Congratulations to George W. Bush - Time's Person of the Year
- Thread starter Indy_SIG
- Start date
IZinterrogator
New member
Hkmp5sd,
I hope you considered it an honor last year when all of my brothers and sisters and I won it.
I hope you considered it an honor last year when all of my brothers and sisters and I won it.
I was implying that it is not always the "best" person/group that is chosen. There are a whole host of reasons they pick someone and the reason they choose that person is as important as the person himself. I am sure that Bush was not chosen because the editors at Time magazine thought he was doing a great job as president. For example, IMO, they chose Giuliani in 2001 specifically to not choose Bush and snub his handling of 9/11 and Afghanistan.
Doesn't surprize me that the "biased liberal left because-they-hate-Bush" Time magazine put George on their cover. Anymore than NPR rolling a piece by a GI praising Rumsfeld yesterday afternoon. Or "republican" Arnold stating that "the republicans need to move alittle more to the left" - while he himself is groomed for the WH.
That's an interesting side to a progressive agenda; it can be done right in front of a great many faces - and they will all fall over themselves pretending not to notice.
That's an interesting side to a progressive agenda; it can be done right in front of a great many faces - and they will all fall over themselves pretending not to notice.
LAK,
I'll take 'civics' for $100, Alex.
Stating that Arnold is being groomed for the White House is like saying that a giraffe is being groomed for the Kentucky Derby. 'Der Governator' is not a natural born American citizen, therefore he is Constitutionally prohibited from being elected President.
I'll take 'civics' for $100, Alex.
Stating that Arnold is being groomed for the White House is like saying that a giraffe is being groomed for the Kentucky Derby. 'Der Governator' is not a natural born American citizen, therefore he is Constitutionally prohibited from being elected President.
gburner,
Saying that the current "republican" or future Congress will not roll over and amend the Constitution for Arnold (who may merely be a precursor for another) is like saying "I am completely ignoring the writing on the wall" or "I can't read it".
The familiar m.o. is blatantly apparent. The idea has been fielded; that is, it has been thrown out there early in the game and kicked around. Then it has been drawn into mainstream popular debate. And now there are some heavy lobbying efforts underway - and growing.
Almost four years to go, and there are an enormous number of teenagers who will be of voting age when it comes around, weened on his movies, who will be added to their parents and others who idolize him.
Arnold didn't wake up one day after making millions in the film industry and suddenly decide to run for governor of California. He has some powerful friends. In the words of George H W Bush in a speech in Texas recently,
"..... In regard to him ever being president of the United States, my advice to you Aggies and to any of those doubters, don't bet against Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
So there you have it from the "Thousand Points of Light" Bush Sr.
Saying that the current "republican" or future Congress will not roll over and amend the Constitution for Arnold (who may merely be a precursor for another) is like saying "I am completely ignoring the writing on the wall" or "I can't read it".
The familiar m.o. is blatantly apparent. The idea has been fielded; that is, it has been thrown out there early in the game and kicked around. Then it has been drawn into mainstream popular debate. And now there are some heavy lobbying efforts underway - and growing.
Almost four years to go, and there are an enormous number of teenagers who will be of voting age when it comes around, weened on his movies, who will be added to their parents and others who idolize him.
Arnold didn't wake up one day after making millions in the film industry and suddenly decide to run for governor of California. He has some powerful friends. In the words of George H W Bush in a speech in Texas recently,
"..... In regard to him ever being president of the United States, my advice to you Aggies and to any of those doubters, don't bet against Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
So there you have it from the "Thousand Points of Light" Bush Sr.
The odds are so seriously stacked against an amendment to change the Constitutional qualifications for President that this amounts to nothing more than a ludicrous pipe dream.
There have been thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution for one idiotic reason or another over the past 200 years with only a scant handful receiving any serious consideration, much less ratification This one will go on the ash heap like the vast majority of the rest.
We will see a giraffe in the Kentucky Derby before we see an amendment ratified to change the qualifications for president, the governor's lackeys not withstanding.
There have been thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution for one idiotic reason or another over the past 200 years with only a scant handful receiving any serious consideration, much less ratification This one will go on the ash heap like the vast majority of the rest.
We will see a giraffe in the Kentucky Derby before we see an amendment ratified to change the qualifications for president, the governor's lackeys not withstanding.
'There's a sucker born every minute'...ain't gonna happen.
Look at the history of proposed amendments that have been ratified. Most, if not all, have come from great social or moral movements (abolition of slavery, civil rights, women's sufferage and temperance for example) which took decades to weave their ideas into the national consciousness. Even then, ratification was far from certain and, in the case of prohibition, was overturned far faster than its orignal ratification. Currently, proposed amendments include the issues of Christianity as a national religion, English as the national language, prayer in school, gay marriage and abortion just to name a few. Tweaking the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to run for the Presidency just doesn't strike me as weighty an issue of national urgency and certainly not of the same stature as some other proposals. This country wouldn't even ratify a 'women's rights amendment' for God's sake, what makes you think that it will turn itself inside out for Ahnuld.
Re. Warren Buffett...like George Soros, 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. Buffett is usually no fool but this is a foolish idea whose time will never come.
Look at the history of proposed amendments that have been ratified. Most, if not all, have come from great social or moral movements (abolition of slavery, civil rights, women's sufferage and temperance for example) which took decades to weave their ideas into the national consciousness. Even then, ratification was far from certain and, in the case of prohibition, was overturned far faster than its orignal ratification. Currently, proposed amendments include the issues of Christianity as a national religion, English as the national language, prayer in school, gay marriage and abortion just to name a few. Tweaking the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to run for the Presidency just doesn't strike me as weighty an issue of national urgency and certainly not of the same stature as some other proposals. This country wouldn't even ratify a 'women's rights amendment' for God's sake, what makes you think that it will turn itself inside out for Ahnuld.
Re. Warren Buffett...like George Soros, 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. Buffett is usually no fool but this is a foolish idea whose time will never come.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Congratulations to Lord Bush.
I thought the so called conservatives all had a low opinion of Slime magazine? I guess not the neo-cons.
gburner,
This has little to do with the history of proposed Constitutional amendments.
Up until 1934 and then 1968 there was a weak history of Federal "gun control" law. The first Act punctuated more than 150 years of .... virtually none. The latter Act came after a much shorter time span, but still punctuated a void of more than 30 years.
If you'd asked many people in 1931 whether the Federal government would swing a way to "control" machineguns etc I am sure some would have said "ain't gonna happen". Likewise if you'd asked the same question after the Kennedy assassination in 1964, despite the clamor for "controls", they'd said "no way". But those who were pushing the agenda pulled the strings, pulled out the stops, and got their way.
I see a similar pattern in this case, and it is clear that it has the backing of some very powerful people with unlimited financing; Warren (and Soros for that matter) is a political and financial welfare recipient compared to Jacob.
Perhaps it will be hasta la vista to Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 indeed.
This has little to do with the history of proposed Constitutional amendments.
Up until 1934 and then 1968 there was a weak history of Federal "gun control" law. The first Act punctuated more than 150 years of .... virtually none. The latter Act came after a much shorter time span, but still punctuated a void of more than 30 years.
If you'd asked many people in 1931 whether the Federal government would swing a way to "control" machineguns etc I am sure some would have said "ain't gonna happen". Likewise if you'd asked the same question after the Kennedy assassination in 1964, despite the clamor for "controls", they'd said "no way". But those who were pushing the agenda pulled the strings, pulled out the stops, and got their way.
I see a similar pattern in this case, and it is clear that it has the backing of some very powerful people with unlimited financing; Warren (and Soros for that matter) is a political and financial welfare recipient compared to Jacob.
Perhaps it will be hasta la vista to Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 indeed.
LAK...
You're arguing apples and oranges here. Knee jerk establishment or implementation of Federal policy, often done by non-elected bureaucrats without the consent of the governed happens daily.
Ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution is rare, and for good reason. It keeps hare brained schemes like this from becoming daily occurances. The process requires lengthy debate, the establishment of Constitutional conventions and the majority assent of the governed. There are MAJOR financial issues here re.
paying for the process as well as the question of once gathering the conventions, how will you limit debate to just the one proposed amendment.
As far as kids being raised on his movies being willing to support this, big deal even if true. They stayed away from the polls in droves during Kerry/Bush; they'd show less motivation for this. My folks talked about all the people from their generation who thought that Bob Hope would have been a good Presidential candidate...somehow I missed the groundswell that brought that about. Oh, that's right, it didn't happen.
What is the impetus for this change to take place. There is no great moral or social issue here; no injustice that begs for remediation and no oversight that the Founders were blind to. This is being bandied about to allow some hack actor of foriegn birth who has a foot in each major party's canoe to run for President.
This is as tedious, superfluous and ego driven issue as
ever was foated and one that should receive no serious consideration.
Rich folks sit around their board rooms and discuss crazy merde all the time. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I'd be willing to bet that Ahnuld stars as you in a blockbuster film biography of your life before this thing ever gets off the shelf.
You're arguing apples and oranges here. Knee jerk establishment or implementation of Federal policy, often done by non-elected bureaucrats without the consent of the governed happens daily.
Ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution is rare, and for good reason. It keeps hare brained schemes like this from becoming daily occurances. The process requires lengthy debate, the establishment of Constitutional conventions and the majority assent of the governed. There are MAJOR financial issues here re.
paying for the process as well as the question of once gathering the conventions, how will you limit debate to just the one proposed amendment.
As far as kids being raised on his movies being willing to support this, big deal even if true. They stayed away from the polls in droves during Kerry/Bush; they'd show less motivation for this. My folks talked about all the people from their generation who thought that Bob Hope would have been a good Presidential candidate...somehow I missed the groundswell that brought that about. Oh, that's right, it didn't happen.
What is the impetus for this change to take place. There is no great moral or social issue here; no injustice that begs for remediation and no oversight that the Founders were blind to. This is being bandied about to allow some hack actor of foriegn birth who has a foot in each major party's canoe to run for President.
This is as tedious, superfluous and ego driven issue as
ever was foated and one that should receive no serious consideration.
Rich folks sit around their board rooms and discuss crazy merde all the time. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I'd be willing to bet that Ahnuld stars as you in a blockbuster film biography of your life before this thing ever gets off the shelf.
gburner
To understand the impetus you must analyse Arnold's speeches and public statements where he has hinted at or directly addressed the subject. His speech at the RNC danced all over it without him actually mentioning it plainly. This is a subtle form of propaganda, and has been used often - before and since that event. When you examine what is being projected by the lobbying groups on the subject it is clear that this is not going to go away, and that it is backed by the sort of people that do not fool around with tabloid politics - or their vast fortunes.
You can write it off, but the writing on the wall is plain to see.
To understand the impetus you must analyse Arnold's speeches and public statements where he has hinted at or directly addressed the subject. His speech at the RNC danced all over it without him actually mentioning it plainly. This is a subtle form of propaganda, and has been used often - before and since that event. When you examine what is being projected by the lobbying groups on the subject it is clear that this is not going to go away, and that it is backed by the sort of people that do not fool around with tabloid politics - or their vast fortunes.
You can write it off, but the writing on the wall is plain to see.
Didn't say that the writing wasn't on the wall nor did I say it was going to go away. I said that it ain't gonna happen ie. there will be no Constitutional Amendment ratified to allow naturalized Americans to run for the presidency.
Here are several issues that need to be resolved for your scenario to play out...
The need for hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the ratification push from front to back and the willingness to take the financial loss when it comes up short. As stated previously, there is no overwhelming moral or social issue being addressed here, just an ego driven, naked power grab by some fat cats and their muscle bound monkey boy. Americans will see thru it.
The willingness for Ahnuld to wait around, cooling his heels, while the country works through the ratification process. He's already in his late '50's; his financiers are 15 - 20 years his elder. What will he do after the governor gig, which won't last more than one term. The ratification process would last a minimum of 5 years with no max on the time limit. He could be a very old man by the time a Constitutional convention is held, then, depending on the timing, have to wait another 4 - 8 years for the current president to leave office.
The belief that Joe and Jane voter would see Ahnuld as a viable national candidate and the belief among his backers that they could reproduce his California victory on a national level. Ahnuld won out of a pack of about a dozen serious candidates, mostly on name recognition.
Reviews of his performance thus far have been mixed. He has no foriegn policy experience.
The media factor...how many skeletons are in Ahnuld's closet. He was muddied up some in his Cali race; it would be more intense nationally. Ahnuld also has heart problems and a history of marijuana and steroid use, all of which will be scrutinized as will his family's alleged WW 2 ties to the Nazi party in Austria. Sexcapades on Hollywood sets, beefcake photos and films, allegations of sexual abuse and harrassment either founded or unfounded and god knows what else.
I assume that he would attempt to run as a Republican.
The current incarnation of the Rupublican party would not have him. He is pro-choice and anti rights re. firearms, two hot button issues that preclude him from ever being a nationally viable Republican candidate.
He is attempting to follow the Reagan model without the Conservative philosophy. If he ran as an independent he would garner 10 - 15 % of the vote.
Would you invest your hundreds of millions on that?
Here are several issues that need to be resolved for your scenario to play out...
The need for hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the ratification push from front to back and the willingness to take the financial loss when it comes up short. As stated previously, there is no overwhelming moral or social issue being addressed here, just an ego driven, naked power grab by some fat cats and their muscle bound monkey boy. Americans will see thru it.
The willingness for Ahnuld to wait around, cooling his heels, while the country works through the ratification process. He's already in his late '50's; his financiers are 15 - 20 years his elder. What will he do after the governor gig, which won't last more than one term. The ratification process would last a minimum of 5 years with no max on the time limit. He could be a very old man by the time a Constitutional convention is held, then, depending on the timing, have to wait another 4 - 8 years for the current president to leave office.
The belief that Joe and Jane voter would see Ahnuld as a viable national candidate and the belief among his backers that they could reproduce his California victory on a national level. Ahnuld won out of a pack of about a dozen serious candidates, mostly on name recognition.
Reviews of his performance thus far have been mixed. He has no foriegn policy experience.
The media factor...how many skeletons are in Ahnuld's closet. He was muddied up some in his Cali race; it would be more intense nationally. Ahnuld also has heart problems and a history of marijuana and steroid use, all of which will be scrutinized as will his family's alleged WW 2 ties to the Nazi party in Austria. Sexcapades on Hollywood sets, beefcake photos and films, allegations of sexual abuse and harrassment either founded or unfounded and god knows what else.
I assume that he would attempt to run as a Republican.
The current incarnation of the Rupublican party would not have him. He is pro-choice and anti rights re. firearms, two hot button issues that preclude him from ever being a nationally viable Republican candidate.
He is attempting to follow the Reagan model without the Conservative philosophy. If he ran as an independent he would garner 10 - 15 % of the vote.
Would you invest your hundreds of millions on that?
gburner
The money is there - and it is being spent right now. And you have not read the impetus correctly or at least insufficiently; the issue is being addressed as a small shortcoming in the "melting pot". That is "Anyone can succeed and reach their highest goals in America! ... wait, there is this little meaningless restriction on who can become President of the United States. We need to do something about that ... ".
"Americans" - enough of them - will not "see thru it" unless they see through Arnold and the people that are fronting him.
Ronald Reagan was alot older than Arnold. And Arnold will likely see another term as governor in the meantime. Outside of that coolling his heels he is going to be a rolling showcase for change, and there is no shortage of money behind him.
I do not see any widespread "conservative" critism of how Arnold is doing in California - despite the fact that he is blatantly well to the "left". I predict that Arnold will be given an overall high approval rating for his "job" in CA - the major media ticker tapes will throw in a few spots just to be "balanced"; but overall you are going to see enough people shown as supporting him. You couldn't get much worse than some of the blunders (if you can call them blunders that is) of George Bush in the last several years - or much further to the "left" without calling yourself a "democrat". Yet there seems to be enough people that say; "Well, he's not perfect you know, but ...... and I think he's doing better than Kerry would".
Yep, all out in the open. But you haven't seen any "republicans" or "democrats" leaders with any following making a meal out of any of it. It didn't stop him becoming Gov of CA, or being invited to play a starring role at the RNC.
Again, the current incarnation of the "republican party" showcased him at the RNC. Arnold's speech was about him, and a subtle primer for the precise topic of discussion.
Conservative philosophy? The current "republican party" is devoid of almost any conservative philosophy. This is clearly demonstarted in the currrent state of Congress which is "republican" dominated, and a "republican" in the WH. See any drastic changes in the traditional areas of contention? The U.N.? A "Department of Education"? "Healthcare"? "Welfare"? All the other forms of socialist spending and empire? Rollbacks of unconstitutional gun legislation? And that's just a start; if the issues were not so serious it would be a big joke. As it is, it is an in-your-face game being played by two football teams owned by the same person. And not many people are "seeing thru it"; they're cheering for their team - and paying for it as well.
Arnold is simply pulling the ball much in the same way as George Bush has pulled things further left of center, only just alittle further. Bush hasn't been shrugged off as a "republican" figure, and the same people are going to be cheerleading Arnold when the time comes.
I wouldn't invest even a dime in anyone fronted for the "republican" party since Ronald Reagan. But then again, I am not Jacob and Warren & Co, and I don't have the connections to ensure anyone would actually accept my money even if I had enough.
The money is there - and it is being spent right now. And you have not read the impetus correctly or at least insufficiently; the issue is being addressed as a small shortcoming in the "melting pot". That is "Anyone can succeed and reach their highest goals in America! ... wait, there is this little meaningless restriction on who can become President of the United States. We need to do something about that ... ".
"Americans" - enough of them - will not "see thru it" unless they see through Arnold and the people that are fronting him.
Ronald Reagan was alot older than Arnold. And Arnold will likely see another term as governor in the meantime. Outside of that coolling his heels he is going to be a rolling showcase for change, and there is no shortage of money behind him.
I do not see any widespread "conservative" critism of how Arnold is doing in California - despite the fact that he is blatantly well to the "left". I predict that Arnold will be given an overall high approval rating for his "job" in CA - the major media ticker tapes will throw in a few spots just to be "balanced"; but overall you are going to see enough people shown as supporting him. You couldn't get much worse than some of the blunders (if you can call them blunders that is) of George Bush in the last several years - or much further to the "left" without calling yourself a "democrat". Yet there seems to be enough people that say; "Well, he's not perfect you know, but ...... and I think he's doing better than Kerry would".
Yep, all out in the open. But you haven't seen any "republicans" or "democrats" leaders with any following making a meal out of any of it. It didn't stop him becoming Gov of CA, or being invited to play a starring role at the RNC.
Again, the current incarnation of the "republican party" showcased him at the RNC. Arnold's speech was about him, and a subtle primer for the precise topic of discussion.
Conservative philosophy? The current "republican party" is devoid of almost any conservative philosophy. This is clearly demonstarted in the currrent state of Congress which is "republican" dominated, and a "republican" in the WH. See any drastic changes in the traditional areas of contention? The U.N.? A "Department of Education"? "Healthcare"? "Welfare"? All the other forms of socialist spending and empire? Rollbacks of unconstitutional gun legislation? And that's just a start; if the issues were not so serious it would be a big joke. As it is, it is an in-your-face game being played by two football teams owned by the same person. And not many people are "seeing thru it"; they're cheering for their team - and paying for it as well.
Arnold is simply pulling the ball much in the same way as George Bush has pulled things further left of center, only just alittle further. Bush hasn't been shrugged off as a "republican" figure, and the same people are going to be cheerleading Arnold when the time comes.
I wouldn't invest even a dime in anyone fronted for the "republican" party since Ronald Reagan. But then again, I am not Jacob and Warren & Co, and I don't have the connections to ensure anyone would actually accept my money even if I had enough.
MeekAndMild
New member
Kudos for W!
Some past winners:
1927 Charles Lindberg
1930 Mohandas Gandhi
1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1940, 1949 Winston Churchill
1943 George C Marshall
1944 Dwight Eisenhower
1950 American Fighting-Man
1962 Pope John XXIII
1963 Martin Luther King Jr.
1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 The Middle Americans
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
2003 The American Soldier
Some past winners:
1927 Charles Lindberg
1930 Mohandas Gandhi
1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek
1940, 1949 Winston Churchill
1943 George C Marshall
1944 Dwight Eisenhower
1950 American Fighting-Man
1962 Pope John XXIII
1963 Martin Luther King Jr.
1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell
1969 The Middle Americans
1980 Ronald Reagan
1981 Lech Walesa
2003 The American Soldier