Results 26 to 50 of 68
-
05-15-2004, 08:05 PM #26Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,212
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!
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!
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
-
05-15-2004, 08:27 PM #27Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,612
The Terminator is making rapid progress and is already eyeing the White House
-
05-15-2004, 08:42 PM #28Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,790
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.
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
-
05-15-2004, 08:49 PM #29Hmmm....
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 2,341
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
-
05-15-2004, 09:02 PM #30Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,212
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..
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..
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.
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..
-
05-15-2004, 09:18 PM #31Web Hosting Master
- 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.
Allowing anyone to run for President would open ourselves up to big problems, even a collapse of our government.
-
05-15-2004, 09:35 PM #32Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,212
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.
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.
-
05-15-2004, 09:49 PM #33Web Hosting Master
- 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?
Jesse Jackson did run back in the 80's IIRC.-Robert Norton
www.SophMedia.com
-
05-15-2004, 09:54 PM #34Web Hosting Master
- 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.
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
-
05-15-2004, 10:07 PM #35Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 558
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.
-
05-15-2004, 10:15 PM #36Web Hosting Master
- 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
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
-
05-15-2004, 10:23 PM #37Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
05-15-2004, 10:50 PM #38Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,790
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
-
05-16-2004, 12:10 AM #39Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 1,212
Originally posted by Trifolic
Thanks for the long reply
-
05-16-2004, 12:22 AM #40Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Australia (Crikey)
- Posts
- 2,271
race isn't as important as the values and ethics of the leader
Bub
-
05-16-2004, 12:44 AM #41Web Hosting Master
- 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
Food for thought
-
05-16-2004, 02:13 AM #42working on it
- 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.
-
05-16-2004, 02:53 AM #43working on it
- 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!).
-
05-16-2004, 04:00 AM #44Web Hosting Evangelist
- 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?
-
05-16-2004, 04:20 AM #45Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
05-16-2004, 08:03 AM #46working on it
- 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 ?"
-
05-16-2004, 09:59 AM #47Web Hosting Master
- 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.
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
-
05-16-2004, 10:02 AM #48Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
05-16-2004, 10:55 AM #49Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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...
p.s. you'll have to change your constitution soon so that Arnie can be President . . . . .
-
05-16-2004, 11:29 AM #50Web Hosting Master
- 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 . . . . .-Robert Norton
www.SophMedia.com