Most excellent move from Ahnold

[Dartful Dodger]

One problem with the spiffy little speech shmokes gave:

You found only one problem?  You must be retarded.

[DrewKaree]

Haven't you ever told someone that Michael Moore is retarded, or fat, or dumb, or unethical? 

Your commas cause me to read that as using one of those at a time.  If I can use all those and a few others, I can subscribe to your loony theory.  Oh, and I'd like to reserve the right to use them on MrC too.  And ghey.  DEFINITELY have to be able to call MrC ghey.  All the kewl kids are doing it.

[ChadTower]

I protest his use of the word "or".

[nostrebor]

...  I hope to run for political office... 

When you run for office, a sure method to guarantee victory is to announce that you were the sole creator of the internet. This will prove your superior intellect, and will inspire the geeks to get out the vote.

Of course, actually having invented the internet is not required.

YMMV

[ChadTower]

He has already mastered the ability to gain orifice.

[shmokes]

...  I hope to run for political office... 

When you run for office, a sure method to guarantee victory is to announce that you were the sole creator of the internet.

Gore lost.

[markrvp]

Gore lost.

Who did he lose to?





Ah, come on . . . you know you want to say his name.

[shmokes]

Bush.

[JackTucky]

He said bush!

Shmokes is going to be a lawyer and hopes to run for political office?

No wonder he don't got no brains.

My goals were to win a chug a lug contest and own a hotdog contest.  I've done one of those.  The one I really meant. 

But I didn't sell my soul to keep the voters happy.  I thinks it's pretty hard to keep your conscience, and public office, but what do I know?  Bush lied.

Art

[missioncontrol]

I thought the retarded game was over...... Chad you still playing?

[ChadTower]

No, who won?

[Grasshopper]

One problem with the spiffy little speech shmokes gave:

He wasn't there when the country was founded. 

He wasn't there to say "sure, there is danger that the Brits could just send someone over here to try and be King, but what the hell, someday we may want that."

I'm struggling to understand your logic. The point Shmokes made would have been just as valid in 1776.

You seem to be saying that the people who drew up the Constitution essentially rigged the system to reduce the likelihood of an anti-revolution candidate getting to be president, even if the voters wanted such a candidate. You're probably right. But surely that strengthens the case for getting the constitution changed.

[ChadTower]

They "rigged the system" so that only an American could lead America.  That is what they wanted and that is what they got.

The point Shmokes made would have gotten him thrown from the room in 1776.  They had just fought a bloody war to gain their freedom and wanted to ensure that they kept it.

This is an outdated concept, sure, but it made perfect sense when implemented.

[versapak]

One problem with the spiffy little speech shmokes gave:

He wasn't there when the country was founded.

He wasn't there to say "sure, there is danger that the Brits could just send someone over here to try and be King, but what the hell, someday we may want that."

Interesting...

I wasn't aware of that. I thought surely he was there, but oh well. You were there right?

I mean... At least we can have your first hand take on these matters.


Is this a case of Stick + (!) syndrome?


We have communists living in this country that have the right to run for president.
We have terrorists in this country that have the right to run for president.

Society changes, and so do the laws that govern them.

Don't like it... Do something about it.

Didn't think so.

[versapak]

They "rigged the system" so that only an American could lead America. That is what they wanted and that is what they got.

The point Shmokes made would have gotten him thrown from the room in 1776. They had just fought a bloody war to gain their freedom and wanted to ensure that they kept it.

This is an outdated concept, sure, but it made perfect sense when implemented.

He never said otherwise.

[ChadTower]

Society changes, and so do the laws that govern them.

Don't like it... Do something about it.

Didn't think so.

Exactly.  This law does not bother me, thus I will do nothing to change it.

He never said otherwise.

Am I misremembering that he called it retarded?

[JackTucky]

We have communists living in this country that have the right to run for president.

They can also post on message boards.

Art

[versapak]

Am I misremembering that he called it retarded?

He called it retarded in the present day.

I don't believe he stated anything about its origin.

This is an outdated concept, sure, but it made perfect sense when implemented.

Outdated?

What are you talking about?

You just told us why it was put there. It can't be outdated. It can't be retarded. Our founding fathers had a reason for putting it there. That is the end of it.

[Grasshopper]

They "rigged the system" so that only an American could lead America.  That is what they wanted and that is what they got.

The point Shmokes made would have gotten him thrown from the room in 1776.  They had just fought a bloody war to gain their freedom and wanted to ensure that they kept it.

This is an outdated concept, sure, but it made perfect sense when implemented.

You're missing my point. And who precisely is "they" in this instance? The leaders of the revolution or the ordinary American citizens?

The only people who should decide who gets to be president are ordinary citizens through a fair electoral system. Are you suggesting the people who lead the revolution secretly didn't believe in democracy and were afraid of the outcome of a fair vote?

I don't think the bar on a foreign-born citizen running for president was ever justified, not even in the aftermath of the revolution.

[Grasshopper]

Anyway, getting back to the original article, it's hard to see what the author's beef with the Austrians actually is. He accuses them of "gesture politics" but what precisely were they supposed to do? Invade California? Spring Tookie Williams from Jail?

Since when is an opinion valid only if it can be backed up by force?

The only thing the Austrians could to was to attempt to embarrass Schwarzenegger, and whether or not they succeeded, they certainly got his attention, and a lot of free publicity for the cause they were promoting.

[ChadTower]

Since we are getting so semantic here, may as well point out that no one called their opinion invalid.

We called it stupid.  I will further say that it drips with retarditty.

[JackTucky]

I will further say that it drips with retarditty.

He almost said "titty"

Art

[versapak]

Since we are getting so semantic here, may as well point out that no one called their opinion invalid.

We called it stupid. I will further say that it drips with retarditty.

Since we are talking semantics...

I am pretty sure the only "we" involved with your opinion of his opinion, was you.

[ChadTower]

His?  I said "their", which would mean the Austrians, and that opinion has been echoed multiple times in this thread.

[versapak]

His? I said "their", which would mean the Austrians, and that opinion has been echoed multiple times in this thread.

Yes...

Yes, you are correct.


I shall now go back to my little corner, and wallow in the retarded retardedness that is my own retardedity.

[shmokes]

Chad, you may not disagree with this law, but I highly doubt you agree with everything in the Constitution, if you have actually read it.  I hope, for example, that you don't believe that black people should be counted as 3/5 of a person.  But even if you do believe that then certainly, by default, you must not agree with the 13th and 14th amendments or at least part of them.  The problem you run into when you get all holier-than-thou about the Constitution is that your position is untenable.  The existence of Amendments that render other parts of the Constitution obsolete/invalid/moot forces you to disagree with and admit faults in one part of the document or another.

Additionally, I think you have a romantic, but inaccurate idea of what the Constitutional Convention was like.  I wouldn't have been tossed out of the room for disagreeing on that point.  There was a lot of heated contention and bickering about all kinds of different points.  More than one constitution was drafted.  The version that you are familiar with just barely passed.  It wasn't 55 like-minded individuals getting together and altruistically working together for the good of mankind.  It was 55 guys in different circumstances and all of them were trying to get the best deal for themselves or their particular state.  After a lot of comprimising the final product of the convention turned out to be very good on the whole, but far from perfect.

[ChadTower]

I may not disagree with this post, but I also highly doubt that I agree with everything shmokes has ever posted, if I have actually read them.

For future reference, I stopped reading his post at that point.  I would rather go get some soup.

[nostrebor]

After the initial semi-subtle slam, this particular post was more thoughtful and useful than the average Schmokes post. I'll give it an 8 out of 10.

What kind of soup are we having?

[ChadTower]

Eh, I went and looked but it was vegetable or a couple of different cheese based soups.

Vegetables aren't food and I'm lactose intolerant, so I got a PB+J sandwich and some chips.

I'll have to have some ham soup for dinner.

[Zakk]

His?

[sirwoogie]

I think this original topic has gone as far as it needs to. If this needs to be a debate regarding constitutional issues, please file a different topic.