Would you consider an amendment to allow Arnold to run for president?

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Yes, I feel that this law is un-American. Arnold is just as much an American as you or I and deserves the same priveliges.

As far as the womanizing goes, Clinton's did not bother me except for the Juanita Broderick accusations. It was:

#1. The fact that whether you like it or not Ken Starr was on a witchhunt and Clinton could have ended the whole process by being truthful. Instead, he allowed our country to just through that national nightmare.

#2. The fact that he disgraced the office by doing what he did in the Oval Office. I could care less that he cheated on his wife, but it disturbs me that he did it in the White House.

 

[wvrevy]

My only answer to the original post:

Isn't it funny that the right is always screaming about the "hollywood liberals", yet for two straight nights now we've had hollywood people on center stage at the masquerade bal...er, I mean the Republican Convention ? I mean, take Ah-nold for example....Here's a guy that did light porn....who's movies are violent and filled with the kind of language Republicans historically just love...who stand against most of the extreme right wing social agenda that the republicans stand for....and he's being embraced like some kind of champion, to the point of people trying to change the very constitution to allow this bastion of Republican ideals to run for president.



I swear....Between the masquerading as a moderate party and the shameless use of 9/11 as a political tool, I am not really sure how these people can stand to look at themselves in the mirror in the mornings

 

[AirForceRocks]

I swear....Between the masquerading as a moderate party and the shameless use of 9/11 as a political tool, I am not really sure how these people can stand to look at themselves in the mirror in the mornings

Hmmm...I could have sworn that I heard 9/11 mentioned at the DNC as well. I guess I was hearing things.

As for masquerading as a moderate party, the same thing was done at the DNC. The only thing that cracked the "We're not liberals" facade was Al Sharpton failing to get the memo.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

revy, Arnold is a strong Republican. I like porn, violent movies, and rap music. I am in favor of gay marriage and enviromental protection. I have voted Democrat in two of the three elections I've been of voting age in. Does that make me an outcast like Arnold? No way! I am in favor of nearly every stance Bush has taken on terrorism/defense, extremely pro-life, and believe in self-determination and lower taxes. I may disagree with the party on many issues, but I agree with them on the most important ones. Listening to Arnold speak made me so enthusiastic about our great President. I remember back in middle school and high school feeling so disgusted with the actions of our President, the feeling I have now is completely different.

By the way, I'm not sure the President can use 9/11 enough. It is by far the most important event of my generation, and can never be left behind while we are still dealing with its effects. Not talking about 9/11 would be like Abe Lincoln not talking about the Civil War during the election of 1864.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Another attempt at diversion. Still no one addresses the basic issue: the hypocrisy of the Republicans who revile Clinton but at the same time admire/adore Arnold.

I think you need to calm down. NOW and other groups very supportive of President Clinton clearly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to his actions, in direct contradiction to their own normal stances. NOW has argued in the past that the power difference between a CEO and a secretary or intern is such that she can't ever be truly said to have consented--they argue that the status difference will always have colored her decision and that the CEO is therefore guilty of harrasment, etc. Yet when President Clinton, the leader of the free world, has an intern service him while make official phone calls in the Oval Office, its a private matter as far as NOW is concerned.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on hypocrisy. And you'll find me just as outraged if Arnold were to act the same way in office.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Hmmm...I could have sworn that I heard 9/11 mentioned at the DNC as well. I guess I was hearing things.

Yes, you must have. There's simply no comparison between the blatant exploitation of the RNC compared to the mention that was made at the DNC. Hell, don't take my word for it....the Daily Show did an entire (very funny) segment on it last night. I know that's not a "news" show, but it's not like I'm the only one noticing these things.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
As for masquerading as a moderate party, the same thing was done at the DNC. The only thing that cracked the "We're not liberals" facade was Al Sharpton failing to get the memo.

Really ? Most every primary candidate spoke at the DNC, from Dean to Sharpton. Gore spoke of all kinds of things, NOT just a "moderate" platform. The republican party is about Tom Delay and Bill Frist...so why are social moderates like Ahnold and Rudy (there's that 9/11 thing again) on stage instead ? Why is the party hiding from it's platform, that reads like something written specifically by the religious right ? If they're so representative of the "mainstream", then why aren't they up their pounding the pulpit...er...podium...about banning abortion, banning gay marriage, legalizing assault weapons....etc ?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

The Republicans put Arnold, Rudy, and McCain on stage because they are probably the three most popular politicians in America. If you had these assets I doubt that you would not use them.

Your comment about assault weapons is ridiculous. The majority of Republicans don't want the average person to have an AK-47.

The bottom line is that while I disagree with the party on issues such as gay marriage, this issue pales in comparison to the war on terror. 9/11/The War on Terror is what this election is about to me, and that's what I want to hear about. Right now I could care less about most other issues.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
My only answer to the original post:

Isn't it funny that the right is always screaming about the "hollywood liberals", yet for two straight nights now we've had hollywood people on center stage at the masquerade bal...er, I mean the Republican Convention ? I mean, take Ah-nold for example....Here's a guy that did light porn....who's movies are violent and filled with the kind of language Republicans historically just love...who stand against most of the extreme right wing social agenda that the republicans stand for....and he's being embraced like some kind of champion, to the point of people trying to change the very constitution to allow this bastion of Republican ideals to run for president.



I swear....Between the masquerading as a moderate party and the shameless use of 9/11 as a political tool, I am not really sure how these people can stand to look at themselves in the mirror in the mornings

The modern Republican Party has an open door and a big tent, which leads to a wide diversity of opinion. The platform of the party does take a stand on the issues of the day that reflects the majority of the party. But, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans do not silence their minority members. Rather than fume over the Republicans and term their convention a masquerade, perhaps you should direct some of your anger at the Democrats and their silencing of all dissent. Allowing pro-abortion Republican speakers at the convention should be lauded. Not every single Democrat in the entire country is pro-abortion; why was there not even a single pro-life speaker allowed at their convention? Would such a speaker possibly be shouted down? Are the Democrats not equally attempting to hide their radical-left fringe from the moderate undecided voters?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Yes, you must have. There's simply no comparison between the blatant exploitation of the RNC compared to the mention that was made at the DNC.

Mention? I wouldn't consider have 9/11 family members speak to the convention as a mere mention, but perhaps that's just me.

Really ? Most every primary candidate spoke at the DNC, from Dean to Sharpton. Gore spoke of all kinds of things, NOT just a "moderate" platform. The republican party is about Tom Delay and Bill Frist...so why are social moderates like Ahnold and Rudy (there's that 9/11 thing again) on stage instead ? Why is the party hiding from it's platform, that reads like something written specifically by the religious right ? If they're so representative of the "mainstream", then why aren't they up their pounding the pulpit...er...podium...about banning abortion, banning gay marriage, legalizing assault weapons....etc ?

Senator Frist and Rep. Delay have spoken to the convention. As for the Democrats touting the liberal agenda, again, only Al Sharpton did that. Where were the calls for gay marriage? Where were the calls to raise everyone's taxes?

You are being more than a little disingenuous when you claim that the Democrats were any more loyal to their liberal base at their convention than the Republicans are being to their conservative base at this one.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Most every primary candidate spoke at the DNC, from Dean to Sharpton.

The Republicans will have every primary candidate speak as well... then again, there realy was only the one.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Would you consider an amendment to allow Arnold to run for president?

No but I do like him a lot.

 

[tandrjohn]

No.

 

[lucky_bunni]

When you have to be a natural born citizen to get top level security clearances in some government jobs - I can't imagine them really allowing someone who wasn't born here become PRESIDENT. DBFs mom and dad were born in Taiwan and he worked for the government for quite a while. At a certain point, they told him there was no where else to go because they couldn't give him anymore security clearance. Didn't matter that he was great at what he did or that they'd lived here for 20+ years.

So anyhow - no, I wouldn't support an amendment. It's not anything against naturalized citizens, but I do think there could be security risks - even if they were minimal to none. I'm sure there is SOMEONE in this country qualified to run it... they're apparently just not running in this election!

 

[lucky_bunni]

n/a duplicate

 

[lucky_bunni]

I don't know how anyone, with any kind of conscious, could use 9/11 as a political tool and claim credit for handling it. This is for all sides. We ALL handled it, we all went through it together. Nobody did it alone or handled it alone. Only victims who directly lost loved onces deserve more credit than others. It was a sad, one of the saddest, times for our nation and all that should be said about it is that it was a terrible time and thank God we helped each other through it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Fizban257
NOW and other groups very supportive of President Clinton clearly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to his actions, in direct contradiction to their own normal stances. NOW has argued in the past that the power difference between a CEO and a secretary or intern is such that she can't ever be truly said to have consented--they argue that the status difference will always have colored her decision and that the CEO is therefore guilty of harrasment, etc. Yet when President Clinton, the leader of the free world, has an intern service him while make official phone calls in the Oval Office, its a private matter as far as NOW is concerned.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on hypocrisy. And you'll find me just as outraged if Arnold were to act the same way in office.

This is an excellent post. I read a book called The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce. She's the former head of LA's NOW but left after the O.J. fiasco (she talks about the hypocrisy regarding Clinton, too), due to the National NOW's stance regarding OJ and the pandering NOW did with the Democrats and the African American community. She's a well-spoken, intelligent, proud pro-choice, lesbian Republican. Although a political book, it's an informative and entertaining read. She also makes her case against the Gay "agenda". Believe it or not, before i read her book, I didn't believe there was an "agenda". But, there is and she explains it in detail.

Okay, I'll get slammed by the agenda thing, I'm sure. But, I'm just quoting Ms. Bruce.

Yes, I think I'd consider a vote for passing an amendment to let naturalized citizens run for President; but I would have to think more about it. I do think some naturalized citizens have more of an appreciation for how wonderful and special America is than some citizens born here who take the Rights we have for granted.

And, I thought Arnold was wonderful last night. . .that speech he gave was incredible. I don't think his past conduct is even on the same planet as Clinton's, btw. Clinton is still being linked with other women presently, and never has been able to leave his pants zipped up. Cheating is a negative, no matter what. . .however, one hopes for some discretion--a term Clinton seems to have no use for.

 

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by Kendra17
(Tammy Bruce) is a well-spoken, intelligent, proud pro-choice, lesbian Republican. Although a political book, it's an informative and entertaining read. She also makes her case against the Gay "agenda". Believe it or not, before i read her book, I didn't believe there was an "agenda". But, there is and she explains it in detail.

Okay, I'll get slammed by the agenda thing, I'm sure. But, I'm just quoting Ms. Bruce.

I'd love to comment on this, but first if you could sum up exactly what the author has to say about the gay "agenda"...

 

[wvrevy]

Yeah, you're right...Clinton and Ahnold aren't even in the same LEAGUE...Check out the interview the "honorable" governor of Callyforneeya gave with Oui magazine a few years ago (back in his body building days). I won't link to it (too much profanity and sexual discussion), but you can read it at the smoking gun website. Just search for "Arnold" and "Oui" on www.thesmokinggun.com ,and read it for yourself. Clinton looks like a choir boy compared to ol' bastion of the Republican Party Arnie

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
I'd love to comment on this, but first if you could sum up exactly what the author has to say about the gay "agenda"...

Hmmm, i'd like to, but we might start arguing. It's an interesting look, though, and I'm sure that she is much more well-spoken than I. I appreciate you refraining from slamming me, however.

Look, my deceased sister was a lesbian. I'm assuming that's your partner in your picture. The author of the book I spoke of is a happy lesbian, and is fine with her sexuality. She just states that the initial desire for nondiscriminitory treatment has morphed into a mixture of groups working together that really, if one is just a little mainstream--gay or hetero, shouldn't have shared goals. She cites cases where groups like NAMBLA are marching with Gay Rights organizations, working together, funding programs together, etc., etc. Why, on earth, really, would a Gay Rights org work with a group promoting pedophilia? That seems to be the antithesis of how a Gay Rights group might hope to be considered. She has an issue with how all groups that deal with gender and sexuality have started forming allegiences. That's the agenda she is referring to. And, she's obviously a political activist. She just is pointing out that there are allegiences among some of these groups that don't necessarily share our goals. The author thoroughly sources her book and it's really kind of an expose.

Hope I didn't offend you. I really am talking about this fringe agenda stuff, not just a desire for equal treatment.

 

[peachgirl]

Cheating is a negative, no matter what. . .however, one hopes for some discretion--

You just gotta love that right wing, ultra conservative, religous right mentality...

We don't care if you do it.....just be discreet about it!



I love it!