Amend for Arnold Starts

[eOmniz]

I'd switch parties to vote for Arnold. His actions in California represent a complete non partisan attitude and I think it'd be great for Washington.

Of course he would probably give in and change all his policies for the Repub party and I'd regret my vote, but one can hope.

[Kylere]

Still really no argument, no specifics, and no real stand

There is no way someone is entirely removed from the land of their birth, they always have some ties, usually family and family is the strongest tie humanity knows beyond basic food water air needs.

Even so, that does not mean that that person will use his role of power to give excessive aid or leasure to his home country, because if he did he would need support, and the people would call him out on such actions

You can say you are never removed from your home state, doesnt mean that the president will always look out for the benefit of his/her home state above all others

Hey at least their home state is part of the country. Since no one Altruistic has ever become a politician, I highyl doubt that any will, and as such I would like to limit their options for failure. I think fi we change the rule, it should be that no felons, no one who has not voted 80% of the time, no one who has advocated the violent overthrow of the US Government etc should all be barred. I dnot think and no amount of debate will make me think that the only way to get a good president is to change this rule. If this is true, then we need to hang it up now.

[Sylvus]

I think you're kind of an assbag. What good reason is there to not let someone who wasn't physically born on this soil be able to run for president? There isn't one that wouldn't be addressed by making them be a citizen of the country for X number of years. There are plenty of people who were born in this country that hate it; there are plenty of people who were born outside of this country who love it. No one is saying that the only viable candidate would be a "foreigner", they are saying that they would prefer that the best candidate be able to run, regardless of where they are from.

[Toshira]

can't believe you'd waste 1 minute of your life on this "issue" when so much else is happening.

shit, too late.

[archeiron]

Toshira
vidi vici veni

Intentional reordering?

[Toshira]

Toshira
vidi vici veni

Intentional reordering?

3 VV for joo!

[Kylere]

I think you're kind of an assbag. What good reason is there to not let someone who wasn't physically born on this soil be able to run for president? There isn't one that wouldn't be addressed by making them be a citizen of the country for X number of years. There are plenty of people who were born in this country that hate it; there are plenty of people who were born outside of this country who love it. No one is saying that the only viable candidate would be a "foreigner", they are saying that they would prefer that the best candidate be able to run, regardless of where they are from.

Only an asshat like you would assume the best person has EVER been selected to run. So far IMHO they pick the most likely to be elected, not the best.

[archeiron]

I think you're kind of an assbag. What good reason is there to not let someone who wasn't physically born on this soil be able to run for president? There isn't one that wouldn't be addressed by making them be a citizen of the country for X number of years. There are plenty of people who were born in this country that hate it; there are plenty of people who were born outside of this country who love it. No one is saying that the only viable candidate would be a "foreigner", they are saying that they would prefer that the best candidate be able to run, regardless of where they are from.

Only an asshat like you would assume the best person has EVER been selected to run. So far IMHO they pick the most likely to be elected, not the best.

You have not argued against the idea that a foreigner could be the best candidate nor have you argued that a foreigner could be the candidate most likely to win. Were you dodging Sylvus' point because you couldn't argue against it?

[Kylere]

Sylvus thinks as do you that we should change the rules because it is the cause de jure, without any valid reason other than maybe a foreigner will save us

Umm excuse me, but WHY change the rule, who are we excluding from the job? Arnie? Granholm? Yeah like either of them are a good reason. You are talking about amending the CONSTITUTION not changing a traffic fine. Whenever we try to do that to fix a social problem it fails, look at prohitibition. The onyl reason to make any changes to the very foundation of our country is when it REALLY needs to happen like extending the right to vote to women, and people of color. Otherwise keep your greedy little paws off it.

[eOmniz]

So you think Arnold would do a worse job than Bush or Kerry?

[archeiron]

Sylvus thinks as do you that we should change the rules because it is the cause de jure, without any valid reason other than maybe a foreigner will save us

Umm excuse me, but WHY change the rule, who are we excluding from the job? Arnie? Granholm? Yeah like either of them are a good reason. You are talking about amending the CONSTITUTION not changing a traffic fine. Whenever we try to do that to fix a social problem it fails, look at prohitibition. The onyl reason to make any changes to the very foundation of our country is when it REALLY needs to happen like extending the right to vote to women, and people of color. Otherwise keep your greedy little paws off it.

I understand that you are naturally offensive (or at the very least, presumptuous), but please try not to presume why I debate one way on a thread or what that has to do with my actual opinion.

I am asking you to explain why this law makes sense; arguing that we should keep it because the founding fathers thought it was a good idea has already been countered (on the previous page). As of yet, you have not countered the possibility that a foreign born American could be the best candidate for the job, nor did you dispute the counter to the "Found Fathers said so" point. Have you run out of ideas on how to reason through this? If you like, I will help you argue your point rationally. You could say:

The likelihood of a foreign born American being the ideal candiate is lower than the likelihood of a foreign born candidate having a nefarious agenda that could be detrimental to the US. One could argue that the US should retain a certain impartiality as a superpower that may be jeopardized by a biased foreign president.

If you need any more ideas on how to debate this point, I would be happy to help.

This is one of the topics of the day, not my (our) latest cause. The fact that I have expressed an opinion seems to offend you; perhaps, you had best stay in the shallow end of the board. Try out the General forum.

[Rekaar.]

I think Kylere is hugging his libertarian ideals very tightly here, and in this case I agree wtih him. Modifying the Constitution is a very big deal. It's very difficult for that reason. The onus is really on the folks saying "why should we change" not those who see no reason to.

This is the natural process for changing something.

It has nothing to do with who the nominated candidates were. We all know they could've found better - out of the pool they already have - so the problem isn't the pool of candidates its the politicians themselves. Adding more to the pool won't solve any of the underlying issues.

[archeiron]

I think Kylere is hugging his libertarian ideals very tightly here, and in this case I agree wtih him. Modifying the Constitution is a very big deal. It's very difficult for that reason. The onus is really on the folks saying "why should we change" not those who see no reason to.

This is the natural process for changing something.

It has nothing to do with who the nominated candidates were. We all know they could've found better - out of the pool they already have - so the problem isn't the pool of candidates its the politicians themselves. Adding more to the pool won't solve any of the underlying issues.

Caution is, of course, warranted when discussing a change to our [beloved] Constitution. However, one of the Constitution's greatest strengths is that it is a living document that evolves over time. A healthy discussion of why certain things are in place, and potentially why they should be removed is important to maintain this "living" status.

In this case, there is a law that may have been put into place by our ancestors for reasons that were compelling at the time, but less so now. I think that a number of good points have been presented as to why this law is unnecessarily restrictive. Heresay evidence suggests that healthy parlimentary democracies around the world (at least one older than the US) have survived without such a restriction, so what harm is the law protecting the people of the US from? We should always strive for our laws to make sense and legislate only when and where they must; the fact that such a restriction is already law is not a sufficient justification for its existence.

Kylere does not appear interested in openly discussing the issue, which is his choice, but his disregard for the intelligent counterpoints is offers little weight to sway the debate and adds little to the discussion.

[Kylere]

Arch you have yet to "counter" anything I have said, you have said you do not agree, that is the same thing, voiceing your opinion does not invalidate mine, it merely voices yours. Prove that there is a need to change the Constitution. Then you will have a case, all you and others are saying is that it is some form of bigotry or racism not to do so. I think this is hogwash, see that is an opinion, do you see the difference?

Probably not, but then again, I am willing to bet you are a white teen, or white in his early 20's feeling angst over racism. Too bad you do not even realize the extent to which the US is racist, and you actually think bandaids will fix things.

Your opinion is wrong IMHO, and thusly my opinion counters yours, if you want me to provide relevant studies indicating it is a bad idea, first you need to find ONE that says it needs to be done for reason x y ad z. Perhaps if you learned what debate meant then you could join in the debate, until then, you and others on this issue are voicing nothing factual.

Is this clear yet? there is no DATA either way, other than feelings, they cannot be countered. You believe as you do, I believe as I do, and you have no data to change my opinion, I however have the reasonable concept that changing the Constitution is not something that should be done without empirical evidence that it in fact NEEDS to be changed.

So you can keep attacking my debating skills in a thread without any valid debate, or you can grow up.

[archeiron]

Arch you have yet to "counter" anything I have said, you have said you do not agree, that is the same thing, voiceing your opinion does not invalidate mine, it merely voices yours. Prove that there is a need to change the Constitution. Then you will have a case, all you and others are saying is that it is some form of bigotry or racism not to do so. I think this is hogwash, see that is an opinion, do you see the difference?

Probably not, but then again, I am willing to bet you are a white teen, or white in his early 20's feeling angst over racism. Too bad you do not even realize the extent to which the US is racist, and you actually think bandaids will fix things.

Your opinion is wrong IMHO, and thusly my opinion counters yours, if you want me to provide relevant studies indicating it is a bad idea, first you need to find ONE that says it needs to be done for reason x y ad z. Perhaps if you learned what debate meant then you could join in the debate, until then, you and others on this issue are voicing nothing factual.

Is this clear yet? there is no DATA either way, other than feelings, they cannot be countered. You believe as you do, I believe as I do, and you have no data to change my opinion, I however have the reasonable concept that changing the Constitution is not something that should be done without empirical evidence that it in fact NEEDS to be changed.

So you can keep attacking my debating skills in a thread without any valid debate, or you can grow up.

Are you kidding? You began by ignoring legitimate points and followed up by insulting Sylvus and I by suggesting this was our pet cause of the day because it was in the news. I am happy to respond to points that counter my point of view and address my ideas which is why I am happy to posts to threads in this forum. I do not grow offended by other people having their opinions, but this messageboard is for more intense discussion that merely posting your opinion and moving on. If you had wanted to do just that, then you wouldn't have returned to this thread and added post after post.

I have answered the original direction of the thread with valid ideas, and entreated for responses to those points. Later, I suggested that this law does not make sense and asked for justification for its existence by arguing that it is insufficient to keep (arbitrary) laws just because they are on the books. It is your opinion that the burden is on those who wish to have the law changed, while I feel that it is on the burden of both sides to defend their idea; the existence of a law is not a justification for
continuance, nor was our Constitution without flaw at its conception.

I have a history of posting on topic with sensible arguments. I have only been drawn into personal confrontation when started by someone else, in this case you. If you review your posting history and mine, I think that you will see more angst and sophomoric behaviour in yours than in mine. As to my age and background, you are incorrect but I see no reason to correct you with actual facts.

[Kylere]

Archeiron says "Since Kylere is entirely right I will say he is incapable of posting as intelligently as I do in an attempt to nullify the truth of what he says"