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

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
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!

No. I'm not surprised you misunderstood what I'm saying. I find most people have to clarify issues and statements for you.

Because of this, let me restate my opinion, please. Cheating is wrong. However, as President of the United States, IF you are going to cheat, please don't be an absolute pig about it. If one must be a Pig, then please attempt SOME discretion.

 

[lucky_bunni]

Originally posted by Kendra17
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.

No, I'm not offended -- I actually agree. There are too many people fighting for too many different things for gay people right now. Some of it is really extreme (like the pedophilia thing) which I completely disagree with. They shouldn't all be coming together. The gay "agenda" (don't know what else to call it) should be working to come up with the "next step" that isn't too extreme and is a good compromise that mostly everyone can be happy with. Unfortunately, like all things political, there are a lot of people who think they need to have their stick in the fire and a lot of bickering.

I think the next step is to end this talk of amendments and begin promoting healthy gay families with children. Show that the lifestyle isn't all about sex, drugs, partying, and diesease. Then begin letting the states decide whether or not they'll allow gay marriage or civil unions.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by lucky_bunni
No, I'm not offended -- I actually agree. There are too many people fighting for too many different things for gay people right now. Some of it is really extreme (like the pedophilia thing) which I completely disagree with. They shouldn't all be coming together. The gay "agenda" (don't know what else to call it) should be working to come up with the "next step" that isn't too extreme and is a good compromise that mostly everyone can be happy with. Unfortunately, like all things political, there are a lot of people who think they need to have their stick in the fire and a lot of bickering.

I think the next step is to end this talk of amendments and begin promoting healthy gay families with children. Show that the lifestyle isn't all about sex, drugs, partying, and diesease. Then begin letting the states decide whether or not they'll allow gay marriage or civil unions.

I don't like the word "agenda", either. It sounds too negative in this context. She points out, by the way, the hypocrisy of other groups, too. . .such as how NOW has morphed into a mouthpiece of the left, afraid to say anything negative about Clinton, for instance, and not wanting to say anything negative regarding O.J's treatment of his now-deceased ex--wife because they work closely with the African American community who supported
OJ. There isn't any gay bashing or women's rights bashing going on. It's groups that have lost their way that she bashes. Her views about politics much mirror mine, and she's definitely NOT a member of the religious right (nor am I).

 

[peachgirl]

I find most people have to clarify issues and statements for you.

And I find most people think what you post is pure drivel.

If you want to start in with the insults again, we can.

I understood you perfectly.

 

[GoofItUp]

This thread has certainly taken a walk around the block....

Anyone mind if we get back to the actual topic. I found it pretty interesting and would have enjoyed opinions on who should and should not be allowed to run for president rather than bashing individuals.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
And I find most people think what you post is pure drivel.

If you want to start in with the insults again, we can.

I understood you perfectly.

If you understood me perfectly, then there would have been no reason for you to comment the first time unless you were trying to start an argument. Implying hypocrisy when there was none on my part was an indication that YOU were indeed starting with the insults--not me.

I'm sure you are correct there are many that think my posts to be drivel, as there are many that find yours to be so, as well.

By the way, drivel AND hypocrite are considered to be insulting and inflammatory words. And, it's pretty clear who is starting in.

If you want me to insult me again and have the final word, go ahead. . .I'm off now. However, please have it in mind that the only reason I won't be here to respond is because I will be offline. You can be assured that I find you to be quite unpleasant, uncreative, and lacking many of the more positive qualities I recognize in others.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by GoofItUp
This thread has certainly taken a walk around the block....

Anyone mind if we get back to the actual topic. I found it pretty interesting and would have enjoyed opinions on who should and should not be allowed to run for president rather than bashing individuals.

Sure!

I think an amendment might be in order in this case. The ban on foriegn-born candidates for the presidency is really anachronistic. It originated from a fear of foreign countries gaining control of our fledgling government using our own democratic process. 25-30 years of citizenship should prpbably suffice. It's not like you won't be subjected to the scrutiny of the press and your opponents once you put your name forward. I just can't see anyone with a real problem actually surviving the process, and we're excluding people who might be great presidents.

 

[danacara]

Aren't Republicans traditionally the party of strict constructionists? I mean, the founding fathers made it pretty clear what they wanted here, right?

 

[poohandwendy]

I just have to step in to respond to the 'hypocrisy' statements being thrown around regarding BC and As regading womanizing and affairs....

I know some people like to say that the right bashed BC because he had an affair, but that is NOT true of most of the people I know.

BC was a disgrace because he lied about his actions and drug the entire nation down in the process. No matter why he was asked, he should have told the truth. The was the president for petes sake. Most people, I know, have zero interest in how strong his marriage was or who he slept with ...he certainly isn't the first man to cheat on his wife, but his actions afterwards... his bold faced lies and the fact that he allowed this circus to go on instead of just owning up and allowing the chips to fall as they may...well, that is a disgrace. Let me know if AS does that. I will feel the same way.

As to the OP, NO, I do not think there should be an amendment for AS. I think the issue definitely should be discussed further, but not for the sake of a new governor.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Fizban257
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.

I don't need to calm down as I'm not worked up. Just continually amazed at the blind eye toward hypocrisy evidenced by some groups.

Your non-answer is typical of this. It completely ignores why the Republican party is making a hero and near presidential nominee out of one of their members whose behavior is quite similar to someone they villify.

 

[poohandwendy]

Your non-answer is typical of this. It completely ignores why the Republican party is making a hero and near presidential nominee out of one of their members whose behavior is quite similar to someone they villify.

Gee, did I miss something? Was AS investigated for sexual harassment and proceed to lie about his actions when directly asked under oath? If not, your point is completely moot...

 

[peachgirl]

By the way, drivel AND hypocrite are considered to be insulting and inflammatory words. And, it's pretty clear who is starting in.

If you want me to insult me again

If you can show me where I used the word drivel or hypocrite in my first post to you on this thread, I'll be happy to apologize.

You not liking my opinon of the right wing, religious right does not constitute an insult on my part. Nonetheless, I used neither word.

You however, are continuing your insults...

I find you to be quite unpleasant, uncreative, and lacking many of the more positive qualities

Is it remotely possible for you to comprehend the difference between being critical of a post or an opinon, rather than being insulting to the poster? I'm beginning to believe it is not. What I haven't quite decided yet is whether it's a lack of ability to comprehend or a refusal to do so.

 

[caitycaity]

nope, don't think there should be an arnold amendment.

 

[peachgirl]

Oh yeah...No to the idea of making a change to the constituiton so that Arnold can run for President...

 

[2Poodles]

No to an amendment to the constitution.



Mary & the 2Poodles
(Sebastian & Winslow)

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Your non-answer is typical of this. It completely ignores why the Republican party is making a hero and near presidential nominee out of one of their members whose behavior is quite similar to someone they villify.

My answer doesn't ignore anything; the answer for the Republicans is the same as the answer for the Democrats regarding Clinton. NOW supported Clinton, regardless of his actions because of popularity and his policies. Some Republicans support Schwarzteneger despite his past, because of his popularity and policies. If a Republican President got it on with a young intern in the Oval Office, NOW would be all over him. They helped run Sneator Packwood out of office, but fought to keep Clinton in. To quote you: the Democratic party made "a hero and" president "out of one of their members whose behavior is quite similar to someone they vilify." Talk about your "blind eye toward hypocrisy evidenced by some."

 

[Mermaid02]

Originally posted by WeluvDisney2
Although Arnold was great last night, I'd still have to say no.
However, wouldn't that burn Ted Kennedy's butt?

LOL! I change my vote to YES just because of the above point!!

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
If you can show me where I used the word drivel or hypocrite in my first post to you on this thread, I'll be happy to apologize.

You not liking my opinon of the right wing, religious right does not constitute an insult on my part. Nonetheless, I used neither word.

You however, are continuing your insults...

Is it remotely possible for you to comprehend the difference between being critical of a post or an opinon, rather than being insulting to the poster? I'm beginning to believe it is not. What I haven't quite decided yet is whether it's a lack of ability to comprehend or a refusal to do so.

That I dislike your opinion of the right-wing, religious right is not at issue here. You implied hypocrisy on my part by using my quote to comment something along the lines of "gotta love that right wing religious right mentality. . .do it, but don't get caught". . .which is not at all what my comment meant. To do this--which is, in fact, implying hypocrisy, is insulting. I did, however, during a follow up line in that post, make the mistake of stating you USED the word hypocrite, instead of just implying hypocrisy.

After I expressed displeasure with having to explain something to you that you clearly, again, either took out of context or actually misunderstood, you called my posts "pure drivel". This, is insulting too.

Although I've thought it for quite some time, it was only after you let it be known that you find my posts to be "pure drivel" that I let you know that I find you to be completely unpleasant, uncreative, and lacking positive qualities.

I do reluctantly admit that your use of the term "pure drivel" is the absolute one exception to your lack of creativity.

Have a wonderful day, Peachgirl; I really must go now. If you would like to continue feigning innocence while handing out insults, you really will be on your own.

 

[DawnCt1]

Origin of birth is certainly no guarantee of love of country. Clearly there are those that are born here that loathe this country. And then there are those that lived under the tyranny of other governments that truly appreciate what it means to be an American. Arnold, along with many others share that appreciation. If one message resonated above all else in Arnold's speech, it was his love of this country. I don't think we ever consider an amendment to meet the needs of one person but I would guess that there are hundreds of immigrants who would lay down their lives for this country. DH has served in the Army Reserves for years with men and women from the Philapines who have bled for this country.

 

[peachgirl]

You know Kendra, what you said is still posted and it's really easy to go back and prove what you claim you said and what you really said aren't the same at all.

What you said was this:

I find most people have to clarify issues and statements for you.

That's hardly the same as your new and improved version.

I expressed displeasure with having to explain something to you

I think the idea that being "discreet" while committing adultery somehow makes it less offensive, is hypocritical. That's a comment on the point of view, not the person.

Your problem is you can't seem to take anyone disagreeing with what you say and when they do, you take it as a personal insult and think it's perfectly fine to start attacking them with your snide remarks.

When you do that to me, I'm going to respond in kind. Btw, how many times are you going to leave before you actually do?