|
Post by RickZ on Feb 8, 2006 15:42:20 GMT -6
That's what I was thinkin'. Here today, Gone in 60 Seconds. This board seems to pull in some real, uhm, winners. And whiners. At least when it comes/cums to murdererphiles. Okay, okay. I sit amended.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 8, 2006 15:37:33 GMT -6
Oh Germans can s..t on you too, no worries ...We do love Germans and we hate Americans ! you are so stupid ! Boy, this one didn't last long, did she. *POOF* ;D That's what I was thinkin'. Here today, Gone in 60 Seconds. This board seems to pull in some real, uhm, winners.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 7, 2006 16:40:42 GMT -6
agree to kill these poor people try to understand we are french and we cant bear these crimes Elsa... Take THAT, Mssr. Arthur King, you and all your silly English KahNIGGITS...... Nee! Oh, and who's brave Sir Robin?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 7, 2006 15:47:01 GMT -6
Another 'innocent' bites the dust. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 23, 2006 13:33:32 GMT -6
He has converted to Islam, taken the name Razzaq Muhammed and claims to be peaceful. Uh-huh. Sure. The short answer is "NO!" That's enough for me. Juice the junior jihadi.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 21, 2006 11:18:59 GMT -6
Morales could be "paralyzed but conscious and suffering death from ... burning veins and heart failure," attorney David Senior wrote. Well, strap him into the electric chair. Then there'd be no question about burning veins and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 16, 2006 10:36:50 GMT -6
Allen discovered his Indian roots when it became apparent they might benefit him. He previously was a white supremacist. Now that's funny. Anything to further the cause of himself, I guess. The last word in pro-capital punishment arguments. C'mon, Clarence baby, speak it in Klingon. You know you want to.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 20, 2006 9:54:13 GMT -6
Once someone is dead they can never murder again. Ted Bundy did escape and murder. Now he's dead and he can never murder again. Can you prove there would have never been more victims? And therein lies the dilemna between the hypothetical and the sure and certain.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 14, 2006 7:03:13 GMT -6
This is not a victory for the hangman-friends, nor a defeat for the Abolitionist Movement because the guilty of a convicted person is the minimum request for a death sentencing. This is some pretty wishy-washy crap. Of course it was a defeat for the "Abolitionist Movement." That they hang their hat on every single case, more so with older cases with DNA evidence before all the sophisticated testing, leads to championing "innocence" for slimeballs like Coleman. C'mon, the man raped, sodomized, and murdered his friggin' sister-in-law. A prior sexual assault/attemped rape conviction, a pending indecent exposure charge, then rape, sodomy, and murder. The man was a bloody menace. Being fooled by such a conniving, scheming, evil b*stard only makes some anti's look more and more foolish to the rest of the population, a population in the main that does seek justice while not molly-coddling criminals. Reasonable people may disagree to the degree of such punishment, but reasonable people agree that criminal predators must be locked up. The uber-anti's, like this Italian chap, are unreasonable people. Too true. Our rotten luck. That is so true, so telling. And so cowardly.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 16, 2006 10:28:51 GMT -6
LMAO, Joseph! Great photo. Great point. And pigs give us BACON!
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 13, 2006 7:42:14 GMT -6
I would have given the guy life + preventive detention. Nevertheless, I won't cry for such a monster. A point which is being overlooked by the bland headlines of "guilty." He was a vicious predator, with no redeeming qualities, i.e. reasons for us to let him live. And that, sir, is the whole point for retaining capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 12, 2006 16:43:03 GMT -6
I never had any doubt as to Coleman's guilt, as shown by my posts on other threads.
Funny how a rapist/murderer would lie, even to a minister like James McCloskey, the executive director of Centurion Ministries. "McCloskey had been fighting to prove Coleman's innocence since 1988. The two shared Coleman's final meal together -- cold slices of pizza -- just a few hours before Coleman was executed.
"I now know that I was wrong. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow," McCloskey said in a statement, describing Thursday's findings as "a kick in the stomach."
Another "executed innocent" snipe hunt waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 30, 2006 6:24:34 GMT -6
So zambo, what say you now with Coleman being proven guilty beyond all doubt (1 in 19 million), far above our system's reasonable doubt? Are you next going to claim aliens murdered Wanda McCoy and placed Coleman's DNA at the murder scene, DNA they withdrew from Coleman when he was abuducted and had "experiments" performed on him by said aliens? Rick I dont know where you get the idea I was proclaiming his innocense. If you object to me asking you questions then please say so and I will stop. I guess I made a mistake in respecting your opinion and knowledge of this case. It's not so much you asking questions, but your responses to the details I lovingly laid out, like the size of Grundy, Coleman's prior criminal history (including the exposure charge), knowing the extremely shy victim, etc., that leads to my questioning your reasoning abilities (like with the aliens comment). When these tidbits of travia, otherwise known as facts, were laid out end-to-end, so to speak, you still had questions. DNA is great when it's available. But to look only at DNA in older cases as the ONLY proof of guily is absurd, is to ignore 'connecting the dots' common sense. I try to read up on cases before I comment on one, and I have had my own questions concerning a few specific cases. It would be dishonest of me to think mistakes don't happen. But they happen far more rarely than you would like to believe. You sound like you'd make a terrible juror. The proof in court is 'beyond reasonable doubt', not 'beyond all certainty'.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 12, 2006 16:52:54 GMT -6
So zambo, what say you now with Coleman being proven guilty beyond all doubt (1 in 19 million), far above our system's reasonable doubt? Are you next going to claim aliens murdered Wanda McCoy and placed Coleman's DNA at the murder scene, DNA they withdrew from Coleman when he was abuducted and had "experiments" performed on him by said aliens?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 9, 2006 11:57:29 GMT -6
Great post! I learned a lot. Thank you Thanks. And you're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 9, 2006 9:50:23 GMT -6
RICKZ what do you know about the seman sample . i just read that that the intialy findings suggested that two may have been involved. I dont understand how they could have establish that from one sample ? unless it it is a cross contamination of two semens , If thats the case then the Dna should show up in part that this guy is guilty. But would raise another question who was with him? This is the second piece of information I have read where there is a suggestion of some one else. Can you enlighten me on this?? Two contributors does not prove Coleman had anybody with him. Wanda McCoy was married, and the DNA testing at the time only reduced the pool of suspects by blood marker percentages in the sample. Understand that Coleman was seen at the house of his theorized intended victim alone, based upon the testimony of the husband who was unexpectedly home. The time the husband noticed, 10:40 p.m., I believe, allowed Coleman approximately 45 minutes to commit the murder, which in a small town is plenty of time, especially late in the evening when the crime occurred. The sample tested in 1991/2 did not rule out Coleman, .2% of the population within a very small suspect pool/town. I don't know this for certain, but let's assume the husband was a part of a larger pool of 'suspects' based upon the DNA sample tested. His semen would have had a reason to be there, but the testing at the time could not narrow down the field. But the sample did not rule out Coleman who, as I said before, had motive, means, and opportunity, and who never provided a solid alibi. Coleman commited the murder alone within a small window of time in which he was identified as being out and about during that time frame. The whole 'someone else was involved' straw is just that, a straw, which is typical in these types of cases after the fact. It is also deliberate obfuscation. Based upon what we know of sexual crimes, how does one account for the fact that no more attacks occurred after Coleman's arrest? Look at that comment another way. If there were a series of burglaries occurring, and the police arrest someone (but not tried yet), and the burglaries stop, what is the logical inference you can derive from that arrest? While that inference is not admissable at trial, and needs other physical evidence for conviction, can you not make the leap of logic to draw a conclusion about the person arrested? Or to give another logical inference provided by the A.D.A. in the attempted murder trial I was a juror on: You take the train into work in the morning. As you go down into the subway, the sun is shining. Halfway into your one hour commute underground, other passengers board the train with dripping coats and wet umbrellas. Is it raining even though you have not seen it raining with your own eyes? That's the definition of logical inference. And using that logical inference, Coleman was identified as being out on the night of the murder by a witness who happened to take note of the time of his encounter with Coleman, yet allowed Coleman enough time to commit the rape/murder. Coleman was a suspect because of his prior history and knowing the victim (who was not known to let in strangers). DNA testing (physical evidence) could not rule Coleman out of a small percentage of the population who could be contributors of the sample recovered. No more attacks occurred. So we have circumstantial and physical evidence pointing to Coleman who was without an alibi. What logical inference can you make as it pertains to Coleman and the crime? On top of that, based upon anecdotes in a book by a now executed death row prisoner who knew Coleman in prison, Coleman was a bit of a wimp and constantly picked on by other more hardened death row inmates. Don't you think he'd roll over on any accomplice, something he never did?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 8, 2006 8:07:15 GMT -6
"Warner's decision has been held up in part because the sample is not in the state's possession, Hall said. The evidence is being stored in a Richmond, Calif., lab by the forensic scientist who conducted the initial DNA tests, Edward Blake. Blake, who has kept the sample frozen since 1990, has balked at returning the evidence to Virginia, arguing that testing should be conducted at his lab. He has said that Virginia has a vested interest in tests that would either confirm Coleman's guilt or be inconclusive, since a result showing Coleman was innocent could tarnish the state's criminal justice system" It sounds like this Blake guy has a vested interest, too. Why not ship the samples to another, more neutral, lab for testing? Well, given the date of the crime, 1981, who could have assumed the scientific advances made in DNA testing? What was gathered was important at the time. As someone else stated above, what will the anti's say once the test is either postive for Coleman or inconclusive? It was a longshot anyway? We tried? These agenda-driven spurious claims of innocence really hurt the actual innocents behind bars.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 8, 2006 6:47:49 GMT -6
At any rate I don't see what the fuss is all about from all accounts he is guilty then you all should be confident that the result will show that and finally close the issue and give the pros the upper hand. While what you say is true, you are forgetting an important point. A defendent is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The prosecution overcame that hurdle at trial, so Coleman is now legally considered guilty. It is not the prosecution's job to prove claims of innocence after guilt has been found in a court of law. While some claims of innocence are investigated by prosecutors and investigators after trial, they come about as a result of a belief in a miscarriage of justice having occurred, that is, the prosecutors and investigators have doubts based upon new-found evidence (I call it having integrity and respect for the system). No such new-found evidence exists in Coleman's case, nor is there a groundswell, or even a goose-bump, of support by such prosecutors and investigators. There is a group in this country called the Innocence Project. They take on claims of innocence by those convicted on a narrow case by case basis. And they have succeeded quite a few times in getting someone freed from jail. Now if they have not taken on Coleman's case, I wonder why that is? Many anti's clutch at any straw to defeat the death penalty, to prove it wrong, and Coleman's case is merely the latest straw. One point that keeps getting overlooked, and that I will repeat again and again, is the location where the crime took place, Grundy, VA. We are talking a very small town, with a very limited number of potential suspects, in the hundreds, not thousands or millions. And the fact that Coleman had a record/conviction for a vicious sexual assault/attempted rape, coupled with a pending indecent expsure charge (with menace) prior to the murder, seems to be ignored or sloughed off. What I feel is being unsaid by this "let's review this case" anti position is that small towns are somehow incapable of dispensing justice, of knowing those within their midst (as I stated before, Coleman was not some-out-of-town scapegoat picked at random, nor was he narrowed down as a suspect illogically, that is, having no connection to the victim or the crime, or even the area). No, someone from California or New York, never having lived in Grundy, know more of the facts of the case than those who live where the case occurred know. Also one has to ask: If Coleman were innocent, then have the sexual attacks continued in the small town setting? One would think if they had, people would know about it, even through the grapevine, small towns being what they are. This case reminds me of the claim of innocence by Wayne Williams, convicted of the Atlanta Child Murders. There are now claims, and interviews, and stories/articles, that Williams was railroaded, that he is innocent. But the logical fact ignored is whether the crimes continued after Williams' arrest and incarceration. In Williams' case, as in Coleman's, they did not. When it comes to the bleating of "retest the evidence, retest the evidence" in Coleman's case, why beat a dead horse? The crimes stopped when Coleman was stopped. That is a logical inference/deduction that is extremely hard to refute, though, as the Williams case shows, some will try. Which, in the long run, makes true claims of innocence looked at askance by the majority of our population, the moral of the "Peter and the Wolf" fable in action.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 7, 2006 6:55:05 GMT -6
so McCOY was at a house to rape a women how was this ever established? The husband was home when Coleman got to the house where he thought only the woman was home. but the husband answered the door. So Coleman retrieved some 8 track tape, then quickly left. According to the time frame, and this witness' recollection of the time, Coleman had around 45 minutes to commit the murder, and Wanda McCoy's residence wasn't far. Remember, Grundy is a very small town, and calling it a 'burg' would be giving it far more credit than it deserves. Very briefly, then Coleman departed. I think I answered that. He was convicted of sexual assault/attempted rape, and served time. He was awaiting trial on the indecent exposure charge when he committed the murder. The prosecutor, somewhat understandably, then decided to prosecute the murder charge, and not the indecent exposure charge, due to the differences in the seriousness of the two charges. "if McCoy had succedded who would have been the prime suspect?" I'm sorry, but I do not understand your question/point. The 1977 crime was with a gun; the murder in 1981 was with a knife. He was a convicted felon by the time of the murder, and being caught with a gun as a convicted felon would have been a no-no. It's not so much an issue, but that in this case, it's a waste of time. Again, testing is time consuming and expensive. Coleman's dead, and the resources should be put to more recent, unsolved crimes. But if the anti-DPer's want to pay for it on their dime, I'm all for it. Just don't make the State divert its resources. Only to the anti-DPer's will Coleman be perpetually innocent, forensic and scientific evidence from the trial, and Coleman's own history, notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 7, 2006 6:28:08 GMT -6
Where can i find out more about his sexual crimal history I can only find one incident in1977 . by your post it sounds like it had a lot more? Coleman was born in late 1958, so that 'only' conviction occurred when he was 19. Coleman was sentenced for the attempted rape conviction to only three years, which, as Blakely pointed out above, was quite a vicious crime. He was released from prison after only just over eighteen months, somewhere in early to mid 1979. Then came the indecent exposure incident in January, 1981, which one of the two the victims working in the library described as "not just an indecent exposure. Roger Keith Coleman exhibited to us a hostile behavior like he hated us, like he wanted to do bodily harm to us." This incident was just two months before the rape, sodomy, and murder, by slitting her throat, of his sister-in-law Wanda McCoy. In 1981, Coleman was only 22. Virginia caught this predator early, so he was stopped from having a 'lot more' crimes. By the ripe old age of 22, Coleman had already served time for a vicious sexual assault on a mother whose then six-year-old daughter, Megan, heard everything. At a press conference 15 years later, before Coleman's execution, she talked about Coleman and the assault on her mother. While awaiting trial, Coleman was free on bond. Megan stated, "I remember everything. And I remember seeing him on the street, and he would harass us and we would have to run from him." Some man, terrorizing a six-year-old girl. Then came the rape, sodomy, and murder of Wanda McCoy. His history may be skimpy by some people's standards, but I find that to be an excellent example of good policing and prosecution, preventing others from suffering at Coleman's hands. Just because Coleman was caught early on in his criminal career doesn't mean it was wrong that he was executed. By anyone's standards, Coleman was clearly getting more and more violent, even at such a young age. He was a vicious predator by the age of 22. The sexual assault cycle is a tool in the investigation, sometimes only in hindsight. Regarding this serial pattern crime, some prisoners open up for study, some do not. While the 'why' is important, it is more important still that that serial criminal be stopped, and the earlier the better, as in Coleman's case.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 6, 2006 9:11:55 GMT -6
Why do we waste money for these tests? In this case, I think it's a good idea. I disagree; in this case it's not a good idea. One is talking old evidence here, almost 25 years old; degredations occur, if even retained. The anti's use a scattershot method of trying to defeat the death penalty. In other words, they pick the da*mnest cases to prove their assertion of an innocent having been executed. One has to read the case from the beginning, and not just the trial stories, to get a fuller picture of Coleman; he was no angel. Now this site, www.quixote.org/ej/grip/reasonabledoubt/chart-Roger%20Keith%20Coleman.html, while muddying the waters and trying to somehow show innocence, to question Coleman's guilt, does provide snippets of information that are often overlooked. Coleman was convicted previously on a sexual assault/attemped rape charge, and served time. So he knew the system. He was also charged, but not tried, on an indecent exposure charge, as the murder case took precedent. The indecent exposure charge was not the "old man in a trenchcoat" type, but with menace. And we all know that sexual assaults are not about sex, but power, domination, and control. The Commonwealth's Attorney during the Coleman trial now wishes he had tried Coleman on the indecent exposure charge (pp 2, 3, 5/7 on the .pdf file below). This allegation took place two months before the murder of Wanda McCoy. On the night of the murder, Coleman was placed at another house before the time of McCoy's murder, but with enough time to get to McCoy's house, i.e., he was out and about on the night of the murder and in the neighborhood, so to speak. It has been reasoned that McCoy was there to rape the woman of the house, but that her husband had come home early from work. So the theory goes that Coleman's sexual attack cycle had already been triggered, and had to be released. And we know from studies of such sexual attacks, including sexual murder ones, that there is a definite cycle with a calm, lay-low period, and a heightened attack-mode period, followed by euphoria, then back to lay-low, etc. One also has to look at where the crime occurred. Grundy is a very small rural town in coal country (in fact, Coleman was a miner at the time of his arrest for his sister-in-law Wanda McCoy's murder). Grundy has a population of around twelve to thirteen hundred people. That's 1,200 to 1,300 total residents. A very small town, which is important as it narrows down the potential suspect pool tremendously. Approximately 48% were male, and an even smaller number than that could be considered suspects as the perpetrator left behind semen, which rules out pre-pubescent boys and the old and infirm (which rural areas have in abundance, especially mining areas due to health problems like black lung). Even with the DNA typing available at the time, the pool of potential suspects was small, and the usual suspects, like Coleman with his sexual criminal history, smaller still. And the DNA testing of the time could not exclude him from the group of suspects, which in Grundy's case, was the entire male population and not just the usual suspects, though he fell into that group, too, which is a key point.
What also goes ignored is the victim, which we all know is not unusual at all. Once must find out about the victim when doing an investigation in order to identify potential suspects. In this case, the victim was extremely shy, to the point of not opening her door to strangers; Coleman was her brother-in-law, hence, not a stranger.
www.vuac.org/capital/rogercoleman.pdf
Go to page 7/7 to read about the victim's personality as discovered by investigators. There, the Commonwealth's prosecutor provides a glimpse into Wanda McCoy's nature, which was extremely shy.
IMO, and also a trial jury's and appellate judges, Coleman was guilty as sin. He was not some innocent stranger plucked from the population; he was known by his small-town neighbors. He was not picked on because of mere supposition, but from Coleman's own history. He knew the victim, and quite possibly was not a rape-killer before harming Wanda McCoy, but that raping his own sister-in-law possibly triggered shame, or that, after serving time, he felt the "no living witness" theory sounded good. That Wanda McCoy's blood was on his pants. That even if the fingerprint on the front door had been identified as Coleman's, it was worthless as evidence since he knew the victim and had been to her house often and fingerprints give no time frame (he had a good reason for his fingerprint being found there; her blood on his pants is another story, however).
That this case has been plucked from the thousand who have been executed to be the one to prove innocence is laughable, appallingly so. Coleman was executed for a crime which he committed, having motive (he was on the prowl to rape, a part of his sexual assault cycle), means (a car, and a less than one hour window to committ rape and murder), and opportunity (he was stymied by the husband of his intended victim for the evening, then drove over to somebody he knew would let him in). Wasting time, effort, and resources to keep proving that fact is ridiculous, and detracts from current cases desparately in need of solving. After reviewing the case, and Coleman's, history, one can only logically conclude that this is a big waste of everyone's time, except the anti-DPer's. No case is ever a waste of time when it comes to their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 8, 2006 6:57:05 GMT -6
Some of you spend an awful lot of time thinking about the ccadp site! On that point, I agree with you 100%, Mel.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 3, 2006 6:06:42 GMT -6
the guy got two life sentances... what a joke.. a person can only live 1 life i find such sentances crazy I even notice one inmate in one of the prisons who had 401 years to serve. what sort of a sentance is that?? True LWOP, and no tinkering with the LWOP laws will remedy that sentence. Those excessive length terms assure the public that that person will never get out of jail again, no matter which way the political winds blow as they pertain to the formal LWOP sentencing laws.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 3, 2006 6:12:10 GMT -6
In the motion, defense lawyers said they needed to conduct their own DNA testing and computer forensics work. The motion also noted that the defense team has changed over the last year. Changing defense teams is another delaying tactic. Charles Ng used that tactic excessively but to no avail, as he still received the death penalty and is awaiting execution.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 31, 2005 11:05:15 GMT -6
You can't be serious SH.... another chump voted in as President based solely upon his Hollywood status? Solely? Maybe former athletes shouldn't run for office, either, like Jack kemp did. I grant you that actors, athletes, and the like have built in name recognition when to comes to running for political office. Yet they are voted into office for what they say and stand for, not just their face. Let's take those typical limousine liberal Hollyweird lefties who pontificate blithely to us all on how we should be, how we should act. They are so proud of their 'opinions' that they fear running for office and being soundly rejected. Safer to keep pontificating without risking a ballot box bashing. I guess the concept of 'putting one's money where one's mouth is', like Schwarzenegger did, is unheard of in your Liliputian world.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 28, 2005 10:16:36 GMT -6
The last line in an Op-Ed in today's NYPost pretty much gives the verbal finger to Graz. www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/60415.htmIt's too bad that Arnold's hometown thinks so little of all the attention it has gotten thanks to his celebrity. But, hey, now they can rename the stadium for another Austrian hero — someone they'll feel a bit more pride in. They can always call it Kurt Waldheim Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 26, 2005 17:12:55 GMT -6
i agree with arnold's decision to remove his name. that makes 2 good decisions in that many weeks. i am proud of him. Yeppers. I concur. He is his own man.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 20, 2005 6:07:50 GMT -6
He's a naturalized citizen. Only citizen born inside the borders of the US can become president. Wrong, porcine money-maker. Stick to stuffing sausages and don't comment on things of which you know nothing (as is evidenced by your other posts). Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution [ed. - 1787], shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. What is a natural-born citizen? www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.htmlCurrently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" - Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
The US Constitution, and its subsequent elaborations, makes no claim that only those "born inside the borders of the US can become President." If you are so wrong about this simple topic, what else are you wrong about? Perhaps every pre-conception you have, everything you type?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 19, 2005 19:03:50 GMT -6
So much for that dual citizenship, local boy made good in America thing, I guess.
Just goes to show that Arnold is an American now, any claim by Austria notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 17, 2005 6:05:50 GMT -6
Most citizenship Acts provide for the possibility that a new c'ship can be awarded withouth having to renounce the present c'ship if there are good and valid reasons for this. Such as? I quite agree. But for the life of me, I cannot understand the whole concept of dual citizenships. Does one wake up and say, "I'm a citizen of X today, but tomorrow I'll be a citizen of Y"? And can you vote in both countries?
|
|