Video: The Presidator?

posted at 9:26 am on December 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes last night that he wouldn’t mind a bit if Congress and the states amended the Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens the ability to become President. In fact, he’d celebrate in all 50 states by throwing parties, giving speeches, and, er … asking people to vote for him for the top job (via Radio Vice Online):

“The fire season has been extended by climate change”? Really? I lived in California for most of my life, and fire season has always been in autumn. When did these fires hit? In November. In 1997, the year I left California for good, the fires hit at the end of October.

The Governator misses two better reasons why California gets hit by wildfire: droughts and poor forest management. Southern California is essentially a desert with a couple of big man-made oases developed by massive aqueducts and water management. It gets dry constantly, especially in the foothills.  That’s why proper forest management to clear deadwood and to keep brush low is essential, but California forestry officials get constantly hampered by environmentalists who object to disturbing habitats.  That leaves a lot of dry, dead fuel to ignite in these blazes, which accounts for more and hotter fires.

If this is an example of what a Schwarzenegger administration would look like, skip the amendment.  We’ve already elected Obama once.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If we believed in judging people based on probabilities, black males would be thrown in jail as soon as they are born.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM

That argument doesn’t make any sense, and you completely missed my point.

This isn’t about judgement, this is about government. When you write a framework for the way an organization or government witll function, you have to set the parameters to allow for the best functionality into the future.

Remember that the President’s constitutional job is FOREIGN POLICY. The clause is included to remove conflict of interest by preventing a non-natural born citizen from holding office. That is the purpose of the clause.

With real time global communications and rapid transport around the globe, the clause is even more relevant today than it was in the 1700′s.

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Trouble is, Arnie was a terrible governor. He was that woozy neocon like Bush. Worried about image and not about leadership. And he’s about as far from fiscal conservatism and freedom as it gets.

JeffB. on December 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM

… Alexander Hamilton who was born in the British West Indies. He expected to eventually get his turn as POTUS but Burr got him first.

tommylotto on December 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Ah. Thanks, I had forgotten about Hamilton’s favor among the founding fathers and their compatriots. I just knew that none of the early presidents were born outside of the US, and the clause wasn’t needed in retrospect. LOTS from VA though.

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Marine_Bio,

I got your point, but you have missed mine.

This is about judgment. We are judging a person as being unfit for the office of president, merely because they weren’t born inside the US.

I reject utterly such opinions. While it is probably true, that a higher percentage of those born here are loyal to the US, compared to those born elsewhere.

That still leaves a lot of people born elsewhere who are more loyal to the US than people born here.

I prefer to judge each person based on who he is and what he has done, rather than based on where they were born.

I agree that when you design an organization you have to spell out the parameters under which that organization will function.

I disagree that the paramet in question is the best parameter for this organization.

A person born in the US can have conflicts of interest vis-a-vis foreign policy.

I’m sure you all are getting tired of hearing it, but the baby scenario I’ve spelled out is a perfect example.

The baby born just after immigration will have just as much family conflict as the one born just before immigration.

Any second generation American is going to have a lot of contact with family outside the US. Third and fourth generation Americans often do as well.

Should we change to rule so that only people with no family outside the US can be president?

I don’t think so.

In the most recent election, there were some who argued that a Jew couldn’t be president because he would have conflicted loyalties vis-a-vis Isreal. Some in this forum argued that a Mormon couldn’t be president because of his loyalty to his religious institutions.
When JFK was running, many people felt that a Catholic would put loyalty to the pope above loyalty to the US and our Constitution.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM

I always thought the resident in the US at the time of the signing clause was meant to handle the fact that nobody living in the US at that time qualified under the first clause.

They hadn’t been born in the US, because the US didn’t exist at the time they were born.

At least that’s what my civics prof told me. He could have been wrong.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

I wouldn’t even amend the Constitution to allow Winston Churchill to become President.

Beo on December 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

MraktheGeart: I prefer to judge each person based on who he is and what he has done, rather than based on where they were born.

Mrak, re my earlier comments on TOS: it’s not your viewpoint I object to, it’s who you are.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Even presidents who were born in the US can, and do have family in other countries.

I point back to my question about a baby born 6 months before a family immigrates, vs. one born 6 months after. Once can be president, one can’t. What’s the difference between them
MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Not to make you laugh but still food for thought. The first child placed his feet on foreign soil at birth, the second placed his feet on American soil. This is the reason we have all the anchor babies….lol. Born on American soil.Or if you must insist-born of American citizens. Like it or not those are the rules. The constitution is a contract of government between the elected leaders and representatives and the citizenry who vote for them. . The contract has been amended 27 times (so far) by vote of majority. Those amendments held logical arguments based on what was necessary to change at the time they were amended. WE HAVE NO NEED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOREIGNERS TO BE PRESIDENT as there are plenty of qualified candidates in the USA now. Qualified as in meeting the constitutional requirements(aged 35,a natural born US citizen). Argue what you will, but in order to change the constitution- you would have to prove that the change is necessary-IMHO it is not.

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Dubya Bee,

So the fact that I’m not very nice to people who haven’t been very nice to me, proves that my viewpoint is not worth reading.

Nice logic there.

As I asked before, why are you not complaining about the others who fail to follow Robert’s Rules of Order?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Then again, I don’t believe we’ve found an exception. I don’t see Arnold doing such a great job in California. Turn that state around first, then talk to me about getting 33 states to vote yes to amending the Constitution, and then put it up to a nationwide vote and see if it passes.

Meryl Yourish on December 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM

It takes 38 states (75 percent) to ratify a constitutional amendment. The reason popular vote instead of electoral vote for president will never get anywhere.

Dasher on December 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Do you want the best person to be president, or just someone who is adequate.

I’m not arguing that at the present time, or at any time, the best person is currently disqualified, but are you prepared to argue that the best person will always be US born?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM

There is definitely no need to change the Constitution for this. The Founders had other reasons for including this requirement-not just bcs the USA as a political entity didn’t exist before that time.
We are talking loyalties here. The president has to be loyal to his country, its sovereignty.
Unfortunately, many of our recent candidates do meet the birth requirement, but do not have any loyalty to the sovereignty of their native country. They wish to see us as a global community.
As far as the religion thing & being more loyal to your church than your country, many religions in this country espouse a loyalty to the laws of the country.
The Mormon church, for example, calls on its believers to respect the laws of their country,i.e. getting rid of the practice of polygamy in the church. I realize that was mainly due to threats from the Federal govt.at the time, but the fact is they did it anyway & they continue to follow the laws of their country, where ever their followers reside.
The governor of CA needs to stop wishing he could be pres. No one will let this happen. Look what he’s done in CA?

Badger40 on December 22, 2008 at 12:07 PM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to natural born citizens. I know many first generation immigrants who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:32 AM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to those over 35 years old. I know many 25 22 20 18 16 14 12 year olds who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to those of the human species. I know many cats and dogs and even a few crows who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to those over 35 years old. I know many 25 22 20 18 16 14 12 year olds who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to those of the human species. I know many cats and dogs and even a few crows who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to the living. I know of many dead people who can think much more clearly than MB4.

Do you honestly believe that because one limitation is invalid, all limitations must be invalid?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM

In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.
- George S. Patton

In addition to his other amiable characteristics, Arnold Schwarzenegger has no regard for constitutional principles and he is an all out Kennedy in-law, blow hard, and chronic steroid user [ updated}.
- George S. Patton

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Marine_Bio,

Would you argue that those who were born overseas should not be allowed to serve in the military?

The same objections regarding loyalty and conflicts due to families living elsewhere can be made regarding them?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I know of many dead people who can think much more clearly than MB4.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Do they talk to you through your blow drier or your microwave?

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:16 PM

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Do you want the best person to be president, or just someone who is adequate.

I’m not arguing that at the present time, or at any time, the best person is currently disqualified, but are you prepared to argue that the best person will always be US born?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Rather the question MarkTheGreat are you prepared to argue that the BEST person will always be FOREIGN born?

The obvious answer to both is a resounding NO.

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:16 PM

They talk to me through your dog. After he’s done advising you on presidential politics.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM

MraktheGeart: As I asked before, why are you not complaining about the others who fail to follow Robert’s Rules of Order?

Because you said it’s not about the rules, it’s about who you are.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Changing the birth requirements to be President for Arnold Schwarzenegger would make about as much sense as changing the age requirement to be Miss America for Helen Thomas.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Hey – if his wife’s cousin can simply ascend to a senate seat, what’s a little amendment to the Constitution specifically to accommodate Arnold’s ambition?

Well if it happens, I suppose the silver lining is that we will be entertained when they dust off the male prostitution stories dating back to his muscleboy days in Venice Beach.

D2Boston on December 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM

They talk to me through your dog. After he’s done advising you on presidential politics.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I don’t have a dog. You had best have a warm glass of milk and lay down.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Because you said it’s not about the rules, it’s about who you are.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Maybe you should try reading for once. I never said it isn’t about rules. Had I done so I would have argued that anyone could run for president and just ignore the constitution.

I’ve argued that this rule needs to be changed.

When you can understand the difference between those two positions, maybe then you will be qualified to comment further.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM

You mean the dog was lying? I’ll never be able to trust what a dog tells me again.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM

I don’t know if that was a general comment, or one directed at me.

But I specifically stated that I do not believe that Arnie would be a good president. I’ve been arguing the general case.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

You mean the dog was lying? I’ll never be able to trust what a dog tells me again.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Maybe he was just peeing on pulling your leg.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Hell, if Obama can be elected without being a natural-born citizen of the United States, why not Schwarzenegger?

ericdondero on December 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM

That, too, Ed on forest management but it’s not forest management per se that’s causing the extra wildfire seeing it as a problem but the Wildand Urban Interface (WUI) or in this case a chaparral urban interface problems we see today. Although in Kalifornia you have houses upon houses built onto the foothills that are covered with chaparral plants containing highly flammable oil. Chaparral is a primary fuel of Southern California wildfires in the lower elevation parts and not “forest” per se.

And then you have these special interest environmental groups who actively go out and stop these forest or chaparral management efforts on thinning out these chaparral plants which are like gasoline sticks that surround these homes.

And Kalifornia worsen the WUI/CUI problem when a piece of land in the foothills is considerably cheaper than a plot of land at a lower elevation for those who want to build their new houses among the foothills filled with chaparral plants. A plant who is dependent on fire to revegatate and propagate.

And lastly, Ed, southern Kalifornia is known for their fierce Santa Ana winds and even with successful thinning management of chaparral, shrubs or other woody plants you will still see a wildfire occur. Dr. Jon Keeley, a USGS fire researcher who studies both southern California shrublands and Sierra Nevada forests said that, “Under Santa Ana conditions, fires carry through all chaparral regardless of age class. Therefore, prescribed burning programs over large areas to remove old stands and maintain young growth as bands of firebreaks resistant to ignition are futile at stopping these wildfires.”

It’s not just a management issue it’s a social and political issue gone awry and Arnie’s global warming blame for the increased wildfires is nothing but hot air between his ears.

Kokonut on December 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM

I go to college in California, and I can tell you that the state has spent their way into oblivion. Then again, the voters have some blame for that as they continue to vote for more spending. However, the state government has had extremely poor money management and they refuse to change. Arnold is greatly to blame since his family refuses to move to Sacramento he flies back and forth every day. First, that’s fiscally ridiculous. Secondly, I don’t think all those carbon emissions are helping the environment. *Sarcasm*

Wilberforce_chick on December 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

With a good enough Santa Ana, sometimes I think dirt would burn.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM

I go to college in California, and I can tell you that the state has spent their way into oblivion. Then again, the voters have some blame for that as they continue to vote for more spending. However, the state government has had extremely poor money management and they refuse to change. Arnold is greatly to blame since his family refuses to move to Sacramento he flies back and forth every day. First, that’s fiscally ridiculous. Secondly, I don’t think all those carbon emissions are helping the environment. *Sarcasm*

Wilberforce_chick on December 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

The problem is that the people who vote for the new spending, are not the guys paying the taxes.

No representation without taxation.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM

All I can say is thank god for the constitution.

Arnie is delusional. He has been the worst Gov in living memory. Yes, imagine that–he is actually worse than Gray Davis. Talk about someone blowing a mandate–a mandate that would have allowed him to change California. A change that had extreme political risk, a risk that he was too coward to take. Instead now we are left with a state that has increased in size and expenditures 40% in a short six years.

He needs to be run out of the state. I was hoping Obama was stupid enough to put him in his cabinet. As a bonus he is a global warming nut. Next year we will see all his ineptitude come to fruition as the state goes over its financial Niagara with a 41 billion projected deficit!

patrick neid on December 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Well doesn’t chaparral need fire to reproduce? Or at least some of these types of plants do.
Fire is normal for this type of ecosystem.
So you’re damned if you do-managing populations of these types of plants to minimize fire damage for residents, & you-re damned if you don’t-leave the stuff to build up & burn catastrophically & sterilize the area for future succession.
We could let the fires burn naturally & stop suppressing them, but then you’re damned again bcs multi-$$ home owners get pi$$ed when their backyards get scorched. It makes throwing a pool party a real bitch.
Environmentalists need to make up their minds-are humans important in the ecosystem? Or shall we all commit suicide so the birdies and such can live peacefully without us?
Environmentalists go first.

Badger40 on December 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I feel your pain. BUT-age brings something to the table that youth does not. Wisdom. And I’m not talking about wise 24 year olds (although clearly there are some).
Youth has a vigor & danger to it, no matter how mature the individual.
Youth will never have the wisdom of the old. You have to live it.
We are far more mellow & less trigger happy. We like to think things over first.

Badger40 on December 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Formerly from MN, now living in CA for last 4 years… I’d vote for Jesse Ventura before I would vote for Ahnuld.

jbh45 on December 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Do you want the best person to be president, or just someone who is adequate.

I’m not arguing that at the present time, or at any time, the best person is currently disqualified, but are you prepared to argue that the best person will always be US born?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM

By definition, from the Constitution, the best is US born. Any other definition is a subjective perspective by the individual deciding what qualifications, experiences and ‘other’ attributes make up ‘the best’.

Do you really want 300+ million visions of ‘the best’, or are you willing to take the word of those who are willing to go against the will of the people?

BTW, I’m not willing to accept anything other than what it in the Constitution. Yes, I’m saying that no matter what criteria YOU can come up with to identify ‘the best’, it wont suit me.

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:47 PM

MB4,

I’m still waiting for you to explain why you believe that arguing that one rule needs to be removed is equivalent to arguing that all rules need to be removed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Do you really want 300+ million visions of ‘the best’, or are you willing to take the word of those who are willing to go against the will of the people?

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:47 PM

We already live with 300 million visions of “the best”, every time we hold an election for president.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Since you are not required to present proof of birth, all he has to do is say, I wasn’t really born in Austria, I was born in California. Or if that doesn’t sell, how about, I’m married to a Kennedy so it is my birthright to be Pres.

Done That on December 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM

BTW, I’m not willing to accept anything other than what it in the Constitution. Yes, I’m saying that no matter what criteria YOU can come up with to identify ‘the best’, it wont suit me.

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:47 PM

So if the constitution changes, would it still be the criteria for judging best? If not, which version of the constitution constitutes the authentic declaration regarding best and not best?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM

He needs to be run out of the state. I was hoping Obama was stupid enough to put him in his cabinet. As a bonus he is a global warming nut. Next year we will see all his ineptitude come to fruition as the state goes over its financial Niagara with a 41 billion projected deficit!

patrick neid on December 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Patrick,

Don’t worry, be happy.

‘The One’ will make sure that the rest of the tax paying states make sure that your state gets bailed out, but I wonder if my state can get bailed out if we are bailing out all the other dysfunctional states?

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I hope Mark the Great and a few others take a pill or read the Constitution.

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Maybe both. Lets just elect Putin or Osama Bin Laden then the Europeans might tolerate us.

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM

So if the constitution changes, would it still be the criteria for judging best? If not, which version of the constitution constitutes the authentic declaration regarding best and not best?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM

I see you have trouble connecting the dots. I’ll help you.

If the Constitution changes, it means that the majority of states and the voters of those states think the change is correct. Then, by definition, the Constitution is correct.

Now, was that soooo hard to follow?

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Goodness knows how President Bush has made them hate us and Hugo Chavez might spare time to be our Leader. It would be so…inclusive!

Call the NYT!

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM

I’m still waiting for you to explain why you believe that arguing that one rule needs to be removed is equivalent to arguing that all rules need to be removed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM

You do not seem to have fully understood what I said and there is no need to remove that rule, none.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Mark,

The trouble with you and all the celebrity lovers is you can’t see past the reflection.

Actors are people who don’t have a clue who they are and are always trying to be someone else in a vain attempt to find themselves.

belad on December 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Maybe both. Lets just elect Putin or Osama Bin Laden then the Europeans might tolerate us.

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM

I only want Georgia and maybe Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. With all this Global Cooling the rest of your country will be a deep freeze like mother Russia.

PootyPoot on December 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I hope Mark the Great and a few others take a pill or read the Constitution.

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM

There’s something in the Constitution that declares that the Constitution can’t be changed? News to me.

Or could it be that IlikedAUH20 hasn’t bothered to read before responding.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:03 PM

I see you have trouble connecting the dots. I’ll help you.

If the Constitution changes, it means that the majority of states and the voters of those states think the change is correct. Then, by definition, the Constitution is correct.

Now, was that soooo hard to follow?

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Then why do you have so much trouble when I argue that the constitution should be changed?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Mark,

The trouble with you and all the celebrity lovers is you can’t see past the reflection.

Actors are people who don’t have a clue who they are and are always trying to be someone else in a vain attempt to find themselves.

belad on December 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM

belad, before I start calling you a dufus, maybe you should read back and see the three places where I quite specifically stated that I do not support Arnie for president.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM

You do not seem to have fully understood what I said and there is no need to remove that rule, none.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM

I already realized that you disagree with me. What I’m waiting for is for you to make a cogent argument regarding why you believe I am wrong.

You failed so miserably on your first attempt, that I’m not surprised that you are reluctant to enter that arena again.

Just declaring that I am wrong, may impress you, but it won’t get you far with people who know how to think for a living.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM

If the Constitution changes, it means that the majority of states and the voters of those states think the change is correct. Then, by definition, the Constitution is correct.

Now, was that soooo hard to follow?

belad on December 22, 2008 at 12:55 PM

belad- I agree,such as the basis for my argument. Three quarters to ratify (75%) or 33 states will have a serious argument that the United States has a need to change the constitution regarding the requirements for POTUS. These are aged 35, a natural born citizen and a residency requirement of 14 years.
Since the United States is replete with citizens who meet the constitutional requirements to be president, there is absolutely no reason to justify an amendment allowing foreigners to be president. IMHO.

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Once we get our amnesty and all move to the U.S. and have mucho ninos we will replace your constitution with one that says that no one born in what is now the United States can become el Presidente. Also only those who are fluent in Spanish will be eligible.

VinyFoxy on December 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Just declaring that I am wrong, may impress you, but it won’t get you far with people who know how to think for a living.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I spoke clearly. A child of five could understand what I said. Maybe you should go find a child of five to explain it to you rather than asking some dog.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Nope, I don’t want anyone who was not a non-american-born person in my whitehouse.

We already have enough of them in the Senate, Congress, State Governments already.

And WTF have they done for our Governments? Nada damn thing!

upinak on December 22, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Just declaring that I am wrong, may impress you, but it won’t get you far with people who know how to think for a living.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I know of many dead people who can think much more clearly than MB4.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Just declaring that you know of many dead people who can think more clearly than someone you disagree with may impress you, but it won’t get you far with people who know how to think for a living.

Don’t you even read what you write?

Frankly you are a self parody.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM

I spoke clearly. A child of five could understand what I said. Maybe you should go find a child of five to explain it to you rather than asking some dog.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Did I say you didn’t speak clearly? I stated that your arguments would fail in a kindergarten class.

You tried to imply that opposition to one rule is the equivalent to opposition to all rules.

That’s not a valid argument. I’m not surprised that you weren’t aware of this fact. As making coherent points has never been one of the skills you have demonstrated.

As I stated before, I’m still waiting for you to make an argument sufficiently strong that even those who have graduated from your kindergarten class would be proud of you.

I have stated why your previous argument is invalid. You have neither attempted to prove my characterizatio of your arguement wrong, nor have you come forward with any new arguments.

If you should care to do so, not only will I be most surprised, I will then deal with them in the spirit they are offered.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Arnold is clearly overcompensating for something.

My collie says:

Maybe because his wally wally shriveled up after all that steroid use — ya’ think?

Or it could just be that he married into the Kennedy clan.

My collie says:

Same difference.

CyberCipher on December 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to those of the human species. I know many cats and dogs and even a few crows who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to the living. I know of many dead people who can think much more clearly than MB4.

Hmm, so when I use the same form of argument that you use, I’m an idiot, but you aren’t.

And to think, I actually accussed you of not being able to form a coherent argument. (Just in case you missed it, the last bit was sarcasm. Given your demonstrated cognitive abilities, I wasn’t sure you would be able to catch it without help.)

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM

MB4,

I’m still waiting for you to explain why you believe that arguing that one rule needs to be removed is equivalent to arguing that all rules need to be removed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Since you insist on being terminally clueless, here’s the post where spelled out what is wrong with your argument.

I’m not surprised that you are pretending you didn’t see it.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Did I say you didn’t speak clearly? I stated that your arguments would fail in a kindergarten class.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Dead people? Dogs? Kindergarten class? What’s next? Dead dogs in a Kindergarten class?

As I said, you are a self parody, and becoming ever more so.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:34 PM

No. Absolutely not. The Governator has been a total disappointment to this Californian. He needs to go back to making movies and stay the hell away from politics.

ramrocks on December 22, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Since you insist on being terminally clueless

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Dead people, dogs, kindergarten and now with the “terminally clueless”. Beyond self parody. All you do is call names.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Still evading the question. Why am I not surprised?
And he dodges by throwing yet more insults.
Why am I not suprised.

When, like MB4, you are incapable of putting together a coherent thought or a cogent argument, descending first into invalid rhetorical techniques then into insult when caught is the best you can hope for.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM

MB4,

I’m still waiting for you to explain why you believe that arguing that one rule needs to be removed is equivalent to arguing that all rules need to be removed.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I never made that argument. That is just your oversimplification of what I said. I don’t think that any of the rules should be removed. In fact, maybe some more should be added.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:41 PM

I never made that argument. That is just your ovrsimplification of what I said. I don’t think that any of the rules should be removed. In fact, maybe some more should be added.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:41 PM

You did indeed make that argument.

You tried to claim that my wanting to get rid of one rule was the equivalent of wanting to get rid of a couple of silly rules that you made up on the spot.

One of these days you will learn to think. Unfortunately, today is not that day.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM

And he dodges by throwing yet more insults.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM

I have not been dodging anything and you are clearly the one who has been throwing insults and over and over again. Just go back and read some of what you wrote about dead people, dogs, kindergarten, “terminally clueless”, etc., etc. I think you are taking this self parody you are doing of yourself beyond the extreme. Are you trying to do some kind of new comedy routine? If I had wanted to be like you and throw insults at you I would have said something like, “Why don’t you get a brain and a clue?” or maybe, “You are dumber than I box of rocks”.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Yet another post in which he dodges the central challenge.

Again. Come up with an argument that is not logically flawed.

Your first attempt was fatally flawed, as I showed above.
You have never attempted to demonstrate that my characterization was wrong (screaming your wrong, is not an argument, just a temper tantrum), or come up with a new argument.

We both know that you won’t, because you can’t.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

You tried to claim that my wanting to get rid of one rule was the equivalent of wanting to get rid of a couple of silly rules that you made up on the spot.

You either don’t understand satire or you are paranoid, maybe well both.

One of these days you will learn to think. Unfortunately, today is not that day.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM

There you go again.
- Ronald Reagan

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Yet another post in which he dodges the central challenge.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

It’s not my problem that you can’t understand what someone says. Maybe if you spent more time with trying to master that and less time with all the name calling you would waste less of both our time.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM

It’s not my problem that you can’t understand what someone says. Maybe if you spent more time with trying to master that and less time with all the name calling you would waste less of both our time.

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Yet another evasion. 1st grade logic is apparently beyond you.

As I said multiple times before. I showed you what was wrong with your argument.

Having you repeatedly scream, you’re wrong, might impress your playground buddies, but it doesn’t impress anyone who knows how to think.

Try again.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM

When, like MB4, you are incapable of putting together a coherent thought or a cogent argument, blahblahblahblahblah
MrakTheGeart on December 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Mrak, you started this little dustup by saying you wanted to be able to judge a candidate for who he is.

We’re simply taking the same libery you insist on, and judging your qualifications by who you are.

Who you are is very evident from your fevered keyboard-banging.

Monkeys can read Nietcshe too, you know. The difference is the monkeys understand it.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:03 PM

MB4 on December 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

I understand satire. However I also understand that in order to be affective, good satire must have at least a marginal relationship to the topic at hand. It also must make sense in the context being used.

As always, you failed in all counts.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:03 PM

When I see you get upset by the language anyone else uses, your simpery little complaints will have an impact.

Until then, keep your one sided whines to yourself.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Until then, keep your one sided whines to yourself.

MrakTheGeart on December 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Dang, I feel like I’m ripping you off. Normally I have to pay for this kind of comedic value.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Arnie wants to step up to the Senate so that he can feel like he ‘belongs’ in the Kennedy clan. Given his RHINO reputation over the last 8 years…..AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN!

GarandFan on December 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM

DB,

I notice that you are not above flinging the occassional insult when it suits your needs and desires.

Yet you claim that my arguments are invalid because of my judicious use of the verbal flame.

So which is it. Are you declaring that your arguments are invalid? Or are you declaing that you are a flaming hypocrite?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM

DB,
Yet you claim that my arguments are invalid because of my judicious use of the verbal flame.

MrakTheGeart on December 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I’ve not addressed your arguments at all. I’ve made my judgment of who you are. I’m simply applying my judgment, as you advocate.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I’ve not addressed your arguments at all. I’ve made my judgment of who you are. I’m simply applying my judgment, as you advocate.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM

So if the fact that I have insulted people, tells you all you need to know about me,

What conclusions can I draw about you from the fact that you are also willing to insult those that you disagree with?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Here’s an idea. How about we change the Constitution to exclude liberal vampire scumbags from the political process altogether. Arnie, you are a groping accolade monger. Go back to the Anschluss and leave us to our freedom.

Western_Civ on December 22, 2008 at 2:43 PM

I think “The PresiNator” works better, Ed.

rvastar on December 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Mrak spppeeeekz: So if the fact that I have insulted people, tells you all you need to know about me,

Well, not everything. But an aweful lot.

Mrak sputterzz: What conclusions can I draw about you from the fact that you are also willing to insult those that you disagree with?

It’s insulting to you to point out that you’re insulting people? Goodness me.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM

The Austrian Oaf sucks as a Governor, Sucks as a “Republican” and he’d suck even worse as a President.

No thanks!

Keep the Constitution the way it is. No more Schwarzenegger!

thebronze on December 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM

It’s insulting to you to point out that you’re insulting people? Goodness me.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Along with integrity, I see that reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits.

I never said that it was insulting to point out that I have insulted people. I was just pointing out that if you declare that it is invalid for me to insult people, how can it in turn be valid for you to do so?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

The first time I voted for Arnold I was actually hopeful, the second time I voted for him it was only because I wanted to make sure my ballot wasn’t thrown out if I left that office blank. But next time he runs for anything I’ll vote for some third party or write someone in. I’ll never vote for him again. Leave the constitution alone, this man isn’t worth any changes. But then I don’t think it should be changed for anyone.

Rose on December 22, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I never said that it was insulting to point out that I have insulted people. I was just pointing out that if you declare that it is invalid for me to insult people, how can it in turn be valid for you to do so?

MrakTheGeart on December 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Mrak, Mrak, Mrak.. You want to judge candidates by who they are. That’s how it can be valid for me to judge who you are.

I don’t have to expend much effort insulting you. You’re doing a fine job on your own.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Mrak, Mrak, Mrak.. You want to judge candidates by who they are. That’s how it can be valid for me to judge who you are.

I don’t have to expend much effort insulting you. You’re doing a fine job on your own.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I have never objected to you using what ever critieria suits your fancy to judge me or anyone else. Your opinion of me does not bother me one way or the other. It’s not like you have ever done anything to convince me that your opinion is worth the electrons you used typing it.

I just have fun pointing out your inherent hypocricy, that you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge.

1) You only object to name calling when those you like engage are the victims of it. When those you like engage in it, you say nothing.

2) You object to name calling, yet you do it yourself.

Now I’m sure that your impenetrable sense of morality won’t be bothered by any of these contradictions, so go ahead and keep telling yourself how superior you are to others. It won’t bother me any. And neither do you.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM

I notice you have a great deal of fun mangling my login name. Yet you were upset when I did the same to Whacker.

I love it when the self righteous violate the standards they seek to impose on others.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM

“The fire season has been extended by climate change”?

-Washedup Musclehead

Which of the objects in this picture is more green?

labrat on December 22, 2008 at 3:13 PM

I notice you have a great deal of fun mangling my login name. Yet you were upset when I did the same to Whacker.

I love it when the self righteous violate the standards they seek to impose on others.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I judge that you are a petty bully with a puffed up ego. The only standard I am trying to impose on you is the one you yourself advocated: the right to judge people for who they are, above what societal rules require.

I didn’t mangle your login – you did when you designated yourself “great.” All I did was prick a little pin in that balloon-sized head of yours and watch you go sputtering around the room making a disgusting noise before landing limply in a corner like a soiled prophylactic.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM

I judge that you are a petty bully with a puffed up ego. The only standard I am trying to impose on you is the one you yourself advocated: the right to judge people for who they are, above what societal rules require.

I didn’t mangle your login – you did when you designated yourself “great.” All I did was prick a little pin in that balloon-sized head of yours and watch you go sputtering around the room making a disgusting noise before landing limply in a corner like a soiled prophylactic.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Tsk, tsk, for someone who demands that others play nice, you aren’t very nice yourself.

I don’t see you imposing any standards on me, just like it is impossible for me to impose any standards on you.

That you get upset when I’m less than nice to your friends is quite obvious. From that you make all kinds of ill informed psychological determinations.

Good for you. You know a couple of big words. Next time tell them to your mother, and maybe you’ll get a couple of cookies for being so clever.

Finally, I’m not the one demanding that everyone else live up to a certain standard.
Nor am I the one who demands that others live up to standards that I don’t live up to myself. I leave that to the terminally self-righteous, such as yourself.

If you enjoy being a nag, go ahead. It’s a free country.
Meanwhile, don’t expect to earn any respect.

If you want to believe that your amusing little tirades have deflated my ego, or bothered me in any way, go right ahead. You have demonstrated a solid lack of contact with any other form of reality, so why should this further demonstration bother me any.

I love it when the self righteous give themselves big egos.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 3:31 PM

MraktheGeart spent 15 lines telling us he’s not bothered, then

Finally, I’m not the one demanding that everyone else live up to a certain standard.

I’m not demanding anything of anyone. You started out by saying people should be judged by who they are. I’ve tried, for demonstration purposes, to give a taste of being judged by others and it’s had you wriggling like a worm on a hot griddle.

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Bozo the Clown would be a better Gov. for the late, great state of Ca.
I’m from Ca. and voted for a conservative on the recall election. I moved away 5 yrs ago, I look at it as they get what they deserve.

Mercy4Me on December 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM

The problem with Arnold is that he talks a good game but governs with an absolute total ignorance or inability to follow through with his ‘tough decisions.’ The Dems, while at first reluctant, have come around to like Arnold. They know they can roll him. Let Arnold puff his chest out and then roll him when his proposals come to Sacramento.

Who really thinks State employees are going to have to take 2 pay-free days of vacation per month, as Arnold proposes?

grdred944 on December 22, 2008 at 3:58 PM

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM

and

The same objections regarding loyalty and conflicts due to families living elsewhere can be made regarding them?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Mark,
I got your point; however it is a logical red herring, for several reasons, not the least of which being that a qualifying criterion is not a judgment. i.e. it is not a judgment to place qualifying criteria on the ability to procure a drivers license, or security clearance.

Secondly, your argument is predicated upon familial loyalties being the same regardless of an infant being born on US soil or foreign soil. The issue isn’t familial loyalties; the issue is to what country patriotic emotions lie. (Defining patriotism as love of one’s country)

Now while your statement about an infant feeling loyalty to families in other countries regardless of birth location is true, the loyalty to country is not, by definition, tied to family. Your argument is also tied to having an equal likelihood of all these newborn immigrants and newborn natural born citizens of being president. This is patently false, as only a small number of people have the leadership qualities to be president, regardless of birth status.

However, there is one circumstance where you may have hit upon. I believe the more likely candidate would be a newborn immigrant from an affluent family, who had the financial resources to progress down the path towards a career leading towards the presidency. This affluence would also make trips between countries much more likely during formative years, reducing the allegiance for a single country.

This is the kind of immigrant that the founding fathers had in mind and wanted to preclude when they wrote the criterion of natural born citizen. Not the poor immigrant from somewhere like Costa Rica, who happened to come as an infant with their parents, who grew up never (or very rarely) seeing or feeling tied to a foreign country.

The immigrants that you are presenting as being excluded by judgment only have a theoretical chance of being president. The constitution was written to protect the freedoms of the people and integrity of the nation. How would changing the natural born qualification reach the level of justifiable or sensible? At its core, your argument is no different from wishing to remove the right to bear arms just for the expediency of changing a clause in a “document written for a different era”.

It and everything else in the constitution is there for a well thought out reason. Times may have changed, but people haven’t. What is the real harm done to the country by refusing to alter the criterion and holding onto the freedoms already contained in the document?

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3