Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Arnold In 2008....

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,264
    Post Thanks / Like
    If this goes through, he'll mop the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    [url=http://www.amendforarnold.org/]http://www.amendforarnold.org/[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by New England Hick[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 12:34 PM
    [b] If this goes through, he'll mop the floor with Hillary Clinton...

    [url=http://www.amendforarnold.org/]http://www.amendforarnold.org/[/url] [/b][/quote]
    While I hope ANYONE the Republicans put up for office wipes the floor with Hillary (and probably will), I don't see Arnold as being the shoe-in you do. Aside from the pot and womanizing history he's got... can you IMAGINE all the Nazi propaganda the libs will continuously throw his way?! What the libs did to Bush during this past campaign is NOTHING compared to what Arnold would have thrown at him.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this, as viable a candidate Arnold might be.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Brooklyn Jet[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 02:46 PM
    [b] Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this, as viable a candidate Arnold might be. [/b][/quote]
    Well, putting Arnold aside... let's just pretend that he isn't a viable candidate for 2008 (which I actually believe anyway)... would you be in favor of this amendment on its own?

  5. #5
    Bitter
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    Great, Arnold runs for president then we have Gary Coleman and a prostitute right behind. Lets make a bigger mockery of the election....if that's even possible.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the GOP has no respect for the constitution in general so this is not surprising that it's grass roots would support this...

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by New England Hick[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 10:34 AM
    [b] If this goes through, he'll mop the floor with Hillary Clinton...
    [/b][/quote]
    A mop will mop the floor with hilliary.

    How many red states are going to go blue for hilliary?

    If they run her in 2008 (and I hope they do), the democrats are dumber than even I think they are.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Brooklyn Jet[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 12:46 PM
    [b] Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this, as viable a candidate Arnold might be. [/b][/quote]
    ditto here....I like it "the old fashion way"....

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Brooklyn Jet[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 12:46 PM
    [b] Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this [/b][/quote]
    agree 100%

    plus it opens the door to all sorts of future disasters :unsure:

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    3,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why would the Republicans want to do this though? If they can beat Hillary with just about anyone (though I don't think Hillary would run), there are PLENTY of viable American candidates for them (such as McCain, Guliani, etc).

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not happening. The Constitution hasn't been amended in almost 35 years for good reason. It's not about to happen for a vanity candidacy.

  12. #12
    Bitter
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jetswin+Nov 16 2004, 08:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jetswin @ Nov 16 2004, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Brooklyn Jet[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 12:46 PM
    [b] Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this [/b][/quote]
    agree 100%

    plus it opens the door to all sorts of future disasters :unsure: [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, like Jean-Claude Van Dam or Elton John as vice president. :lol:

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    This means that Heinz-Kerry could run...do we want that :blink:

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Bayou
    Posts
    3,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like Arnold. If it came down to him against Hillary, I might have to do the unthinkable and vote for the &reg;.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, not for the ammendment.

    Arnold for President? kidding right? [img]http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/happy-rotfl4.gif[/img]

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Troll, your signature-photo is pretty lame.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TheBrodyMan[/i]@Nov 17 2004, 04:23 AM
    [b] This means that Heinz-Kerry could run...do we want that :blink: [/b][/quote]
    Actually... yeah I do. That would guarantee four more years with a Republican president.

    Old fashioned way? I think if there&#39;s something wrong in the Constitution then it should be amended. What was the original reason for a immigrant not being able to become president anyway? Maybe the reason is simply obsolete. They&#39;re talking about putting a 20 year citizen residency on it anyway. The person would BE an American. He/she just would not have been BORN here. I don&#39;t want Arnold to run in 2008, but I don&#39;t see a problem with this amendment.

    btw... Bugg... you&#39;re just bitter as can be. Lighten up, my friend.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    The rule will change just like they are trying to change this one.

    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov16.html[/url]

    GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay&#39;s Post

    By Charles Babington
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01


    House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

    The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month&#39;s elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature&#39;s redistricting actions.

    House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today&#39;s closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

    House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats&#39; ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

    The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay&#39;s associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans&#39; proposal last night.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

    House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP&#39;s chief deputy whip.

    "That&#39;s why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it&#39;s submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

    Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

    Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

    "Congressman Bonilla&#39;s rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

    Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we&#39;ll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

    A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay&#39;s political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

    The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

    The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle&#39;s efforts "a witch hunt."

    "It&#39;s a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It&#39;s coincidental with what&#39;s going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can&#39;t beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,968
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Enrique Pallazzo+Nov 16 2004, 02:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Enrique Pallazzo @ Nov 16 2004, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Brooklyn Jet[/i]@Nov 16 2004, 02:46 PM
    [b] Im not a big fan of amending the constitution for something like this, as viable a candidate Arnold might be. [/b][/quote]
    Well, putting Arnold aside... let&#39;s just pretend that he isn&#39;t a viable candidate for 2008 (which I actually believe anyway)... would you be in favor of this amendment on its own? [/b][/quote]
    Putting Arnold aside, and making it Candidate X, I&#39;d still be against amending the Constitution. As someone else mentioned, I think it opens a can of worms.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dont change the constitution for Arnold...man, this will open up all sorts of bad precedent and do we really want to change the law for this....keep an american prez...american. American born&#33;

    LL

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us