Message Boards » General Topics » News and Views

Thread: Arnold For President? The Push Begins


Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 95 - Last Post: Nov 20, 2004 9:27 AM Last Post By: PRE_tired of po...
PRE_mortensen

Posts: 335
Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 9:27 AM
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
TV Ads Supporting Amendment Begin Monday:
NBC4 TV NEWS 11-14-04

SACRAMENTO - Advertisements will begin running on cable television stations in Northern California, Sillicon Valley and Los Angeles Monday backing a constitutional amendment that would let Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens run for president.

Schwarzenegger has said he would consider running for president if the Constitutional allowed it. He was born in Austria but came to the United States in 1968 and became a citizen in 1983. The TV ads mark the first significant attempt to build public support for an amendment.

Though polls show Schwarzenegger remains popular with voters, the idea of a constitutional change is not.

Why Can't Arnold Be President?
By Brendan I Koerner

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian native, has been arguing that the Constitutiuon should be amended to allow foreign-born citizens to seek the presidency. Why did the Constitutional framers deem it necessary to limit the nation's highest office to "no person except a natural born citizen"?

Though their concerns may now seem archaic, the framers were genuinely afraid of foreign subversion. Among their nightmare scenarios was the prospect of a European noble using his money and influence to sway the Electoral College, take command of the Americam army, and return the nascent nation to the royalist fold. At the time, several European figures - such as France's Marquis de Lafayette, a hero of the Revolutionary War - were quite popular in the New World, so the idea wasn't completely far-fetched.

The framers also took a lesson from Europe, where dynasties constantly schemed against one another. The men who drafted the Constitution were certainly familiar with the tragic example of Poland, where agents from Russia, Prussia, and Austria conspired to install a friendly monarch, Stanislaus II, and subsequently seized upon his weakness and partitioned the country among themselves. Keep in mind, too, that dynasties occasionally shuffled around Europe regardless of national origin; England's King George I, for example, was a Hanoveriann who spoke zero English.

There is scant primary source material attesting to the 1787 Constitutional debate over Article II, Section I,
which contains the "natural born" provision. The potential scourge of foreign influence, however, is mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers.

The Constitution does include an exemption for "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution," as the framers themselves had been born subjects of the British crown. Also, the founding document dosen't include a definition of "natural born." The formal definition is now covered by Title 8, Section 1401 of the United States Code and includes not just citizens born on American soil, but also those born outside the nation to parents who are citizens - an exception that covers, for example, the children of military personnel serving overseas.

http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2096192
PRE_just asking

Posts: 410
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 10:22 AM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
How long does it take to get the constitution amended?

Do other free countries have foreign born people as their leaders? Japan, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, etc etc. I am asking, as I do not know.

How good has Arnold been as a governor? Wouldn't it be prudent to see what a success or failure he has been before changing the constitution to make it possible for him to run?

Personally, I would rather go with Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan, who was born in Canada. She speaks really good English. And she is not too hard on the eyes. But again, I would rather wait and see how successful she is as a governor first.

Who is promoting this amendment?

Do fools rush in ----
PRE_just asking

Posts: 410
P S
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 10:25 AM   in response to: PRE_just asking in response to: PRE_just asking
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If we get everyone really riled up and spend a lot of time to change the amendment to make Arnold President, we would not have to deal with the frivolous stuff - Health care, terrorism, the deficit, etc etc etc.

Sound just like our society.
PRE_mortensen

Posts: 335
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 10:46 AM   in response to: PRE_just asking in response to: PRE_just asking
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Most all Democrat and Republican politicians are not in favor of this amendment, and as a citizen, I sure wouldn't be in favor of it.

The ads are the creation of a Bay Area mutual fund manager and major Schwarzenegger campaign donor who also has a companion web site, www.amendforarnold.com. Wouldn't you agree that this already has the smell of 'special interests'?

Living in California, I can tell you one thing for sure; we no longer have the constant bickering among Democrats and Republicans which made local headlines on a daily basis. Arnold has excellent negotiation skills and is considered popular by the people (Democrats & Republicans).
And he appears to be getting California back on track financially.
PRE_just asking

Posts: 410
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 11:03 AM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Thanks for your responses.

Glad to hear that things are looking up in California - if he gets the finances in order maybe we should have an amendment to send him to Washington!!!

But I really am not in favor of it.

Our area recently recalled a mayor. The recall was held separately from the election putting the new guy in. We have a "cooling off period" before putting the new dude in.

Do you think the recall of Davis and the election of Arnold all is one fell swoop was the way to go?

Have a good one.
PRE_bikerbudd

Posts: 95
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 11:10 AM   in response to: PRE_just asking in response to: PRE_just asking
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
While not in favor of the amendment, I have to give him great credit for the ability to pull the two parties together, probably from the experience of living with a sweet wife from the Kennedy Family. How much influence would that have on his decisions.
PRE_eh?

Posts: 73
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 11:29 AM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Probably because fiscally, he is a Republican, and socially, he is a Democrat. A Pro-Choice, etc. Conservative.

They do exist.

Just like there are Pro-Life Democrats. Douglas County, MN, just elected three to various offices.
PRE_David L

Posts: 649
Arnold for Presinator?
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 12:27 PM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh I hope not. First I am not in favor of Amending the Constitution for trivial matters. Second Arnold is a showman, it appears things are getting better here in California, they aren't he recently supported a proposition that but California 3 billion plus into further debt. Arnold is a populist. He'll do what is popular. I want a leader not a celebrity seeking further fame running my country.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold for Presinator?
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 4:17 PM   in response to: PRE_David L in response to: PRE_David L
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I agree with David L. Arnold is a show man.

I am not in favor of the amendment, and I am certainly not in favor for having a Presidenr from Austria. We had a Fuehrer from Oestereich( Austria) in Germany. Remember him?

Check Arnold 's History out.

Well, I am too old to worry about it. If America is loosing it and elects some one like Arnold as President , I hope I am dead by then.

Only the Lord knows what is in store for us. And that is a blessing.

Have a blessed weekend.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 4:41 PM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The push for changing the constitution so foreign born people can become president not only includes Arnold, or Jennifer, but it also would allow many children who have been adopted into American Families aspire to become president. Moreover, there is a growing expatriate American community overseas whose children have always been American, but because they were born on foreign soil cannot become president under the current constitutional rule.

I am in favor of changing the constitution to let all Americans become president. It is the right thing to do.

BTW, there is also a movement to change the two term amendment to allow previous Presidents to run again provided they do not run for a consequitive third term. Freinds of Bill are suggesting that.
PRE_just asking

Posts: 410
terms of office
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 5:11 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Not sure I would want a president for a third term.

I would consider one 6 year term and be done.

the last half the first term is a wash, as I think the president spends most of it campaigning for his next term. Little is done.

just my opinion.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 7:24 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Now let's see. That could give us Hillary for eight years and then Bill back again? Great gosh!
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 8:07 PM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
A constitutional ammendment to permit a foreign born president is a terribly bad idea.

There are a few American born people who would like to do damage to America.

There are many, many, foreign born people who would like to do even worse.

It makes absolutely zero sense to open our national door to such a threat.

Yes, I know there are some "good" non-Americans, and that being American born is no guarantee of decency or leadership, but to allow an "outsider" in, is inviting trouble. A rich guy (like OBl or George Soros) could literly buy the election .... and we know how much money can influence the outcome of an election.

So what if we "miss a good bet" with a guy like Arnold? There are many, just as, or more, qualified than he is.
PRE_Allen

Posts: 842
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 8:57 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Well, as long as the candidate is an actor it shouldn't matter where he or she was born or how old they are either. Aren't they our aristocracy?
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 9:06 PM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Some think so. And some think they are the "Heart and soul of America."
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins - Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 1:47 AM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Heart and soul???? Hmmmm, my thoughts are that there is a much better and more accurate anatomical anology of what they are to America than "heart and soul".
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins - Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 1:06 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
That was a statement made by John Kerry when he was cultivating Michael Moore.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins - Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:40 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Yeah, that figures, doesn't it.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 1:43 AM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh yeah, Alex Baldwin, Jane Fonda, Oliver Stone, Barbara Streisand all come to mind as my first choice of presidential candidates.

Actually, Arnold might not be too bad .... but allowing him in would open the gates to the likes of George Soros, or Bin Laden, or even Arrafat if he were living.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:30 AM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Is any one reading my posts?

You born Americans need to learn from History.

Stalins daughter and kids live in Americam. How about one of them as President ?

Or the Grandson from Rudolph Hess?

Check out where Arnold is coming from.

Funny thing is , when a man shows off his Physics he is called Mr. Strong, if a woman shows of hers she is called a Hussy.

I am sure , there are good , American citizens around , who make good Presidents. We just need to go back to the basics and do not let money reign. It seems to me, who has the most money wins, not just the President elections , other locals too.

The Billions of Dollars the last election cost, we could had build a few more good schools and train good teachers, or paid off our debts the war cost.

Have a blessed Sunday.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins - Troudy
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 9:53 AM   in response to: PRE_Troudy in response to: PRE_Troudy
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Way to go Troudy! I think people do read your posts, (I do), but for a subject like this they are timid about speaking out for fear of appearing biased or ignorant (and the older I get, the more I see how ignorant and biased we all are).

Americas history is filled with having the right person, in the right place, at the right time. We have a great history of "growing" good leaders here and have no reason to look elsewhere for leadership.

The next thing we'll hear is some wild proposal that we automatically accept the UN as our leader.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Speaking of the U.N.
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 1:10 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Speaking of the U.N., I have seen no comments on this board (other than one I posted weeks ago) regarding the horrendous Oil For Food scandal and how deeply entrenched the U.N. is that that debacle. Perhaps the other networks aren't reporting on the Senate hearings as frequently as Fox.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Speaking of the UN to-Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 3:38 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You must have forgotten because I did bring this up quite a while ago. I feferred to it as an unfolding scandal.
The Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein skimmed 21.3 billion dollars off the food for oil program. I think Kofi Annan will leave soon because he did nothing about it, but looked the other way and other nations are involved.
And Kerry would have had us go to The UN and play the fool.
This is coming out slowly as they are investigating it but it is to be one of the greatest scandals, ever. And, yes-you are right, Fox News is the only one reporting it.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Speaking of the UN to-Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:32 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It's hard to unfold a scandal when none of the major networks report on it. There was even a question that Kofi Annan's son was involved and, of course, the U.N. has refused to release any documents to the Sentate committee.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Speaking of the UN to-Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:45 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Oh yeah! And this is the outfit our liberal democrats want to annoint as the decision makers and approvers for American policy. They're nothing but a bunch of crooks. I heard that old arrafat was also a recipient of this handout.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Speaking of the UN to-Shar
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 7:06 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The truth is coming out in dribbles. I understand that France is involved .And that the money that was supposed to feed the poor children was spent instead ,among other things, on arms . Guess who from?
We live in a unique time in history and there is a whole lot of house cleaning going on.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
What's the difference?
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 11:49 AM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Between the food for oil scandel and the Halliburton no bid contracts? Seems like the same amount of money.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: What's the difference?
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:53 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You know the difference, gramps. And if you don't you should.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: What's the difference?
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 7:31 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The difference is the Republicans are not wanting to talk about Halleburton or other no bid contracts that have been shown to be bilking the US Government.
PRE_Allen

Posts: 842
And the difference is -
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 10:26 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The abuse of the Oil-for-Food program led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children from various malnutrition related diseases and other diseases which could have been easily prevented by vaccination.

The Halliburton scandel did not.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: And the difference is -
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 9:47 AM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
That's the part that I thought gramps could figure out. Plus, nothing illegal was done in awarding the contracts to Haliburton, with or without a bid. Especially since in some instances they were the only company performing those services.
PRE_Ahh

Posts: 1
Re: And the difference is -
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 12:21 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Nothing illegal was done in Whitewater, either, but we had to spend millions to find that out, then save face by exploring the intimate lives of people we had no business exploring, spending millions more.

"But he lied! Under oath" So would you under the same circumstances and invasions of your bedroom behaviors that had no place being under any oath to begin with. Your spouse is the one who needs to deal with that, not the federal government, and let him/her hire the lawyers to kick your butt.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: And the difference is -
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 6:29 PM   in response to: PRE_Ahh in response to: PRE_Ahh
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Excuse me, but if I recall correctly, some people did go to jail over Whitewater. Not the Clintons, but several of their associates. None of which has anything to do with the original discussion of Oil for Food.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: And the difference is -
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 11:53 AM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Just saw in the paper this morning there is more malnutrition in Iraq now then before the invasion. Fact is, people were being fed. The abuses in the Oil for Food program were coming from the add on commissions imposed by Hussein.

While we are at it: how about the civilian deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion?
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
/Gramps
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 5:16 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps, do you erxpect an answer on that question? Don't hold your breath. I ask ysterday , if people on this board read how many Americans and civilians were killed in Iraq the past few days? No answer on that one.
I make nice suggestions to folks and I get blasted out. If the shoe fits...
Oh what's the use to even be on this board.? On the other hand I learn who I want to meet or who I don't want to meet, if the occasion should arise.

Hang in there, spring is almost here. : )

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.
PRE_Allen

Posts: 842
The civilian deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion.
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 6:28 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What do you think happens in a war?

We saw what happened when Iraq was at "peace." Saddam used the Iraqi armed forces to kill Iraqi civilians.

Of course war is an insane horror. But now Saddam & Sons are defunct. No one knows what the future will bring. One can make an argument that for reasons of state we should not have done the right thing; that we instead should have cut a deal for the oil. Time will tell.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: The civilian deaths that have happened as a result of our invasion.
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 10:30 PM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Allen, although they claim to have seen war, I think they believe good people don't suffer and die in a war .... or they think America is wrong because we are not able to fight a "perfect war" where only the bad guys suffer or die.

You described it correctly, ".... war is an insane horror", but in this war, as in most others, there is a good vs evil set of elements. Some folks think this is an "absolute" set of parameters, yet they all profess to know there were some first class German and Japanese human beings killing American troops. All of war is not madness. Madness inevitably comes as a result of war. This war was conducted to halt some "peace time" madness.

Cutting a deal for oil is not a bad idea, but it was and is second to doing the right thing, and that was putting Hussein out of business.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: And the difference is - gramps
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 6:31 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
How does that fit in with other news reports that talk about people now having television sets and satellite dishes, children going to school, etc. There may be areas that are still under seige where conditions are not good, but I don't think that's the majority of Iraq.

And while we are at it, how about the civilian deaths that Saddam Hussein and his evil sons caused? And how about the civilian deaths caused by the insurrgents?
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 10:52 AM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
At least he has a sense of humor. I liked his "pumpkin joke". And after the election, he was asked, "Now will you reach out to the democrats?"
Arnold laughed, "Why should I?
They lost."

Don't become overly concerned that he will be president.
Hillary will be our next Commander in Chief and Bill will be the first man.
PRE_Allen

Posts: 842
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 2:04 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But the reason for the constitutional ban on naturalized citizens being elected president is so that they don't subordinate US interests to those of their first country.

Hitler wasn't trying to subvert Germany in favor of Austria. Fujimori wasn't trying to subvert Peru in favor of Japan.

Are we saying that we don't want a naturalized president because we're afraid that he thinks that if he screws it up, he can always move somewhere else and get naturalized there? Couldn't a natural-born citizen do the same thing?

What is inherently defective about naturalized citizenship as opposed to natural-born?

Perhaps in a country founded upon certain ideas, as opposed to one founded upon a tribe, natural-born status is a substitute for nationalism? Is nationalism all it's cracked up to be?

I think that the constitutional ban on naturalized citizens holding presidential office will be overturned in the future because of the popularity of a candidate who would otherwise be ineligible to run. But please, not an actor, unless he can sing and dance too.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 5:12 PM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Fox are not the only one who brought the oil-food scandal out. I read it on line, in the Berlin Newspaper, in the Moskau, Newspaper, in one of the London papers and I also heard it on Larry King. Like some of you, I am hopping around for news, I am not one sided.

Hillary for President? I hope, she is smart enough to stay away from that.

UN? I still hear my father 's remark when they enouncend the forming of the UN. I cannot repeat it. But they are there for over 50 years. They just need a good leader.

I wonder , if Arnold talked Maria in to become a Republican? Or is he just a Republican , because he had the Kennedy connection and he wanted to make it on his own?

Have a blessed week
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:35 PM   in response to: PRE_Troudy in response to: PRE_Troudy
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
As far as I know, Troudy, he has always been a Republican. I know he was one at the time he married Maria because there was lots of discussion about it.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 8:10 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Just a question and yes I am rude . I interfere with the Arnod for President's topic.

But did any of you realized how many America soldiers and civilan people got killed in Iraq the past few days? I think, that is more to think and pray about as that stupid stuff who will be President in 4 years.

Yesterday is gone
Tomorrw we will not know what will happened.
TODAY IS WHAT'S COUNT."

Please act a little bit more compassion.

Have a blessed tomorrow.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: 2008
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 6:34 PM   in response to: PRE_Allen in response to: PRE_Allen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I don't think there will be any lack of qualified candidates in 2008. Rudy Guialiani, for one, and I heard today that John McCain may be interested in another run. Many more names will surface in the next three years.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: 2008/McCain
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:08 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
McCain is a good example of how archaic the rule about citizens born in America is. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was technically Panamanian Soil which the US had a 99 year lease on. Of course, we gave up the lease many years before it expired. If you take a strict interpretation of the constitution he should not be able to run for President.

There are many American children who have been born overseas while their American parents where living and working overseas. Then too there are many foriegn born children who were adopted by American families at a young age.

I think the proposed amendments suggest naturalized citizens should reside in the US for at least 20 years before they become eligible for candidacy.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: 2008/McCain
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:28 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps, was McCain born to American citizens? If so, his citizenship passed automatically through them, not his location.

For parents who are NOT citizens, their child will be if born on American soil. Some illegal Hispanics who are expecting a child, will actually try to cross the border for the baby's birth, so the child will be a citizen, born on American soil.

I'd personally love McCain running, but his age and health conditions might work against him.

I also personally think that Hillary will likely not be the Democratic candidate in 2008.

But here's a question to research....Can Bill run again? Does the Constitution prevent holding office for 2 consecutive terms, or two terms total in a lifetime?

Who can be the first to cut and paste the answer from the online Constitution......do do do da, do do doooo, doo da doa dooot dedooteedo da.....??

PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: 2008/ Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:55 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Are you sure that children born overseas to U.S. citizens would not be able to be president? I don't believe that's the case. They are considered U.S. citizens, not naturalized citizens. This would include any child born to military personnel.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: 2008/ Gramps/Shar
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 6:34 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Shar,

I worked as a Nanny in 1954-1956 for an American Family. They had 3 kids, all 3 born in the States, the 4 one was born in Bad Kreuznach/ Germany. I can remember the Mayor (Papa) telling me, that the first thing they have to do when they came to the States, that they have to put in for naturalisation(spe?) for Baby Scott. I looked at him and ask him why. He told me, because he was not born in the USA. He also told me, that if I had a kid born in the USA he/she would be automaticly USA citizen, but not me.

Like I said , that was 50 years ago. Maybe they changed it since?
Many things changed in 50 years.

Have a blessed tomorrow.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: 2008/ Gramps/Troudy
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 9:14 PM   in response to: PRE_Troudy in response to: PRE_Troudy
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I don't know about 50 years ago, Troudy, but today if you are born of American parents on foreign soil you are automatically a U.S. citizen. I think Harriett laid out the rules elsewhere so I won't repeat them again.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: 2008/McCain
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:57 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Here's the info,

http://www.usnaturalization.org/citizenship_faq.html

Who is born a United States citizen?

Generally, people are born U.S. citizens if they are born in the United States or if they are children of U.S. citizens:

(1) By being born in the United States - If you were born in the United States (including, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), you are an American citizen at birth (unless you were born to a foreign diplomat). Your birth certificate is proof of your citizenship.

(2) Through birth abroad to TWO United States citizens - In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

* Both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born.
* At least one of your parents lived in the United States at some point in their life.
* Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file a Form N-600, "Application for Certificate of Citizenship" to get a Certificate of Citizenship. All application forms are included in the U.S. Citizenship Information and Application Kit.

(3) Through birth abroad to ONE United States citizen - In most cases, you are a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true:

* One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born.
* Your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before
you were born; and
At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your
citizen parent's 14th birthday*.
* Your record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of your citizenship. You may also apply for a passport to have your citizenship recognized. If you need additional proof of your citizenship, you may file an "Application for Certificate of Citizenship" (Form N-600) with BCIS to get a Certificate of Citizenship.

*If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen, if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years, and 5 of those years, in the United States were after your citizen parent's 14th birthday.

PRE_savannah

Posts: 130
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 11:18 PM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Arnold is a disgrace to the republican party. He is really a democrat in disguise. Supports stem cell, abortion, gay marriage. It would be like having two democrats running for president. He should make the switch, he's been influenced too much by the Kennedys and his Hollywood buddies. Wake up Arnold, you're in the wrong place!!
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 7:55 AM   in response to: PRE_savannah in response to: PRE_savannah
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I think you are right about this
He is too liberal and too close to the Kennedys.
But Hillary has 2008 all sewed up. She will be the Democratic candidate unless something unforeseen happens,
What a nightmare. President Bush and Laura will leave a nice, orderly house and Hillary and Bill will trash it again.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 10:38 AM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I wouldn't be too quick to throw in the towel. I think there are more than a few Republicans who could beat Hillary .... if the party starts now, by collecting those who have been mis-led and dis-enfranchised by the Democrats .... a real and honest "reaching out; not across the aisle, but asross the ghetto and the barrio.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 11:33 AM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What is a barrio?
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 11:56 AM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It's probably the mis-spelled name for a Hispanic neighborhood. Being only 2'8" tall, I can barley speak English, let alone Spinich.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:17 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Jake, you spelled it correctly. Your "Spinich" is fine.

The term must have been left out of a certain pursuit of being "well-educated."

To help in future omissions, here is an online dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com

That should simplify things. Always try to keep things simple. Some of us just aren't that well-educated, we've been told.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 1:23 PM   in response to: PRE_Harriet in response to: PRE_Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You've been behaving strangely, Harriet.
Did'nt your umbrella open when you jumped from the roof?
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 1:38 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No, that was yours, dear.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 4:33 PM   in response to: PRE_Harriet in response to: PRE_Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Brooms .... Umbrellas .... well, I guess some of you gals will go to any length to not pay for gasoline.

Barrio is right, huh? I knew the word and just made it look like it sounds. Mrs. Rich (my 3rd & 4th grade teacher) would be proud of me. Thanks for the back-up.

Wow, how about that .... I can spell in spinich, and uno, I did it correcto, dos .... and I'm not even a vegetarian. I do, however, like nearly all vegetables, and fruit, and meat, and baked stuff, and seafood, and dairy products and most other food.

OK, so "barrio" = "hood". If I keep that up I'll be wearing a black hooded sweatshirt three sizes too big for me (Do they make stuff that big?) and have my jeans down around my knees and .... oh yeah, gotta' get a tattoo. I wonder if perhaps I should trade in Poki for a Honda Accord with some varooooom pipes.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: For shame - Jake
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 4:36 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Sssshhhhh! I hope Poki didn't hear you say that.
PRE_savannah

Posts: 130
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 10:57 PM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Barrio is a very common phrase for those who live in California, New York or other urban areas with Hispanic populations. The name used more nowadays is Latino or Latina.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:12 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I happen to think the Democratic nomination will probably go to someone other than Hillary. We have four years to sort that out. Give us some time.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 4:35 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
<<"Give us some time.">>

Sure, Gramps .... happy to oblige.

How about ten years in Walla Walla?
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise/Gloria
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 6:47 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But Hillary and Bill will leave the USA with no debts. They pay the bills, probally with your and my money, but hey , some one has to pay for Bushes wars.

Ja, I am in a bad mood . Like some one said, the election is over.

Let's see what the next 4 years bring. Why don't you Quilters bring your Quilts personally over to Iraq?. If you do that , than you show us how good Christians you are. Every one can talk big, but show us how you can make it a better world.

I do not want Hillary even run for President, but one thing is for sure , she is smart , smarter as you and me, that's for sure.

I even pray for your, that the Lord takes care of you when you go to Iraq and that you are not loosing your head,.

Have a blessed tomorrow.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise/Gloria
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 9:16 PM   in response to: PRE_Troudy in response to: PRE_Troudy
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Now, Troudy, don't give the Clintons too much credit. They did leave a surplus, but debt free, no way.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise/Shar
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 10:00 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Shar , if you have a surplus, are you not debt free than?

I wonder, if President Bush leaves us Debt free and with surplus in 4 years?

I love you any way! Have a great tomorrow.

P.S. Gloria, don't give me : "But Troudy, war cost money!" Yes , it does. But President Bush invaded Iraq, not President Clinton.

You too have a blessed tomorrow.

PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise/
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 9:49 AM   in response to: PRE_Troudy in response to: PRE_Troudy
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No, the U.S. is still trillions of dollars in debt from past years when the budget was not balanced. Anymore than that, don't ask me. I don't get into that kind of high financed. It's all I can do to balance my checkbook.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 12:19 PM   in response to: PRE_savannah in response to: PRE_savannah
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I think you forget that Reagan signed the first bill in the US allowing legalized abortion. Also, Bush first funded stem cell research.

Arnold is in the same vain as many former Republicans like Rockefeller and Romney. As he got older Goldwater became quite liberal.

Arnold choses to stay as a Republican because he firmly believes in the least government interference possible, which is funny because in the last four years government interference in the private lives of individuals has increased and if Bush gets his way will continue to increase exponentially more in the next four years.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 1:30 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You are mistaken. Gramps.
Reagan was one of the most anti-abortion presidents.
The most pro-abortion president was Bill Clinton.Twice he vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 1:41 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Why don't you both cite your sources for your comments regarding Reagan's record?

No, Rush doesn't count.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
My Source(s)
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 2:44 PM   in response to: PRE_Harriet in response to: PRE_Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Actually, there are several sources, but I will cite just one at this point (I have to go to work)

The act he signed was the "California Therapeutic Abortion Law" in 1967.

Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan┐s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan┐s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 812 Jul 2, 1991
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: My Source(s) to-Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 6:34 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Another source,please. I totally reject the one you gave. The crumbbum you mentioned wrote a biased book about Reagan and I would not seriously accept anything he said.
Reagan is often cited as extremely anti-abortion,
And I like McCain's thoughts on this topic. He is against abortion and said that doctors
who perform these abortions should be prosecuted.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: My Source(s) to-Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 7:28 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Fact is Reagan did sign the California Therapeutic Act of 1967. You can look it up yourself.
PRE_Troudy

Posts: 1,039
Re: My Source(s) to-Gramps/Gloria
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 8:01 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hitler prosecuted Dr.'s for abortions. Are you comparing McCain with Hitler?

I like McCain, but if he thinks Dr.'s need to be prosecuted , I will not vote for him.

I think, abortion is dead wrong, but it should be out of the Federal Goverments hands. That is between the mother, the Dr. and the Lord.

I myseld saved at least 10 Babies. I(THat a number I was told)

I gave the parents from teanagers the Phone number from Lutheran Services of Georgia, and they put the kids up for adoption. I still carry that phone number with me. You never know who you run into.

I do believe , that parents of teeangagers should be informed.

Why do you use the word crumbbum? The Author has a name.

I do not like Anne Coulier, sorry spelled it wrong, but I do not call her names. I do not like her books, but hey , this is suppose to be a free country.

Have a good nights sleep.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: California Therapeutic Abortion Law
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 9:25 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Taken from the Pro + Choice web site.

The case reverberated in California and across the nation. In California, it gave new momentum to a bill, previously introduced in the legislature, that reformers had designed to broaden the grounds on which abortion would be legally permitted in the state. In 1967 this law passed, and a reluctant Governor Ronald Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: California Therapeutic Abortion Law-Shar
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 11:58 AM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
What? Are you now admitting that some states did indeed liberalize their abortion laws before Roe v Wade?
PRE_Buddy n/t

Posts: 1
Don't Push It,
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 12:01 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply

PRE_Armedandind...

Posts: 1
Re: Don't Push It, - Buddynt
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 4:17 PM   in response to: PRE_Buddy n/t in response to: PRE_Buddy n/t
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
hey Buddynt, don't bother with him. He gets kinda' carried away with some of this stuff.
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: California Therapeutic Abortion Law-gramps
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 6:34 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I'm aware that California did, but to the best of my knowledge they were the only one. I could be wrong.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Still Waiting
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 7:16 AM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gloria has not yet cited any reliable source to prove her contention that Gramps was wrong that Reagan signed the bill he mentioned.

Perhaps Gramps will cite some of the others besides the one Shar cited.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Still Waiting To- Harriet
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 8:58 AM   in response to: PRE_Harriet in response to: PRE_Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Harriet
You are going to have wait up on that roof a while longer.
I have a quilt to get ready for tomorrow and Thursday is Thanksgiving Day; so I have no time to chase references for you or Gramps.
Hope it doesn't rain while you are sitting on the rood top.
PRE_Blah

Posts: 16
Re: Still Waiting To- Harriet
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 9:30 AM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Blah, blah, blah.
Your quilt is a cop out, since you have plenty of time to post. Methinks Harriet and all the rest of us will probably be waiting forever.
Blah, blah, blah.
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Still Waiting To- Harriet
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 4:20 PM   in response to: PRE_Blah in response to: PRE_Blah
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Ms. Blah, that was a nice lady-like response.

I wonder why there's not a long list of "nurturing" reminders to be "gentle" .... or does that only apply to others.
PRE_Blah

Posts: 16
Re: Still Waiting To- Harriet
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 7:36 AM   in response to: PRE_Jake in response to: PRE_Jake
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Blah, blah, blah. Good for one side not the other, right? At least I don't call people a crumbum, cracker or ho. The quilting is a cop-out, just like you saying you don't need experts. Blah, blah, blah.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah or whatever
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 8:49 AM   in response to: PRE_Blah in response to: PRE_Blah
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am off to the quilting workshop so you will have to wait until I am good and ready.
I know you can't wait to read my post.
In the meantime, go defrost a turkey or bake a pie.
PRE_Harriet

Posts: 656
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah or whatever
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 1:46 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Just making sure here we don't distract from the mission, Gloria. It's not about quilting, or turkeys.

You have been asked to cite reliable sources for your claim that Gramps is wrong about Reagan signing any abortion bill. So far, you have been unable to do so, nor are you able to admit you were mistaken. Neither one. Until you can provide reliable proof, this claim is unfounded.

Now, I can wait, but I won't be holding my breath. That would be counterproductive.
PRE_Scarlett

Posts: 5
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah or whatever
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 6:52 PM   in response to: PRE_Harriet in response to: PRE_Harriet
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Fidel-Dee-Dee was for Gloria , not for Harriet. Want to make that clear.

Harriet, Gloria is leaving us, so she might not read our posts any more.
PRE_Lifer

Posts: 195
to Scarlett
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 9:25 PM   in response to: PRE_Scarlett in response to: PRE_Scarlett
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Don't get your hopes up. Gloria promises and vows to leave but never goes away. Sorry.
It help alot if you just skip her stuff.
PRE_Gloria

Posts: 1,619
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah or whatever
Posted: Nov 26, 2004 10:49 PM   in response to: PRE_Scarlett in response to: PRE_Scarlett
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
So nice of you ladies to wait for me.A correction first-- It is "fiddle dee dee" So strange that Scarlett is posting. That is a name I used to kid Troudy a while back.
Now, about Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was one of our most pro life presidents.He wrote an article entitled "Abortion and the conscience of the Nation."Check that out if you insist on credentials and then use your common sense after reading it.
Reagan said, "Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born,"
He also said,"We should never rest until Human Life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the congress."
You can read all the references you choose to, liberal and conservative, but ultimately common sense must rule.
Don't rely entirely on artificial intelligence.
You must consider the person and ask yourself.
"Is that person capable of what has been written about him."
Common Sense:
"Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom." Samuel Taylor Coleridge
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius."G.B. Shaw
"A sense of humor is just common sense." Clive James
PRE_Scarlett

Posts: 5
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah or whatever
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 6:49 PM   in response to: PRE_Gloria in response to: PRE_Gloria
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Fidell-Dee-Dee
PRE_Jake

Posts: 1,887
Re: Still Waiting To- Blah
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 9:44 PM   in response to: PRE_Blah in response to: PRE_Blah
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I don't follow you, blah. What were you referring to by "ho", in your post?

Mr. Blah, I can think for myself. When do /did I need "experts"?
PRE_Shar

Posts: 2,359
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise - Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 4:41 PM   in response to: PRE_Gramps in response to: PRE_Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Abortion was legalized in 1973 as the result of Roe V. Wade. Long before Reagan's time.
PRE_henry L

Posts: 4
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise - Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 4:48 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
you might want to check that out a tad bit more.
PRE_Gramps

Posts: 2,513
Re: Arnold For President? A democrat in disguise - Gramps
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 7:48 PM   in response to: PRE_Shar in response to: PRE_Shar
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Actually, before 1967 four states: Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona and Washington had totally repealed all abortion bans.

13 others, including California and New York and Florida, had liberalized their abortion laws before Roe v Wade

Has anyone here ever read the Roe v Wade Decision? Click Here.
PRE_Just Watching

Posts: 1
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 24, 2004 10:37 PM   in response to: PRE_mortensen in response to: PRE_mortensen
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You gals (and you know who you are) are behaving far worse than you recognize. The pack influence is starting to manifest itself. You've traveled much farther down the slope than you recognize. Please reconsider your actions. Politics is not personal. To make it so is way beneath your level. For your own sake, don't go there.
PRE_tired of po...

Posts: 1
Re: Arnold For President? The Push Begins
Posted: Nov 27, 2004 8:08 PM   in response to: PRE_Just Watching in response to: PRE_Just Watching
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If we have to have an Arnold for president, how about if I nominate ARNOLD Palmer, independent for president, sponsored by the Oil industry.