sense then just about any other system at least from a civilization perspective.
What you don't seem to get is the fact that pure spirituality is far more sociological than religion. Religion creates laws that need to be applied and enforced, oftne by a Heaven/Hell system, while spirituality is a search for deep wisdom and living by an spontaneous natural law.

Who is to decide what is natural and what is not? Furthermore, what does it matter one way or the other?
I didn;t say "natural" in that sense. I meant "natural" as "spontaneous".

Things are good because they WORK. Religion, whatever you may think of it, does work.
So.... even if it is bad for people, it should be kept?

All you're doing is dodging my point... I'll make it again.
Sounds like you didn't get my point. Whatever...

thats what the Qakers have, right? Religion without writen services or preaching - they just come togehter and share a quiet spiritual hour. Helps calm your soul I think - maybe more than prayers + songs.
I don't know. But sounds good. Not that the rest is bad....

Oh, so you think that the present Pope is not a good guy!?
If he is a good guy, whatever happened to all the scandals of priests abusing and assaulting children!?
Hardly his fault, though obviously he should have done more about it.


The reformation didn't change Catholicism at all. The reformation only created the Protestants.
not true at all... prior to that point you had indugences and popes that lived like rich nobles that said one thing and had sex with high class whores after dining on the finest food in the world.

Today they're far better then they were.


What you don't seem to get is the fact that pure spirituality is far more sociological than religion. Religion creates laws that need to be applied and enforced, oftne by a Heaven/Hell system, while spirituality is a search for deep wisdom and living by an spontaneous natural law.
No doubt you have some eastern religion you'd like to quote... or is your idea entirely theoretical?

Give me an example of what you consider to be pure spiritualism.


I didn;t say "natural" in that sense. I meant "natural" as "spontaneous".
I still don't know what that means... what if I get spiritual enlightenment through the mutilation of human flesh (not my own and not willing)?

I mean... lots of things are natural to lots of people... psychos feel better when offing people... it's part of why they do it.

Some thieves have the same issue with thieft. It just feels good to them. It's very zen like.


So.... even if it is bad for people, it should be kept?
That it works implies that it's good for society. Whether its good for individuals is another thing altogether. But it must give people something or it won't last long.

Sounds like you didn't get my point. Whatever...
You haven't been making it very well, you have to admit, you've been pretty vague. :)

Hardly his fault, though obviously he should have done more about it.
Like what? He does seem pretty tired, ya know?
I don't want him out of that position, but unfortunately, he cannot stay there forever, ya know? I don't think his health let him do more about it.

not true at all... prior to that point you had indugences and popes that lived like rich nobles that said one thing and had sex with high class whores after dining on the finest food in the world.

Today they're far better then they were.
Yeah, sure. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the reformation. That is just a natural consequence of the critiques that the catholic church has been facing for a long time.

No doubt you have some eastern religion you'd like to quote... or is your idea entirely theoretical?
Well, both. Taosim is a good example of pure spirituality. It is spontaneous, it is pure, it is wise..... the law of no-action is a good example of that...

Give me an example of what you consider to be pure spiritualism.
Watching the sunrise....

I still don't know what that means... what if I get spiritual enlightenment through the mutilation of human flesh (not my own and not willing)?
That makes no sense.

I mean... lots of things are natural to lots of people... psychos feel better when offing people... it's part of why they do it.

Some thieves have the same issue with thieft. It just feels good to them. It's very zen like.
Those are misconceptions.

That it works implies that it's good for society. Whether its good for individuals is another thing altogether. But it must give people something or it won't last long.
No. You know I mean it is bad for society, not for individuals.

You haven't been making it very well, you have to admit, you've been pretty vague.
Ahhhh.... what were we talking about....? :p

Jose Seranno (D-NY) introduced a resolution on Jan 4, 2005 to repeal the twenty-second amendment.

Well, both. Taosim is a good example of pure spirituality. It is spontaneous, it is pure, it is wise..... the law of no-action is a good example of that...
Would you mind explaining what makes it better?

Watching the sunrise....
... so... an injection of herion be spiritual? I mean... if I "Really" felt at one with the universe?


That makes no sense.
Why doesn't it makes sense? If a psychopath gets spiritual enlightenment from it, how can it be wrong?

This is the problem with taking away moral codes or making things too subjective.

Those are misconceptions.
What gives you the authority to say that? How can you say that whole sale manslaughter isn't natural?

I can point to some books and static values to back my moral code up. What have you got?
No. You know I mean it is bad for society, not for individuals.
Explain.
=============================
Muhlenberg,
why did he do that? That's a good ammendment. :confused:

Serrano introduced the same resolution when Clinton was president. That make some sense but now?

He expect another Bill Clinton run?

Some conspiracy minded folks have suggested Serrano made a deal with the Arnold forces. They all get their favorite amendment repealed.

Don't see that ever happening.

My hunch is Karl Rove. More chipping away at the near lock the Democratic party used to have on immigrants.

Rove wants Ted Kennedy to take to the Senate floor and exlain why someone who has been here most of their life cannot be president.

WELL PERSONALY i wouldnt mind if he became prez.

well, its a damn good amendment... Roosevelt wasn't ever going to go away... he had to die before he'd leave.

That is for sure. Check out FDR's first few budgets (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php). Spending is bad now but he was in a class by himself. Spent twice what the Feds took in. And then it got really bad with the war debt. No wonder he was relected so easily.

I'm inclined to want House terms extended from two years to three. They pass one budget, then they pander in the next one because of the pending election.

Or better yet, make them work from home. Send in their votes on the net. When they all hang out today in D.C. they get to know each other too well. And the lawyers who flock aroudn them.

The only real issue with the congress is gerrymandering.

they either need to make districts randomly generated via computer or have parties run primaries even when they're the incumbent.

Courts are heavily into gerrymandering. That is one problem. The other is Republicans paying back Democrats for what they did when they ran Texas, Florida and other states a one party states.

i'm a republican and I wish they'd just stop. It's f'ed up. Have a computer just randomly draw them so that each represents the same amount of people... random districts would be great... have the computers do it once every 10 years or something...

That or FORCE the parties to have primaries for incumbents... that way republicans and democrats can choose a different candidate to represent them even if they're in power.


I mean... I never liked Bush (very common among republicans)... he was just more stable then McCain who mostly just creeped us out... and Al Gore was simply not an option.

Anyway, I think it sucks that we can't choose a different person to represent us without voting for the other side... I mean... bush sucks... but I'm a republican... Kerry isn't an option. I'm sure the democrats often dislike their party candidate but can't vote for the other side for similar reasons.


Whatever,
Love and peace, Karmashock.

That is American politics...lol.

Nothing new. Hamilton despised Jefferson but lobbied for his election when the contest was thrown to Congress. Hamilton despised Burr a whole lot more.

What Democrats did in Texas in 1990 when the germandered knowing they were losing power was a sight to behold. Then they were able to get surrogates to take the 2000 redistricting to court and postpone it for...what was it? Three years? And then they had the gall to complain? They ran the state since reconstruction. Same with Florida. The worst gerrymandering was done for 'civil rights' reasons. All that meant was blacks had to have their own district even if it snaked for miles and miles.

That actually hurt Democrats as they lost mixed districts in the burbs.

I agree, be nice to ditch it all. But don't see either party or the courts going along with it.

Today they're far better then they were.

Popes today have more media celebrity status, then ever before. People are people, and these sob's would commit sins of the flesh if they could. However the old guy now, a viagra might even kill him!. :D


Al Gore was simply not an option.

No doubt! however I've heard rummors of initiating a "lock box" LOL!!.



Anyway, I think it sucks that we can't choose a different person to represent us without voting for the other side... I mean... bush sucks... but I'm a republican... Kerry isn't an option.

Well there you go!!. Choose what ever is the lesser evil!. This time around it seemed like Kerry would have been the less of two evils. The other pundit already proved to be a slander lying jackass that started a war on "false pretence".

Rove wants Ted Kennedy to take to the Senate floor and exlain why someone who has been here most of their life cannot be president.

Perhaps because two brothers got bullets in their head!.? :bugeye:
:confused:

Godless.

They were the good brothers too. Teddy is an abomination. Time for him to go sailing with his buddy Cronkite. He's done enough damage to the country.

Btw...Teddy, Hillary, Daschle, Byrd, Gore, Pelosi, Berger and most every other Democrat said the exact thing Bush did about Saddam. In 2002, Hillary even went further. She said he was harboing Al Qaeda and working on nukes. They all changed their tune after they voted for the war in 2002 (and had voted for or supported regime change in Iraq in 1998). They had no other issue to run on. A couple went first, saw that the base of the party--government union workers--agreed with them and never looked back.

That Democrats play people for idiots who don't remember tha they said two years ago is why they are losing power.

Popes today have more media celebrity status, then ever before. People are people, and these sob's would commit sins of the flesh if they could. However the old guy now, a viagra might even kill him!. :D
I'm not a catholic, but I honestly believe the Pope is a good guy. :)

Well there you go!!. Choose what ever is the lesser evil!. This time around it seemed like Kerry would have been the less of two evils. The other pundit already proved to be a slander lying jackass that started a war on "false pretence".
Again, most republicans don't like bush... but a democrat is worse for us.

If we had a decent choice, then we would have gotten rid of him. Kerry was not acceptable. When was the last time someone from the North East was even elected?... Kerry is like the last person we could support... gore was better...

Btw...Teddy, Hillary, Daschle, Byrd, Gore, Pelosi, Berger and most every other Democrat said the exact thing Bush did about Saddam. In 2002, Hillary even went further. She said he was harboing Al Qaeda and working on nukes.

This is exactly the same reason I created the word; Reprocrat. Because they are both practically the same.



I'm not a catholic, but I honestly believe the Pope is a good guy.

Well I can't speak for the guy, I merely made a joke!. ;) {I'm an atheist I'm aloud to do that}

What we need is a new law at the Vatican make popes so freaking old, that they only reign that power for less than a decade, before they perish to lalaholy land, this way we secularist make sure not any more kids get seduced!!. :bugeye:



Again, most republicans don't like bush... but a democrat is worse for us

Not if this REPUBLICAN!! is leading the coutry to perpetual war!!.

Godless.

This is exactly the same reason I created the word; Reprocrat. Because they are both practically the same.
I disagree. The two groups have very different visions.


What we need is a new law at the Vatican make popes so freaking old, that they only reign that power for less than a decade, before they perish to lalaholy land, this way we secularist make sure not any more kids get seduced!!. :bugeye:
Actually, they already do that on purpose. They just do it to make sure that they don't have to mess with anyone for too long. :)





Not if this REPUBLICAN!! is leading the coutry to perpetual war!!.
It takes WORK to maintain things. That means there is GOING to be war and there are GOING to be conflicts. Sometimes these conflicts are going to be AGAINST what your friends want to do and sometimes they'll come along.

If you just take the path of least resistence every time then you'll just degenerate. And yes, I think the only way the US could avoid getting called names is by just being a no conflict, irrelevant, ghost. We're not... and the world will be better for it.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Anyway, I think it sucks that we can't choose a different person to represent us without voting for the other side... I mean... bush sucks... but I'm a republican... Kerry isn't an option.

There’s more than just two candidates to vote for as President, ya know.

Btw...Teddy, Hillary, Daschle, Byrd, Gore, Pelosi, Berger and most every other Democrat said the exact thing Bush did about Saddam. In 2002, Hillary even went further. She said he was harboing Al Qaeda and working on nukes. They all changed their tune after they voted for the war in 2002 (and had voted for or supported regime change in Iraq in 1998). They had no other issue to run on. A couple went first, saw that the base of the party--government union workers--agreed with them and never looked back.

Yeah, but they only came to those conclusions due to the false information and propoganda given to them. If all this WMD junk and other crap said by the Bush Administration was known to be false in the first place, the Democrats would have been singing a different tune.

Whoever controls information, controls everything. This is why whoever is elected as President isn’t of much concern but rather the cabinet that’s in office who actually run the show. The President bases his opinion off the information given to him by them and information can easily be manipulated to make a person make a decision that they want them to. I actually don’t have much of a problem with Bush other than his strong religious bias in some of his decisions, it’s his administration that I dislike so much.

Not if this REPUBLICAN!! is leading the coutry to perpetual war!!.

It takes WORK to maintain things. That means there is GOING to be war and there are GOING to be conflicts. Sometimes these conflicts are going to be AGAINST what your friends want to do and sometimes they'll come along.

Think of all the wars in the past 50 years. Exactly how wereany of those countries that we fought a problem and a threat towards maintaining OUR country that would make us go to such an extreme as to go to war with them? Funny, besides 9/11, all the threats, damage, and terrorist acts that have happened on American soil have been from the American people themselves yet we're going after other countries for those acts. The only threat there is to America is ourselves and our government.

- N

Democrats said it all before Bush was elected. Read the floor speeches when Democrats voted overwhelmingly for regime change in Iraq in 1998.

Do how did Bush hoodwink them almost three years before he took office?

Democrats said it all before Bush was elected. Read the floor speeches when Democrats voted overwhelmingly for regime change in Iraq in 1998.

Do how did Bush hoodwink them almost three years before he took office?

Oh, I'm not saying they had absolutely no problem with Iraq, but the strong conviction of those feelings were greatly enhanced by further made-up threats of Iraq. The reasons they spoke of are entirely different from the reasons of us actually going to war with Iraq. Only now are those past reasons being used as an excuse to cover the mess of why we went to war with Iraq.

- N

Democrats said the things before Bush was elected. Look up Sandy Berger's and Gore's comments. Think the vote in teh Senate was almost unanimous in 1998. In the house only half a dozen or so voted nay.

The only reason why they changed was they thought it was a political issue they could use.

Neildo...as you may recall, it was about the time Democrats voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 that Clinton tossed around 400 cruise missiles into the country. We had planes over the country all the time being shot at.

Democrats sure thought Saddam was a threat then.

And they did until early in 2003 when they needed a political issue.

Now they are out repeating the mindless chant that Bush lied. Over and over. They think people are fools and don't remember their actions and their comments.

There’s more than just two candidates to vote for as President, ya know.
Not that have a chance in hell of winning. ;)

Anyway, I think it sucks that we can't choose a different person to represent us without voting for the other side... I mean... bush sucks... but I'm a republican... Kerry isn't an option. I'm sure the democrats often dislike their party candidate but can't vote for the other side for similar reasons.
Ha! Sweet irony........
........and you call it "Democracy"...... :rolleyes: :cool:

Would you mind explaining what makes it better?
It is flexible, open-minded, has no doctrine, it frees you, it is simple, straightforward and encompass all things.

... so... an injection of herion be spiritual? I mean... if I "Really" felt at one with the universe?
Do you mean "heroin"?
No, that is not spiritual. That is forced. Spiritual cannot be forced.
You wouldn't really feel at one with the universe, you would get there in an illusive manner. Some drugs can increase your awareness, resulting in the feeling of being at one with the universe, but it is illusive, limited and not longlasting. It is almost like a caricature of the real feeling.

Why doesn't it makes sense? If a psychopath gets spiritual enlightenment from it, how can it be wrong?
You cannot get spiritual enlightnment that easily. It requires a self-sustained increased awareness. Weed is like booze- it affects the mind more than the spirit.

This is the problem with taking away moral codes or making things too subjective.
....?

What gives you the authority to say that? How can you say that whole sale manslaughter isn't natural?
Because those people are created by our society. Try researching how many people in jail were either abused or neglected during their childhood. Statistics show that 99% of people in jail fall in that category. It is clear there is a correlation. This is the reality that was created by our society. We create those people and than punish them for what we created them to do.

I can point to some books and static values to back my moral code up. What have you got?
Riiiiiight...
Go ahead. I already shown you some of what I got.

Explain.
If it works for society, it works for individuals. Sure we often have to make sacrifices for the good of all. But that doesn't mean 3 billion people starving. :bugeye:

TruthSeeker....yeah we call it a democracy. Why? Because America is a democratically elected constitutional republic.

If you want to lament about a lose of "democracy" look to the courts which have usurped the power of both the legislative and executive branches.

Oddly enough, those who extol "democracy", are the same ones who want judges, not elected officials to decide the most contentious issues of the day.

TruthSeeker....yeah we call it a democracy. Why? Because America is a democratically elected constitutional republic.
So.... it is a democracy even if none of the candidates can possibly represent you? Not to mention you have only two choices (let us not include Ralph Nader, as he wasn't quite in a position to really compete).

If you want to lament about a lose of "democracy" look to the courts which have usurped the power of both the legislative and executive branches.
Hurray!

Oddly enough, those who extol "democracy", are the same ones who want judges, not elected officials to decide the most contentious issues of the day.
Not me tough. I'm actually against a law system altogether. Altough I tough recognize the necessity of one at the present moment. Should judges be elected? Sure. "How" is probably the question...

I think judges should be elected by lawyers that way you will have a nice little buissiness of justice going on :D

arnie is a nazi.

suzukisfrog

Israel has a cool system. Its Supreme Court has the power to select its own members. That power isn't in the Israeli Constiution because Israel doesn't have a constitution. The judges just decided they have that power. Among many others nobody thought they did.

Oh...and Arnold isn't a Nazi. Not anymore. He paid Rabbi Marvin Hier, CEO of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, some serious money to have that charge dropped.

But perhaps Arnold was required to keep up payments for life and reneged on the deal. Considering what was said about him when he ran for office, that seems to be the case.

he never was a nazi...

he never was a nazi...
right, neither was hitler. :bugeye:

and regardless, if he ran for president, hillary would be screaming it every day until the polls open. arnold is not electable even if it were legal.

he never was a nazi...

You're right, but his father was a ranking SA officer and he has supported war criminals:
http://www.arnoldexposed.com/arnold.htm#nazi

I'd call him a megalomaniac with fascist leanings.

Some quotes:
"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it."
"I was born to be a leader. I love the fact that millions of people look up to me."
"I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered."

you can't blame a man for his father.

the other comments are taken out of context... we've all said things that sound bad if you someone rips them out of the air and leaves them hanging between two quotation marks.

On October 3, ABC News broke the story of Schwarzenegger's 1977 interview in which he was asked whom he admired. Schwarzenegger replied, "I admire Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

if not a nazi, then obviously a hitler youth.

From site: http://www.arnoldexposed.com/arnold.htm#nazi

"Still think he should be considered for President?"
Oh, yes! Sure! Don't you see George Bush in power!? Of course americans would vote for Arnold!! :rolleyes:

And I'm sure the oligarchic elite would be more than welcoming him....... :rolleyes:

On October 3, ABC News broke the story of Schwarzenegger's 1977 interview in which he was asked whom he admired. Schwarzenegger replied, "I admire Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

if not a nazi, then obviously a hitler youth.
again, I think that's taken out of context... he was just being candid... hitler was a monster... but he was a very successful monster... if he hadn't been an evil fuck he could have done a lot of good.


and again, I don't want him to be president... but that stands for all non native borns.

Karmashock...Mel Gibson was blamed for the sins of his father. Repeatedly. With talking points. By Abe Foxman and everyone on the net who opposed The Passion. One of the lines chanted was:

"The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree"

I suspect it was test marketed on the internet. It was repeated endlessly on several large forums for about a week before Foxman issued a press statement using the exact same words.

yep, it's just wrong.

and in his being candid this reveals a lack of good moral sense & sensibilities. he doesn't even bother to qualify his remarks, showing no fear of offending anyone. he 'admires hitler'. he 'admires hitler'. he 'admires' power. this is consistent with his reported treatment of women, also.

and i couldn't care less about his father, it came out of arnolds own mouth. i'm not politically biased either, i think they are ALL crooks, except for a small few who will likely be a crook soon enough.

Karmashock...Had no interest in seeing The Passion. Haven't seen it. But thought it was neat a Hollywood star would put his own money into making a film about his religion in Aramaic and Latin.

That is all I thought about it. Until May of 2003 when the slanders started. Could not believe it was happening in America. Not a church goer but I know the faith. Every atack was dead wrong.

Every attack was designed to hide the truth:

The film was attacked because it is pro-Christian and will propagate the faith. Thankful Americans did not tolerate or buy the lies. No sincere peaceful faith should undergo that.

peaceful faith as in the inquisition? gibson is a deluded but harmless bonehead.

Who cares if he's a nazi I dont, No one in america will ever support a genocide of the jews since its ruled by them, not to mention close ties with israel.

*I know thats not nazism but if he goes after his father he must be antisemitic aswell, but hes not.

suzukisfrog. . . read up on the Inquisition. It was not what you were taught.

It took most of her life and the death of many of her friends before Bella Dodd, a prominent member of the CPUSA, a lawyer and a Teacher's Union activist, came to the truth of what was done to her:


"All the canards against the Catholic Church which I had heard and tolerated, which even by my silence I had approved, were threatening the tiny flame of longing for faith within me. I thought of many things on that ride, of the word “fascist,” used over and over by the communist press in describing the role of the Church in the Sp anish Civil War. I also thought of the word “Inquisition” so skillfully used on all occasions. Other terms came to me — reactionary, totalitarian, dogmatic, old-fashioned. For years they had been used to engender fear and hatred in people like me . . . a nominal Christian with a memory of the Cross can easily be twisted to the purposes of evil by men who masquerade as saviors. I thought how communist leaders achieve their greatest strength and cleverest snare when they use the will to goodness of their members. They stir the emotions with phrases which are only a blurred picture of eternal truths."


etext (http://ca.geocities.com/yarmulka.geo/dodd/dodd_16.html) of Dodd's "Heart of Darkness"

good lord, the church is blaming the commies for their public relations scandals? gimme a break.

suzukisfrog . . .Huh? The topic was your denigration of the Catholic Church for the Inquisition. Protestants began the smear. Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg picked up the false history propagated it widely in the early 19th c.

Bella Dodd wrote of events in the 1940s. She was a kind, caring lady who became a major American player in the most evil ideology ever to infect humanity. While she was active in the party, over 20 million people had been murdered by the party. Not in war, just because.

FYI, the reason for the Inquisition was the attempted takeover of the Spanish Crown by Moors who were often allied with Jews. The Inquisition was more humane than civil courts. In fact, criminals petitioned to be tried by the Inquisition. You want to find atrocities among Christians they are there--Catholic and Protestant. Calvin wasn't very nice. Check out the witch trials in Germany too.

But none of them, or all of them combined in all of Christian history, equal what secularists have done since 1917. Not even close.

Bella Dodd was a big fat bitch.

Hahahaha...I figured as much suzukisfrog.

The party, even when the motherland no longer exists has a long memory. Even when dead, traitors must be denounced.

What is that I hear? The Internationale? The people, no matter what WILL survive. The fascists WILL be defeated.

History demands it.

Karmashock...Had no interest in seeing The Passion. Haven't seen it. But thought it was neat a Hollywood star would put his own money into making a film about his religion in Aramaic and Latin.
don't forget hebrew... anyway, it was good film if for nothing then an accurate recreation of the times. All the clothing and customs were accurate... the roman torture etc.