Arnold on AAS:

[quote]rainjack wrote:
trojanman wrote:
arnolds heart attack was not from steroids. he had problems as a child. get your shit right.

Telling jjjjjackmeoff to get his shit right is a losing proposition. He is one of those idiots that revel in their own stupidity. [/quote]

Rainjack , Give it up bro , I already proved what a dumb inbread hick you were on the juicers and lying thread . You can try to memorize all the information about somthing you want . It means nothing . Your to dumb to put it together .

“Quote” I’ve used steroids continiously for a year and its the smartest thing I have ever done .

Yeah , That’s brilliant …

[quote]jjay wrote:
Prisoner#22 wrote:
jjay wrote:
Arnold had a massive heart attack in his 50’s …

I don’t recall that he had a massive heart attack and I am sure you can’t even define exactly what a heartattack is.

Never mind describing what elevations of q waves mean or ST deppressions.

He did have heart surgery, but it was for a heart defect…

Sure it was ![/quote]

Shut up jjay. Youre gay.

[quote]jjay wrote:
Rainjack , Give it up bro , I already proved what a dumb inbread hick you were on the juicers and lying thread . You can try to memorize all the information about somthing you want . It means nothing . Your to dumb to put it together .

“Quote” I’ve used steroids continiously for a year and its the smartest thing I have ever done .

Yeah , That’s brilliant …[/quote]

Is it ironic that you call Rainjack dumb while using incorrect forms of “your” and “to” in the same sentence?

[quote]jjay wrote:
rainjack wrote:
trojanman wrote:
arnolds heart attack was not from steroids. he had problems as a child. get your shit right.

Telling jjjjjackmeoff to get his shit right is a losing proposition. He is one of those idiots that revel in their own stupidity.

Rainjack , Give it up bro , I already proved what a dumb inbread hick you were on the juicers and lying thread . You can try to memorize all the information about somthing you want . It means nothing . Your to dumb to put it together .

“Quote” I’ve used steroids continiously for a year and its the smartest thing I have ever done .

Yeah , That’s brilliant …[/quote]

I’m “to” dumb? This coming from a mama’s boy that thinks M1T is not AAS.

This also coming from the moron that can’t quote me, so he makes shit up.

This coming from a kid that is too fucking stupid to properly run a cycle of MAG-10 (for two years?) - yet has the audacity to call me out for being on AAS.

The only thing you have proven in your short stay on this board is that state sponsored abortion should be employed whenever your gene-pool is invlolved in the formation of a new life.You also make a great case for forced sterilization - if in fact you are a male.

Well, if the constitution is/can be changed there is a very good chance of Arnold winning an election. It would be almost impossible for a Republican with the votes of California to loose.

[quote]pankie wrote:
TONEdef wrote:
pankie wrote:
Theres one problem with ratifying something like that. ITS NOT AN AMENDMENT!you cant ratify Article II because there is no amendment relating to the president having to be a natural born citizen. Thats in the articles and that my friend is the rule book they have to follow because it states the requirements for president. something that will not and cannot be changed. Article II section one. Also, in our lifetime we will probably never see an amendment added to the constitution so Arny will never be President.

Now this is interesting. I always thought that the US Constitution was a living document that could be altered (though not easily) to cope with the changes that the future brings. I was under the impression that Articles could be amended by due process. Am I wrong in believing this?

due process only applies to the amendments giving everyone freedom and fairness but has nothing to do with the articles. lets think of the articles and the first 10 amendments as the rules. then the other added amendments were issues the framers did not add and were not important during that time. they were added as something not mentioned in the constitution or to sometimes reverse an issue when times changed. note that they were never erased from the consitution, they just had a line drawn through them meaning they dont apply anymore. there are two types of due process “procedural and substantive”

procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.” as a bare minimum, it includes an individual’s right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. in criminal cases, it ensures that an accused person will not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

the courts view substantive due process as embracing those fundamental rights that are “implicit in ordered liberty.” just what these rights are is not always clear, though life, property, and freedom from imprisonment are some of the better established. others include the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy.

due process does not have much to do in the way of changing the articles.
[/quote]

The articles were amended to allow direct election of senators by the people.

“Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution proposed on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913 and first in effect for the election of 1914, amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature.”

or, in it’s original language

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

so if you can amend article I, you can amend article II as well.

I would vote for him.

If Hillary ran against him he would definitely be a shoe in to win.

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
I would vote for him.

If Hillary ran against him he would definitely be a shoe in to win.[/quote]

Arnold is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He wouldn’t stand a chance for the Republican nomination.

JJJ, now you’r attacking Arnold’s steroid use? You yourself are much more of a steroid abuser than him. You don’t even realize it. And at least he surely did PCT.

[quote]etaco wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
I would vote for him.

If Hillary ran against him he would definitely be a shoe in to win.
.[/quote]

Huh. I don’t like either of em. I’d be tempted to throw my vote away and vote independent. But I’d probably go Hillary. I don’t think Arnold’s done such a great job in Cali. Don’t think he’d be a shoe-in in that run-off either. But if the birth requirements were changed, that’d be an abomination of an election with those too.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jjay wrote:
rainjack wrote:
trojanman wrote:
arnolds heart attack was not from steroids. he had problems as a child. get your shit right.

Telling jjjjjackmeoff to get his shit right is a losing proposition. He is one of those idiots that revel in their own stupidity.

Rainjack , Give it up bro , I already proved what a dumb inbread hick you were on the juicers and lying thread . You can try to memorize all the information about somthing you want . It means nothing . Your to dumb to put it together .

“Quote” I’ve used steroids continiously for a year and its the smartest thing I have ever done .

Yeah , That’s brilliant …

I’m “to” dumb? This coming from a mama’s boy that thinks M1T is not AAS.

This also coming from the moron that can’t quote me, so he makes shit up.

This coming from a kid that is too fucking stupid to properly run a cycle of MAG-10 (for two years?) - yet has the audacity to call me out for being on AAS.

The only thing you have proven in your short stay on this board is that state sponsored abortion should be employed whenever your gene-pool is invlolved in the formation of a new life.You also make a great case for forced sterilization - if in fact you are a male.
[/quote]

He’s an example of why steroids are illegal. Perhaps why steroids should be illegal. Everyone who really wants can get them, and those who do are more likely to use intelligently and do research. Too bad it doesn’t stop fuckups from using the chemically identical legal designer steroids.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

that’d be an abomination of an election with those too.[/quote]

Bush and Kerry were worse picks in my opinion but thats another thread.

[quote]E-man wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

that’d be an abomination of an election with those too.

Bush and Kerry were worse picks in my opinion but thats another thread.

[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. That was pretty much an abomination of an election too

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
The articles were amended to allow direct election of senators by the people.

“Amendment XVII (the Seventeenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution proposed on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913 and first in effect for the election of 1914, amends Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature.”

or, in it’s original language

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

so if you can amend article I, you can amend article II as well.[/quote]

See, this is what I believed. I understand that the process of amending any Articles in the Constitution would be a massive undertaking (and rightly so), but from what I understand it is feasible. Am I right in thinking that an Amendment can be ratified by a two-thirds quorum vote?

BTW, my apologies for hijacking this post.

Tone

nah, i think its fun when a thread like this gets completely turned on its head, especially when the original discussion has ceased.

Ok, yeah, youre correct in that an amendment can be INTRODUCED by 2/3s of both houses (or 2/3s of the state legislatures - incidentally I assume this would require 34 states, since 33 states would be 66% and just shy of 2/3s) but in order to be RATIFIED and actually become an amendment, as opposed to a proposed amendment, it needs approval of 3/4s of the state legislatures (or special ratifying bodies, but that’s only been done once.)

So what it comes down to is that you a supermajority on both the federal AND state levels of government in order to amend the constitution - which just makes it all the more difficult to understand how in the hell prohibition ever got passed.

Incidentally, here’s a blurb from wikipedia discussing what someone, i forget his name, had mentioned before

“Some people feel that demographic changes in the U.S.?specifically the great disparity in population between states?have made the Constitution too difficult to amend, with states representing as little as 4% of the population theoretically able to block an amendment desired by over 90% of Americans; others feel that it is unlikely that such an extreme result would occur. However, any proposals to change this would necessarily involve amending the Constitution itself, creating something of a Catch-22.”

how is that a catch-22? it would seem to me that if you were ever going to amend the constitution (which would be the 28th amendment) to change the ratification process for amendments, that amendment, the 28th, would be passed under the old system, and any subsequent amendments would be passed under the provisions provided for in the 28th amendment. wheres the catch-22?

I love this stuff, con law was one of my favorite subjects in college.

Yes, as others have pointed out, the Constitution could be ammended to allow foreign-born candidates to run, but such an ammended is unlikely to be ratified for only one candidate.

What would be interesting if it did become legal would be a race between Arnold and Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who like Arnold was born in Europe.

BTW, it may interest readers of this forum that Madeline Albright has been known to leg press 400 pounds: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/exercise/madeleine-albright-and-the-leg-press-controversy-settled-once-and-for-all-171650.php

[quote]dancar wrote:

BTW, it may interest readers of this forum that Madeline Albright has been known to leg press 400 pounds: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/exercise/madeleine-albright-and-the-leg-press-controversy-settled-once-and-for-all-171650.php[/quote]

Pat Robertson owns that bitch.

[quote]Phatshady912 wrote:
Well, if the constitution is/can be changed there is a very good chance of Arnold winning an election. It would be almost impossible for a Republican with the votes of California to loose.[/quote]

History shows that the democrat usually wins the vote during presidential elections in the state of California.
On top of that, most californians aren’t too happy with the job Arnold has done.
I just thought that I would add that to this crazy topic.

The point was that Arnold had the balls to say (albiet qualified) “yes” to using roids’, and even (again qualified) defended making the choice to use em’…Now with all the agressive propaganda that has resulted in the banning of roids’, pro-hormones, and soon, even creatine if they get their way, that type of “yes I did inhale” stand is to be commended IMVVHO

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
dancar wrote:

BTW, it may interest readers of this forum that Madeline Albright has been known to leg press 400 pounds: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/exercise/madeleine-albright-and-the-leg-press-controversy-settled-once-and-for-all-171650.php

Pat Robertson owns that bitch.[/quote]

damn, you beat me to it