Ladies and Girlie men

Arnold, thanks for explaining. It's nice to know you have some "girlie" qualities. However, it still seems to be a case of "open mouth, insert foot"!!

....on further thought, let me amend that
to "open mouth, change feet"!

Was it Arnie who said,

Uncle Teddy's wife said she will never kiss a man who's lips touch alcohol, that is when Teddy started drinking with a straw.


My position on this issue

1. It is not discrimination that only natural born citizens can become President.

2. It is very unlikely that the constitution will be changed to allow any non-natural born person from running for president in a very long time.

3. If there is consideration for a change there should be a minimum residency requirement of at least 30 years.



Girlie Men is no more of an insult then to call the pet Catly Dog, can you think how my dog thinks when I call him a cat.

girly men are those democrats who were affronted along with the republicans that were affront by Janet Jackson's nipple.

"Don't be economic girly men!"
Arnold proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that a girly man, he's not!

What does that mean? (Didn't watch tonight.)

Ahnold was taking a shot at the Dems who constantly talk down the economy....calling on them to not be economic girly men.

The remark brought the house down.

When he said that at the convention tonight; I'm pretty sure he just wanted to work it in to show that he could and that he could get away with it. Diehard Dems should be grateful the law prevents him from becoming President. The way California seems to be shaping up (which is of course a very Democratic State and the one with the most electoral votes to boot), he'd win in a landslide against someone like Kerry. He's as likeable as Kerry isn't. I, for one, will not be surprised if that law is eventually changed to accommodate him.

Oh, gawd.

wonder if there is a emotion thing for disgust?

Don't bet any real money on a constitutional amendment to allow the Governator into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--you'd never get three-fifths of the states to ratify that with that pea-wit in mind . . .

TOMMY? TOMMY SMOTHERS? IS THAT YOU?

MOM ALWAYS LIKED YOU BEST.

DICKIE

TOMMY? TOMMY SMOTHERS? IS THAT YOU?

MOM ALWAYS LIKED YOU BEST.

DICKIE

Aaah - debate on A2k in full flower, as the far right shows the full extent of its searching analysis, trenchant grasp of the facts, and stunning skills in argument.




Hmm - well, yes - they probably, given their abilities, do better with stupid pictures....

D, that's the worst argument I've heard you make, ever. I've seen the mother load of comical pictures from both camps and some of them are pretty funny (from both camps).

IMO, "Debate on A2K" is better than any other place I've ever seen, and both sides do a pretty damn good job of arguing their points. Some better than others but such is life.

I see little separation quality-wise between swolf's post and your own. Neither address any issue whatsoever, but at least his made me chuckle.

I see - you think insulting the "manliness" of folk who disagree with you is good debate, do you?

Well, then, we shall agree to disagree.

And - you have misunderstood - I was not panning debate on A2k, this was irony again, and a comment only on Swolf's - and some of the other far right folk's - level of debate by contrasting it to the general level....

I make no complaint about humour generally - it can indeed be trenchant and witty comment.

This is sheer crap.

Edit: Actually, Occom, you are always finding the worst arguments you have ever seen me make - perhaps you need to make a collection? Actually - I AM ashamed of having been moved to stoop to those pathetic rolling eyes emoticons - they are a pet hate of mine.

I note we are almost back to fighting about the original topic of this thread. As it happens, I would be equally disgusted by the far left using such stupid tactics - there is no wit in it, as there is in good political humour. It is like playground taunts.

I hate to see you defend such stuff cos I think you capable of better - I hate to see swolf do it because he does this level of stuff so often.

C'est la vie.

I'm not sure that's so, Set. Given sufficient organization at the state level, and given some time to work up the necessary PR campaign, and given a figure with his "stature", I suspect it is very possible. Altering the constitution merely to gain electoral advantage is, as you know, entirely acceptable to the present RNC and party (or at least, enough of the party).

But that push would have to be well co-ordinated and financed, which means broad support across the Republican machine, and I think that is the greater problem to his ambition.

On the one hand, he's rather ideal...a high-profile celebrity actor with a square jaw whose roles run parallel with heroic mythology (thus, with American mythology) such that many people (granted, really really stupid people) consider that he actually is heroic, as opposed to a serial tit-grabber. His lack of education is more boon than bane given the anti-intellectual tenor of all those who would vote for him on the above basis (as with Reagan, as with Bush). These are huge pluses which the RNC will not ignore in considering who to forward as leader/figurehead/vote getter several years hence.

But he is probably not controllable (eg McCain...although even he has come a breath from selling his soul yesterday), and he's pro-choice. So, given those, he is absolutely dead in the water.

Don't knoiw if anybody else was watching last night, but Arnold just buried the demmunist party for the forseeable future. They're going to be replaying parts of that speech for a long time.

Neat speech. Basically said he flew in from Austria where he'd just spent the first 20 years of his life in time to catch some of the Nixon/Humphrey debates, and the one guy (Nixon) was talking about human potential and possibilities and the other (the "happy warrior") was talking about communism which he (Arnold) had just had a 20-year look at and didn't need to see any more of.

Easy choice.

As if you weren't lucky duckies enough, now those of you who are unemployed, underemployed, stuck at a job you hate because there are no alternatives -- you are "girly men".

If you have no health insurance, no benefits, no overtime pay, and have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet -- you are "girly men".

If you aren't a rich oil baron or a CEO, you are a girly man.

If you aren't a rich movie star, you are a girly man.

Suck it up, you struggling middle-class pussies.

Mr. Mountie, you do not sufficiently grasp the necessary process for amending the constitution. I erred in suggesting that it would require three-fifths of the states to ratify, which would be 60%. In fact, it would require three-fourths--75%. Article V of the constitution, in its entirety, reads:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Even getting two thirds of the Congress behind such an amendment would be difficult. The Republicans do not have that kind of majority in the House, and barely have a majority in the Senate. Additionally, proposed amendments in the last century or so have always had a term set to the ratification--a wonderful political expedient which allows the dubious legislator to shrug and say: "Well, we tried." The Equal Rights Amendment was killed with exactly that expedient. The most recently ratified amendment, the XXVIIth, was proposed in September, 1789, and ratified in May, 1992, because no term had been set to the amendments proposed in the First Congress--it was the second amendment proposed to the constitution, but it was not ratified for more than two hundred years, and so became the XXVIIth amendment. No pol in the Congress today will ever leave such a loose end laying around.

I may be wrong, but i doubt it--there will never likely be a sufficient number of people charmed by the Gropinator to urge such a drastic move on the Congress and the legislatures of the several states.