Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 68
  1. #26
    Originally posted by amish_geek
    I for one, would not want to have a president that was not born in this country.

    Foreigners who go to other countries and become rulers are known as conquerors

    There is a reason why the founding fathers of the US set that restriction upon the presidency. If it was removed, England would try to put a Brit in there and try to get back their 13 colonies!
    Agreed, foreigners who goto other countries and become rules are indeed conquerors. Look up the word "conqueror" and you will find in every definition the word "force." Last I knew, becoming the President of America does not involve arms or use of any force; infact, it usually means the complete opposite in that the public WANTS you to lead them.

    There is a reason why the founding fathers of the US set that restriction upon the presidency. If it was removed, England would try to put a Brit in there and try to get back their 13 colonies!
    Funny as it is, it's absolutely true

    Expect this rule to go away in the next 15 years if not earlier. The Terminator is making rapid progress and is already eyeing the White House

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,612
    The Terminator is making rapid progress and is already eyeing the White House



  3. #28
    Originally posted by zaid2001
    Well, that is one of the biggest hypocrisies in the US. You can get your green card, passport and become like every other American, but nope, since you ain't born here, you can't run for the White House. Hopefully that will change in the near future.

    Personally, the place of birth of a person to me is of less importance than the ideologies of the candidate.
    Are you out of your mind? I don't mean to offend anyone here, But lets be realistic for a second.. India is nothing compared to the rest of the world let alone the US. Becoming the PM or President in India is nothing special power wise..

    But to allow a foreigner to come onto US, UK, Russian, or any of the other big players soil and just be able to become President or PM is purely ridiclous.

    And how many people around the world hate India? Compared to the amount that hate Americans?

    Another reason I think that Presidency and PMs should be on their own soil only, is economic reasons. If you came over and all your family and friends and "people" are still in your home country, you would most likely purposely "help" them out in any way you could. It leaves issues of "taking sides" wide open..

    If the US ever allowed a foreigner to become President, I would move to the hills or out of the country..
    Let Google know when your dead | Read More >>
    Submit Your Press Release, Article, or News Tip Today
    W3Reports - News for Webmasters

  4. #29
    Our country football team is managed by a foriegner, I think we're open minded

    As for Americans & co. I think yes you are, afterall, you did let a criminal into office.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  5. #30
    Originally posted by Trifolic
    Are you out of your mind? I don't mean to offend anyone here, But lets be realistic for a second.. India is nothing compared to the rest of the world let alone the US. Becoming the PM or President in India is nothing special power wise..
    India is nothing? Tell that to the Bush administration. They have "N-U-C-U-L-A-R" power and that in and of itself raises them above the "nothing" bar.

    And how many people around the world hate India? Compared to the amount that hate Americans?
    What does that have to do with anything?

    Another reason I think that Presidency and PMs should be on their own soil only, is economic reasons. If you came over and all your family and friends and "people" are still in your home country, you would most likely purposely "help" them out in any way you could. It leaves issues of "taking sides" wide open..
    If you are talking about bias in the government, it has ALWAYS existed and will always exist. The above may or may not hold true with a foreigner in office. Simple fact is there are always countries that we like to help and lend our hands to more than others.

    A foreign president at worst can only add a fraction to what already widely and quite openly exists (check out our annual "aid" to Israel.)


    But to allow a foreigner to come onto US, UK, Russian, or any of the other big players soil and just be able to become President or PM is purely ridiclous.
    How exactly are you going about labeling "big players"? I am left confused. What's so significant about Russia that India does not have?

    I simply cannot imagine how you can so confidently foresee a negative impact of such magnitude with a foreigner in office. Remember, in order for the foreigner to come to office, he will have to win the votes of a good part of American population at which point IMO he would have earned his place at the White House.


    If the U
    S ever allowed a foreigner to become President, I would move to the hills or out of the country..
    That would be your personal choice. But I doubt a foreign president would result in any significant movement of the American people—that is of course when we do get one

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by zaid2001
    Well, that is one of the biggest hypocrisies in the US. You can get your green card, passport and become like every other American, but nope, since you ain't born here, you can't run for the White House. Hopefully that will change in the near future.

    Personally, the place of birth of a person to me is of less importance than the ideologies of the candidate.
    I don't see a problem with this. There needs to be standards and rules. And those are the rules and I think that if you are born on U.S. Soil, you are entitled to run for President.

    Allowing anyone to run for President would open ourselves up to big problems, even a collapse of our government.

  7. #32
    Originally posted by Rob83
    I don't see a problem with this. There needs to be standards and rules. And those are the rules and I think that if you are born on U.S. Soil, you are entitled to run for President.

    Allowing anyone to run for President would open ourselves up to big problems, even a collapse of our government.
    Not to start an argument, I fully respect your position. However, I am sure you are aware that each year, literally 100s of people run for President of the United States...and that's a very diverse bunch: everyone from supporters of crack to what not.

    Yet, they are easily ushered away at the polling booths. So, the very act of running for the White House cannot by any means result in a "colllapse of our government."

    You gotta think, if a foreigner was to ever come through, he would have to have a high popularity in the general population. So why not let foreigners run? If they're nuts, why not let the public decide.

    By depriving non-born Americans from running for position of American president in many ways speaks of the lack of confidence our Constitution seems to have in the votes of the American people.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by bow-viper1
    It makes me sick that you want to turn this into a racial issue. A black man ran this year, his name is Jesse Jackson, and he isn't going to win because he himself is a racist.. he's done a lot of great things for the black community, and even our country, but he tries to turn every single crime against blacks into a racial issue, yet when it's the other way around, he's know where to be found to make some sort of speech on how big of a tragedy it is. And a woman ran in the 2000 elections.

    Why does everything that happens now have to have some sort of gender / racial bias? Why can't you just take it for what it is?
    Just to set the record straight it was Jesse's buddy, Al Sharpton that ran. They think pretty much the same though.

    Jesse Jackson did run back in the 80's IIRC.
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by pmoduk2
    Our country football team is managed by a foriegner, I think we're open minded

    As for Americans & co. I think yes you are, afterall, you did let a criminal into office.
    A criminal?

    I think you're talking about Bush's DUI (or atleast I think it was a DUI, related to drinking if I remember right)? That was during the 70's. We've had tons of Presidents with misdemeanors and even a few with feleny's IIRC.
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  10. #35
    Originally posted by interactive
    Just to set the record straight it was Jesse's buddy, Al Sharpton that ran. They think pretty much the same though.

    Jesse Jackson did run back in the 80's IIRC.
    You are correct, I was thinking Sharpton, said Jackson.. I better lay off the Sunny D Intense Sport, they are getting to my head

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by bow-viper1
    You are correct, I was thinking Sharpton, said Jackson.. I better lay off the Sunny D Intense Sport, they are getting to my head
    OT:
    Know how it is, drank a whole 24 pack of coke today. Think I'm going to puke, didn't even realize I did it until I saw the case was empty...
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by zaid2001
    Not to start an argument, I fully respect your position. However, I am sure you are aware that each year, literally 100s of people run for President of the United States...and that's a very diverse bunch: everyone from supporters of crack to what not.

    Yet, they are easily ushered away at the polling booths. So, the very act of running for the White House cannot by any means result in a "colllapse of our government."

    You gotta think, if a foreigner was to ever come through, he would have to have a high popularity in the general population. So why not let foreigners run? If they're nuts, why not let the public decide.

    By depriving non-born Americans from running for position of American president in many ways speaks of the lack of confidence our Constitution seems to have in the votes of the American people.
    No we don't lack confidence in anything. While this country is made up of different people of all cultures, I think it's right that those born in the U.S. are the only ones who can run for President.

  13. #38
    Originally posted by zaid2001
    India is nothing? Tell that to the Bush administration. They have "N-U-C-U-L-A-R" power and that in and of itself raises them above the "nothing" bar.



    What does that have to do with anything?



    If you are talking about bias in the government, it has ALWAYS existed and will always exist. The above may or may not hold true with a foreigner in office. Simple fact is there are always countries that we like to help and lend our hands to more than others.

    A foreign president at worst can only add a fraction to what already widely and quite openly exists (check out our annual "aid" to Israel.)




    How exactly are you going about labeling "big players"? I am left confused. What's so significant about Russia that India does not have?

    I simply cannot imagine how you can so confidently foresee a negative impact of such magnitude with a foreigner in office. Remember, in order for the foreigner to come to office, he will have to win the votes of a good part of American population at which point IMO he would have earned his place at the White House.




    That would be your personal choice. But I doubt a foreign president would result in any significant movement of the American people—that is of course when we do get one

    Thanks for the long reply, I am glad to see you have your own retalation against my post and personal views and opinions. However my statement is not open for debate..
    Let Google know when your dead | Read More >>
    Submit Your Press Release, Article, or News Tip Today
    W3Reports - News for Webmasters

  14. #39
    Originally posted by Trifolic
    Thanks for the long reply
    Anytime

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Australia (Crikey)
    Posts
    2,271
    race isn't as important as the values and ethics of the leader

    Bub

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Duluth MN
    Posts
    3,863
    Originally posted by Bub Host
    race isn't as important as the values and ethics of the leader

    Bub
    On what basis do you judge ethics? If someones ethics are good enough for them, are they good enough for you? Or is there some common absoulte truth to dictate ethics by which we should judge our leaders?

    Food for thought

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    6,220
    Originally posted by iThink


    My family came to India empty-handed from what is now Pakistan after the 1947 partition. So I know a thing or two about how secular congress and Nehru/Gandhi family is. They divided India based on religion of people and then labeled themselves as secular. If someone has illusion about the 'secular congress' then please wake up.

    When Mahatma Gandhi insisted on a secular India it was not the Nehru family or the Congress who assasinated him. It was the Hindu radicals themselves who desired India to be declared as a Hindu nation. It was Mahatma Gandhi who tried to suggest Mohamad Ali Jinnah as India's first Prime Minister hoping to avoid the partition. Whether this have been a good solution is very very hard to say. I also speak from the unfortunate experiences and past history of my family & ancestors for the period dating back about from 500 years to recent years of the past decade.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    6,220
    got this in my email today

    This is some information on prospective PM of India - Sonia Gandhi that
    every Indian and at least every India lover must know.

    1.. Sonia Gandhi is ONLY a high school graduate. It is not even sure if
    she is Matric pass or fail. Cambridge University has confirmed that they
    have no Sonia Maino on their alumni list.

    2.. Her sister, Nadia Mario, who had never visited India before rushed
    to
    New Delhi, after Vajpayee govt.fell, to be by her side amidst reports that
    she might soon become India's Prime Minister.

    3.. Should Sonia Gandhi become Prime Minister, her relatives in Italy
    would be fully entitled to round-the-clock protection by the
    Black Cat commandos at the Indian taxpayer's expense.

    4.. She worked as an house maid in UK while taking classes to learn
    English in some no name school. She was from a poor family in Italy but
    now has almost as much money as Bill Gates (guess whose money is it).

    5.. During the 1971 war, while all Indians stood ready to fight for the
    Indian cause Sonia Maino and her husband Rajiv Gandhi went on
    vacation in Italy.

    6.. In 1977, when Indira Gandhi and Congress lost elections, Sonia
    Gandhi with her children and husband in tow took refuge of Italian
    embassy in New Delhi. Only after Indira Gandhi, Sanjay and his Indian wife
    Maneka convinced her that they came back.

    7.. Sonia married Rajiv in 1968 and was eligible to become Indian citizen
    5 years later yet she did NOT become Indian citizen till 1984
    I.e. 16 years after her marriage) This late bloom of Sonia's love for
    India also was out of political consideration. In 1984, Rajiv, was heir
    apparent and most likely next Prime Minister. It would be awkward for a
    PM
    to have a foreigner wife. Voila, Sonia became an Indian Overnight.

    8.. She has not given a single interview or offered any ideas on a single
    issue facing India now. Her only qualification is that she
    married a Gandhi. No newspaper has taken up the issue; no political party
    is opposing this, people are falling in line as if this is
    nothing unusual.

    9.. Sonia became an Indian citizen in 1984 but did not surrender her
    Italian citizenship. She continues to be simultaneously a citizen of India
    and Italy as Italian law does not require her to surrender her Italian
    citizenship or passport. Simply put, Sonia is a dual citizen of India and
    Italy now dreaming of becoming the next Prime Minister of India (she can
    also legally become the prime minister of Italy!).

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    533
    its a fact
    checkout many movies and you will see some of them have a lady or a black man as a presedent when in real life it never did/well happen "its like the movies trying to show a great image of the democracy in usa or even try to change people views or could it be that they feal gilty ?"
    i do hope i can be proven wrong in the years to come but i dont think so.
    and only time would tell if i am right or wrong

    a Note : you can a lamn how is a peresedent > Mr. Presedent but what would you call a lady presedent ? Madam. Presedent ?
    or also Mr. Presedent ?


    by the way dont take thing so serias because you and i cant change these things its a game for the Big Boys not people like me and you

    Originally posted by bow-viper1
    It makes me sick that you want to turn this into a racial issue. A black man ran this year, his name is Jesse Jackson, and he isn't going to win because he himself is a racist.. he's done a lot of great things for the black community, and even our country, but he tries to turn every single crime against blacks into a racial issue, yet when it's the other way around, he's know where to be found to make some sort of speech on how big of a tragedy it is. And a woman ran in the 2000 elections.

    Why does everything that happens now have to have some sort of gender / racial bias? Why can't you just take it for what it is?

  20. #45
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    38
    I think it's a little unfair to lump all 'western' countries in with the U.S. in being non-progressive.

    Seems to me that the U.S. is the ONLY country where you have to be male white and rich to gain power.

    Here in the UK we had a Woman leading us two decades ago, her humble beginnings were as the daughter of a corner store owner. I'm sure it won't be too lon before we have our first non-white leader too.

    Always find it ironic that in the 'Land of the Free' there's actually very little freedom.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    6,220
    Originally posted by MyAlterEgo
    I think it's a little unfair to lump all 'western' countries in with the U.S. in being non-progressive.

    Seems to me that the U.S. is the ONLY country where you have to be male white and rich to gain power.

    Here in the UK we had a Woman leading us two decades ago, her humble beginnings were as the daughter of a corner store owner. I'm sure it won't be too lon before we have our first non-white leader too.

    Always find it ironic that in the 'Land of the Free' there's actually very little freedom.

    UK almost had its first "non-white royalty" if Lady Di's affair had ended up in marriage.

    For a nation like US built with very little history of heritage naturally its biggest worry is security: "What if someone else also imitates our idea of a nation ?"

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by MyAlterEgo
    I think it's a little unfair to lump all 'western' countries in with the U.S. in being non-progressive.

    Seems to me that the U.S. is the ONLY country where you have to be male white and rich to gain power.

    Here in the UK we had a Woman leading us two decades ago, her humble beginnings were as the daughter of a corner store owner. I'm sure it won't be too lon before we have our first non-white leader too.

    Always find it ironic that in the 'Land of the Free' there's actually very little freedom.
    This racist, you have to be a white male to get power, is a bunch of crap.

    There's tons of black congressmen/woman and senators. There's also tons of female congressmen/woman and senators.

    Very little freedom? How about we get on the subject of guns? What about taxes? I could go on and on...
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by BizB

    a Note : you can a lamn how is a peresedent > Mr. Presedent but what would you call a lady presedent ? Madam. Presedent ?
    or also Mr. Presedent ?


    Someone want to translate that for me? Babblefish didn't work...
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  24. #49
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    38
    Originally posted by interactive
    This racist, you have to be a white male to get power, is a bunch of crap.

    There's tons of black congressmen/woman and senators. There's also tons of female congressmen/woman and senators.

    Very little freedom? How about we get on the subject of guns? What about taxes? I could go on and on...
    I never said the U.S. was racist, just non-progressive - I know there are lots of females / non-whites in positions of power however I've yet to see one get anywhere close to the top job and it looks like I'll wait a lot longer.

    p.s. you'll have to change your constitution soon so that Arnie can be President . . . . .

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by MyAlterEgo
    I never said the U.S. was racist, just non-progressive - I know there are lots of females / non-whites in positions of power however I've yet to see one get anywhere close to the top job and it looks like I'll wait a lot longer.

    p.s. you'll have to change your constitution soon so that Arnie can be President . . . . .
    I for one, as a republican, don't want to see a Non-American born person in the oval office. The reason for this has been said several times throughout this thread by different posters.
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •