Here is a thought..... What if Arnie is the Anti-Christ???
Think about it.... Nutty Christians talk about an evil rise to power out of nowhere something about the revived roman empire. Arnie is from Austria hmmmmm What if he starts in America and then causes the "End of the World" hence the name "TERMINATOR" hmmmmmm sort of makes you think.
LOL!!!!!!!!! had to share....
Quote:
If you're not born in America, then you cannot take the office of the president.
Witch 'company' ? His own personal business defending his own private interests ? (This is 15 people at max...)
Why can't he become president...? Reagan did it...
I take it that you concede the point that you know almost nothing about what your talking about. Take a break from posting and go read up the future governor.
As a Californian I must put in my two-cents on this, although everything that I am saying has probably already been said. First of all: how is it that a state can take itself seriously and have supermodels, bodybuilders, and dogs running for governor?! Am I missing something here? I really wish that people had taken this election seriously, and I have the feeling that he won because a number of Californians found voting for Conan the Barbarian for their governor to be amusing. Sigh... am I just being cranky about my state's future? I don't know... I just wish that an election for a state office was treated as more than just a celebrity parade.
I wonder how many Californians (and other Americans) are aware how much coverage this whole thing has had overseas? What do you think having Arnold elected will do for the image of U.S. abroad? Plenty of people (rightly or wrongly) already buy into the 'US politicians are just populist puppets' theory.
I wonder how many Californians (and other Americans) are aware how much coverage this whole thing has had overseas?
I think I am. I'm not sure why they care so much. Maybe just because they know Arnold so well and he did dump Europe for the US?
Quote:
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
What do you think having Arnold elected will do for the image of U.S. abroad?
THIS notion gets me going. I don't care one ****ing bit what it will do for our image. IMO other countries have their nose stuck into US politics where it doesn't belong. Europe wont be happy until the right to vote is revoked and the President is an EU appointment.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
Plenty of people (rightly or wrongly) already buy into the 'US politicians are just populist puppets' theory.
Well when you point the finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. Try to convince me that Chirac and Khol don't play to their base, play them for fools maybe?
THIS notion gets me going. I don't care one ****ing bit what it will do for our image. IMO other countries have their nose stuck into US politics where it doesn't belong. Europe wont be happy until the right to vote is revoked and the President is an EU appointment.
I know americans think their country is the center of the world, but I can assure you we have MUCH better things to do than wiping your butts or appointing your presidents.
I know that it does not matter what us "foreigners", think (heck, your President recently speculated about a time when none of us foreigners will exist anymore - that only the U.S. will be left - and seemed to think that was OK, because, in his words ?we are American'), but I will put in my two-cents anyway:
This is an embarrassment for California and the United States.
And I say that in non-partisan terms in terms of liberal vs. conservative. Actually, I think that Arnold - if he is anything - is not likely to be all that conservative. My problem is that he does not appear have been elected because he is anything. He was elected because he was a celebrity. If a bigger celebrity had been running, that celebrity would have been elected.
Of course, Schwarzenegger is not the only embarrassment as a political leader. Think of Berlesconi in Italy?an even bigger embarrassment. And while this is embarrassing, there are worse things than embarrassment and I presume that Schwarzenegger will be surrounded by advisors who can help him.
The good thing with that election, is that 80 % of the world know the name of an US governor.
Frankly Arnold is the only US governor i know
I heard an interesting comment about this election from a french politician (althought i am not one of his fan) : we should not laugh because they elect actors, we we elect Enarques (technocrats)
If you're not born in America, then you cannot take the office of the president
And....... Orin Hatch proposes constitutional amendment to allow foreign born citizens who have lived in the US at least twenty years to run for president.....
Now explain it to me again. Why is Arnie qualified? It certainly can't be his policies and postitions, cause he has none outside of bromides about "government for the people", and repealing the car tax. Oh, and some patent nonsense about balancing the budget without tax increases by eliminating "waste". Can't be his formative years in the trenches of the Republican, or any, political party. Or any politics at all, aside from some feel good after-school program stuff. Demonstrated skills at negotiating the complex, partisan waters of California's legislative thicket? No? Maybe some kind of leadership experince? Anything?
So I guess we're left with the notion that anybody with enough name recognition and "charisma" and personal fortune to win an election is simply defacto "qualified". This apparently because of the endless right-wing caveat that government in general is such a swamp of venality, corruption and unwarrented intrusiveness that the unexperienced are actually the best candidate for the job. But who does this notion serve?
Having exploited (and encouraged) public disgust with "politicians", conservative forces in California were able to get term limits for legislators passed. Since then, there has been growing alarm in Sacramento about the ever increasing clout of lobbyists. Why? Amazingly enough, it turns out that being an effective representitive is a
skill, and by insuring that we routinely turn out anybody that might be amassing skills, we leave the levers of power in the hands of the professionals; i.e. the "permanent government" of paid lobbyists, corporate influence peddlers, well funded interest groups and there ilk.
If it was just "people" and "government" in relationship to one another the idea of the "citizen legislator" might make sense, but it's just a fact that there is another player, a player with enough resources, manpower, and steely determination to run rough-shod over all but most adept politician-- the kind of politician who knows how to build strategic alliences, knows the ins and outs of legislative process, knows when to cut a deal and when stand firm.
So who does a Schwarzenegger administration serve? How will he know when he's getting good advice? What possible experience can he draw on to solve, much less understand, the deep structural problems facing California? How can he hope to craft and shepard legislation through our divided state capital? And if he can't, who will? The people with access to power, with off-the-shelf turn-key "solutions" all shined up and ready to go, who know which buttons to press and which numbers to call to "get things done". Without a coherent political philosophy and skill set of his own, who does novice rely on? That's really the question, isn't it?
By the way, "Davis was experienced and look at how he botched the job" is no arguement against my idea here. Every profession had better and worse practitioners. Does the existence of bad doctors make you comfortable with seeing a guy with a needle and a can-do attitude but no medical degree?
Well, remember the 2000 election -- the controversy in Florida and the miscounting of ballots, the intimidation of minority voters, etc.? Well, Jeb Bush was and still is the governor of that state. He also happens to be George W. Bush's brother.
Ah yes, perhaps, but you know, one Bush is enough for me ...
Term limits are a good thing. Frankly, 2 terms is too much. Politicians need to stop voting based on their reelection and instead do what they think is right.
This is not entirely true. It is also the type of character he portrays, and his macho save the world take no bullshit image that are important. As well as the fact that he's married to a Kennedy. And the fact that he was obviously moderate. If Tom Cruise or Leo DiCaprio ran against Arnold (it is hard to find a bigger celebrity than him, isn't it?) then they would definitely have lost. Arnold's macho image clinched the vote for the celebrity chasers and the frat boys.
Good points. It is true enough that celebrity was not the only factor, and I will admit that I was being a bit simplistic in my previous post.
I do think, however, that celebrity was the biggest factor. And the fact that it was a particular type of "macho" celebrity does not make it better in my eyes. I am still in a state of shock and awe over the fact that Arnold is governor.
And no, I don't think that the U.S. is the only country that worships celebrity in their political decision-making. I think that the Berlesconi example in Italy is even worse - while not an actor, he certainly was a celebrity businessman/media mogul/unindicted criminal before he was elected.
Finally, I do like to think that Tom Cruise, or at least Tom Hanks - one of the "Tom's" anyhow - could have taken Arnold if one of them had chosen to run....not that they necessarily would be any better choices
Term limits are a good thing. Frankly, 2 terms is too much. Politicians need to stop voting based on their reelection and instead do what they think is right.
Again, "doing what is right" involves more than just voting yea or nay--somebody has to have the skills to craft an agenda, evolve legislation, build constituencies, etc. Those things require more than a clear heart and a simple mind....
By the way, if your going to reduce my arguments to "I hate term limits" you might want to lay off the quote button....
Now explain it to me again. Why is Arnie qualified?
Although I agree that most people probably voted for Arnold due to his celebrity, his background IMHO more than qualifies him to be Governor. After coming to the U.S. without much money, he invested his bodybuilding prize winnings in real estate and his own weightlifting equipment business. He was so successful that he became a millionaire in his 20's, before he became an actor. He also has an incredible will to succeed. He wasn't supposed to become such a great bodybuilder. Nobody believed that a foreigner with a thick accent could become a successful movie star. Arnold is not just another empty-headed musclehead.
Sorry, I don't get how "an incredible will to succeed" is a qualification for holding office. Setting and achieving personal goals is quite a different matter from having the chops to run the sixth largest economy in the world.
Sorry, I don't get how "an incredible will to succeed" is a qualification for holding office. Setting and achieving personal goals is quite a different matter from having the chops to run the sixth largest economy in the world.
This isn't his first exercise in politics, mind you.
And no, I wouldn't put any faith into an M.D. who just happens to kill all his patients. I'd be more willing to put my life into the hands of the greenthumb who has several experienced veterans looking over his shoulder.
Comments
Here is a thought..... What if Arnie is the Anti-Christ???
Think about it.... Nutty Christians talk about an evil rise to power out of nowhere something about the revived roman empire. Arnie is from Austria hmmmmm What if he starts in America and then causes the "End of the World" hence the name "TERMINATOR" hmmmmmm sort of makes you think.
LOL!!!!!!!!! had to share....
If you're not born in America, then you cannot take the office of the president.
...Didn't know... Feel better ;-)
Originally posted by zounic
Witch 'company' ? His own personal business defending his own private interests ? (This is 15 people at max...)
Why can't he become president...? Reagan did it...
I take it that you concede the point that you know almost nothing about what your talking about. Take a break from posting and go read up the future governor.
/rant off
Ahh... I feel much better after that
Originally posted by Nebulous
Sigh... am I just being cranky about my state's future?
You should be ecstatic The Graymeister just got the boot.
All I should need to say about Gray and his money wasting practices...
Oracle. 8i. Server. Licenses. For. Every. State. Employee. W. T. F!!!
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
I wonder how many Californians (and other Americans) are aware how much coverage this whole thing has had overseas?
I think I am. I'm not sure why they care so much. Maybe just because they know Arnold so well and he did dump Europe for the US?
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
What do you think having Arnold elected will do for the image of U.S. abroad?
THIS notion gets me going. I don't care one ****ing bit what it will do for our image. IMO other countries have their nose stuck into US politics where it doesn't belong. Europe wont be happy until the right to vote is revoked and the President is an EU appointment.
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
Plenty of people (rightly or wrongly) already buy into the 'US politicians are just populist puppets' theory.
Well when you point the finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. Try to convince me that Chirac and Khol don't play to their base, play them for fools maybe?
Originally posted by Scott
THIS notion gets me going. I don't care one ****ing bit what it will do for our image. IMO other countries have their nose stuck into US politics where it doesn't belong. Europe wont be happy until the right to vote is revoked and the President is an EU appointment.
I know americans think their country is the center of the world, but I can assure you we have MUCH better things to do than wiping your butts or appointing your presidents.
Get. A. Clue.
This is an embarrassment for California and the United States.
And I say that in non-partisan terms in terms of liberal vs. conservative. Actually, I think that Arnold - if he is anything - is not likely to be all that conservative. My problem is that he does not appear have been elected because he is anything. He was elected because he was a celebrity. If a bigger celebrity had been running, that celebrity would have been elected.
Of course, Schwarzenegger is not the only embarrassment as a political leader. Think of Berlesconi in Italy?an even bigger embarrassment. And while this is embarrassing, there are worse things than embarrassment and I presume that Schwarzenegger will be surrounded by advisors who can help him.
Frankly Arnold is the only US governor i know
I heard an interesting comment about this election from a french politician (althought i am not one of his fan) : we should not laugh because they elect actors, we we elect Enarques (technocrats)
If you're not born in America, then you cannot take the office of the president
And....... Orin Hatch proposes constitutional amendment to allow foreign born citizens who have lived in the US at least twenty years to run for president.....
Originally posted by tonton
Surely you've heard of Jeb Bush?
In fact no. Sorry to disapoint you.
So I guess we're left with the notion that anybody with enough name recognition and "charisma" and personal fortune to win an election is simply defacto "qualified". This apparently because of the endless right-wing caveat that government in general is such a swamp of venality, corruption and unwarrented intrusiveness that the unexperienced are actually the best candidate for the job. But who does this notion serve?
Having exploited (and encouraged) public disgust with "politicians", conservative forces in California were able to get term limits for legislators passed. Since then, there has been growing alarm in Sacramento about the ever increasing clout of lobbyists. Why? Amazingly enough, it turns out that being an effective representitive is a
skill, and by insuring that we routinely turn out anybody that might be amassing skills, we leave the levers of power in the hands of the professionals; i.e. the "permanent government" of paid lobbyists, corporate influence peddlers, well funded interest groups and there ilk.
If it was just "people" and "government" in relationship to one another the idea of the "citizen legislator" might make sense, but it's just a fact that there is another player, a player with enough resources, manpower, and steely determination to run rough-shod over all but most adept politician-- the kind of politician who knows how to build strategic alliences, knows the ins and outs of legislative process, knows when to cut a deal and when stand firm.
So who does a Schwarzenegger administration serve? How will he know when he's getting good advice? What possible experience can he draw on to solve, much less understand, the deep structural problems facing California? How can he hope to craft and shepard legislation through our divided state capital? And if he can't, who will? The people with access to power, with off-the-shelf turn-key "solutions" all shined up and ready to go, who know which buttons to press and which numbers to call to "get things done". Without a coherent political philosophy and skill set of his own, who does novice rely on? That's really the question, isn't it?
By the way, "Davis was experienced and look at how he botched the job" is no arguement against my idea here. Every profession had better and worse practitioners. Does the existence of bad doctors make you comfortable with seeing a guy with a needle and a can-do attitude but no medical degree?
Originally posted by tonton
Well, remember the 2000 election -- the controversy in Florida and the miscounting of ballots, the intimidation of minority voters, etc.? Well, Jeb Bush was and still is the governor of that state. He also happens to be George W. Bush's brother.
Ah yes, perhaps, but you know, one Bush is enough for me ...
Originally posted by addabox
I hate term limits.
Term limits are a good thing. Frankly, 2 terms is too much. Politicians need to stop voting based on their reelection and instead do what they think is right.
Originally posted by tonton
This is not entirely true. It is also the type of character he portrays, and his macho save the world take no bullshit image that are important. As well as the fact that he's married to a Kennedy. And the fact that he was obviously moderate. If Tom Cruise or Leo DiCaprio ran against Arnold (it is hard to find a bigger celebrity than him, isn't it?) then they would definitely have lost. Arnold's macho image clinched the vote for the celebrity chasers and the frat boys.
Good points. It is true enough that celebrity was not the only factor, and I will admit that I was being a bit simplistic in my previous post.
I do think, however, that celebrity was the biggest factor. And the fact that it was a particular type of "macho" celebrity does not make it better in my eyes. I am still in a state of shock and awe over the fact that Arnold is governor.
And no, I don't think that the U.S. is the only country that worships celebrity in their political decision-making. I think that the Berlesconi example in Italy is even worse - while not an actor, he certainly was a celebrity businessman/media mogul/unindicted criminal before he was elected.
Finally, I do like to think that Tom Cruise, or at least Tom Hanks - one of the "Tom's" anyhow - could have taken Arnold if one of them had chosen to run....not that they necessarily would be any better choices
Term limits are a good thing. Frankly, 2 terms is too much. Politicians need to stop voting based on their reelection and instead do what they think is right.
Again, "doing what is right" involves more than just voting yea or nay--somebody has to have the skills to craft an agenda, evolve legislation, build constituencies, etc. Those things require more than a clear heart and a simple mind....
By the way, if your going to reduce my arguments to "I hate term limits" you might want to lay off the quote button....
Originally posted by addabox
Now explain it to me again. Why is Arnie qualified?
Although I agree that most people probably voted for Arnold due to his celebrity, his background IMHO more than qualifies him to be Governor. After coming to the U.S. without much money, he invested his bodybuilding prize winnings in real estate and his own weightlifting equipment business. He was so successful that he became a millionaire in his 20's, before he became an actor. He also has an incredible will to succeed. He wasn't supposed to become such a great bodybuilder. Nobody believed that a foreigner with a thick accent could become a successful movie star. Arnold is not just another empty-headed musclehead.
Originally posted by addabox
Sorry, I don't get how "an incredible will to succeed" is a qualification for holding office. Setting and achieving personal goals is quite a different matter from having the chops to run the sixth largest economy in the world.
This isn't his first exercise in politics, mind you.
And no, I wouldn't put any faith into an M.D. who just happens to kill all his patients. I'd be more willing to put my life into the hands of the greenthumb who has several experienced veterans looking over his shoulder.