Mesmerize
Nov 5 2004, 09:36 AM
Does anyone know what we can do to stop this, or a national sales tax etc. when they control senate etc.?
I would like to plan ahead and be prepared to crush it before they can get it off the ground.
Zimpy.com
Nov 8 2004, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about Arnie becoming President... California became the joke of the country, if not the world, when he got elected Governor. Of course, I did't think there was going to be anything to worry about in this election with all the evidence against Bush & his cronies... *gulp*
Sailor Bill
Nov 9 2004, 02:03 AM
"W"'s constitutional amendment band aid for everything the gop wants changed would take years to pass and most are a ruse anyway. We will all be dead and burried before any one has a real chance to become law.
Alexander38
Nov 9 2004, 02:14 AM
Ass far as i know the fastest an admenment has ever been pushed throu the houses, from its inception to its birth, were the prohibition, and that toke years of grassroot work in several states at the same time to do that. Woman suffrage were more than 30 years in the offering from its birth as an open wellthought out idea to its inception. anyway Arnold would not be eligelble for the presidentcy for years to come, it simply takes to long.
Besides which i would not be that unhappy whit Arnold since he would be better and have more brain than the last 3 repugs put together. It's not the party affiliation that should decide the presidentcy it is the mans capacity to lead and be a good eksamble all of which Bush fails miserably.
D103486
Nov 9 2004, 02:21 AM
It takes years (usually) for an amendment to the constitution to become ratified. Personally, I don't think we should change the rule that our president must be American born. Think of the difficulties we could face in the future if we elect a foreign born president and during that administration, we have problems with their birth country. Where would his/her true loyalties lie? There was a reason our founding fathers put that rule in our constitution -- I think it should stand.
dggfwtx
Nov 9 2004, 03:03 AM
I don't know that the "Arnold Amendment," looking longer term, is necessarily a bad thing for the Democratic Party. Reason: There are a lot of potential Hispanic candidates that it could benefit. Also Jennifer Granholm of Michigan. I'm not all *that* worried about Arnold, as I doubt he could survive the GOP primaries. And even if he did, he'd be one helluva lot better than most GOP candidates. He's goofy, but I could probably live with him as Prez. He seems to be more results-oriented and not dogmatically partisan. But I seriously doubt that's realistic.
lawnorder
Nov 9 2004, 03:12 AM
Arnold schmanold.
I want to keep my liberty to use birth control pills
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee .... the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.
The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology.
Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient
We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives for to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate e candidate to serve as chair of this committee.
Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.
MominTN
Nov 9 2004, 07:59 AM
Changing the Constitution to elect a foreign born president would be a big mistake. We don't need the possibility of a future president who has ties to another government. It is common sense that someone that is born here will feel that they are an American first. And if we want to elect a Hispanic, I'm sure an American educated one would be better than an immigrant. In fact, I see it to be a contradiction that the Repubs want a foreign born president but don't want to hear what other countries think about our foreign policy.
I am not worried about this passing. But if you are, you might should look into whether Arnold got elected on the diebold machines before CA banned them or any other electronic voting machines.
I heard a woman on C-Span who said that the only reason they voted Arnold in was he said that he would not give the illegal immigrants drivers licenses. Had Kerry/Edwards come out strong for border control, sending illegal immigrants back to their countries, and revamping the visa program into a quick but controlled efficient way for companies to hire foreign workers, they would have been elected. Instead they didn't look any different than the Repubs. And when Kerry did say something about securing our borders, the media didn't replay it in their soundbites. The Democrats need their own news channel. Actually Americans need our own news channel because alot of people don't use the internet so how can they find out anything?
CrowNotAngelGRL
Nov 10 2004, 12:53 AM
I agree with you. It would make me worry about something like that. I, personally, just don't feel comfortable with something like that.
QUOTE(D103486 @ Nov 9 2004, 03:21 AM)
It takes years (usually) for an amendment to the constitution to become ratified. Personally, I don't think we
should change the rule that our president must be American born. Think of the difficulties we could face in the future if we elect a foreign born president and during that administration, we have problems with their birth country. Where would his/her true loyalties lie? There was a reason our founding fathers put that rule in our constitution -- I think it should stand.
j2inMi
Nov 10 2004, 01:08 AM
QUOTE(Mesmerize @ Nov 5 2004, 11:36 AM)
Does anyone know what we can do to stop this, or a national sales tax etc. when they control senate etc.?
I would like to plan ahead and be prepared to crush it before they can get it off the ground.
If they amend the constitution for Arnold, this makes our Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, a rising star in the Democratic Party like Obama, eligible to run for President. She was born in Canada.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.