...yet another stupid move by Obama (although it is effective at shutting down many of the conspiracy theorists).
He should have at least let Trump gain some more traction in the Republican primary race before putting this out. Politically, he could have gotten a lot more out of this release.
"While your enemy is in the process of destroying himself..."
Although hopefully this will do to the Birther movement what the 9/11 commission failed to do to the Truther movement.
biccat wrote:...yet another stupid move by Obama (although it is effective at shutting down many of the conspiracy theorists).
He should have at least let Trump gain some more traction in the Republican primary race before putting this out. Politically, he could have gotten a lot more out of this release.
"While your enemy is in the process of destroying himself..."
Although hopefully this will do to the Birther movement what the 9/11 commission failed to do to the Truther movement.
I guess he's serious when he talks about issues and not just trying to be politically more powerful? oh wait you won't believe that : p
biccat wrote:...yet another stupid move by Obama (although it is effective at shutting down many of the conspiracy theorists).
He should have at least let Trump gain some more traction in the Republican primary race before putting this out. Politically, he could have gotten a lot more out of this release.
"While your enemy is in the process of destroying himself..."
Although hopefully this will do to the Birther movement what the 9/11 commission failed to do to the Truther movement.
I guess he's serious when he talks about issues and not just trying to be politically more powerful? oh wait you won't believe that : p
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
Frazzled wrote:Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
He could point to the UK where it is $10 a gallon, with the vast majority of that being tax?
Frazzled wrote:Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
But it was an easily winnable issue. It doesn't matter how crazy the conspiracy theorists get, because you've always got the ace in the hole that will win the issue decisively. The worst case scenario is that it looks like he was playing the conspiracy theorists for fools and making political hay from the issue.
Also, the President's latest plan to deal with rising gas prices is to cut tax breaks to oil companies. I'm not sure what logic is used to support this idea, but apparently increasing the cost of providing gasoline will lead to lower prices.
On the unemployment front, don't you remember that in 2010 the President had a Laser-like focus on job growth. Geez Fraz, it's like you don't read the White House talking points news.
Frazzled wrote:Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
He could point to the UK where it is $10 a gallon, with the vast majority of that being tax?
As much as he would like high gas prices, and his Secretary of Energy is living his dream realized by achieving $5 now, he would literally be tarred and feathered with $10 gasaoline, and that by his own party. You want to see a revolution in the US, drive the gasoline to that price. Bombers will be flying somewhere long before that.
Frazzled wrote:Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
But it was an easily winnable issue. It doesn't matter how crazy the conspiracy theorists get, because you've always got the ace in the hole that will win the issue decisively. The worst case scenario is that it looks like he was playing the conspiracy theorists for fools and making political hay from the issue.
Also, the President's latest plan to deal with rising gas prices is to cut tax breaks to oil companies. I'm not sure what logic is used to support this idea, but apparently increasing the cost of providing gasoline will lead to lower prices.
On the unemployment front, don't you remember that in 2010 the President had a Laser-like focus on job growth. Geez Fraz, it's like you don't read the White House talking points news.
Oil companies recieving tax breaks when they make record profits makes no sense.
Subsidizing oil has led to little developement of other alternatives.
I find it surprising that the price of gas always goes down to the point where alternatives are just a little bit too expensive to invest in...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
daedalus-templarius wrote:Don't worry, they will find something else.
I mean, I don't recommend it, but on other forums I frequent I've seen snippets of comments from fox and other places...
To them, its a forgery and a 50 year old (or however old obama is) kingmaker play from the secret society that runs the world. Or something.
Oh, there's something else (that the birth certificate just released doesn't address), but it's a stupid argument.
Also, in my experience Fox has been pretty dismissive of the issue. I think even Beck called it the "dumbest thing I'd ever heard."
Didn't beck come up with the idea???
And didn't beck rape and kill a girl in 1992? I don't know if its true.... but i haven't heard him deny this yet...
let me forward this conspiracy. He was born here because it seems a little unlikely that somebody planted the birth records, okay, a little unlikely, in the newspapers. Now you would say, well, then why doesn’t he just produce? Good question. That one kept me up for minutes at a time, minutes.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Didn't beck come up with the idea???
And didn't beck rape and kill a girl in 1992? I don't know if its true.... but i haven't heard him deny this yet...
Beck didn't. That was Hillary Clinton during the '08 election in an attempt to gak all over everyone to become president.
The second point was something 4chan came up with. They have something involving Bob Saget as well IIRC. Besides, if you're going to quote memes, do it right. It was 1990.
I hope the birthers are asking for the next president's birth cert. I would have assumed that as a requirment is 'being american' that you need to prove these sort of things before being allowed run anyway...
I hate party bashing, usually, but what the heck is with the republican party and the non-issue circus tactic. This is up there with the multi-million dollar blowjob investigation to discredit someone. Whoever uses this sort of thing to distract the jerry-springer-fan voting demographic from real issues that need to be addressed should be ASHAMED of themselves! It's that simple. ASHAMED. No wonder the rest of the world watches U.S. politics with so much sad head-shaking amusement. It's like watching the "special" children fighting on a playground over nosepicking accusations.
Phototoxin wrote:I hope the birthers are asking for the next president's birth cert. I would have assumed that as a requirment is 'being american' that you need to prove these sort of things before being allowed run anyway...
It's only cos he's black. Frigging joke.
I hope the "it's only cos he's black" was the joke. But I would agree with your second point, I had assumed that one requirement to run for office was to present a valid birth certificate (since one requirement of being President is "Natural Born Citizen").
mister robouteo wrote:This is up there with the multi-million dollar blowjob investigation to discredit someone.
You know that there was a lot more going on with Clinton than a BJ, right?
No big deal People who don't like you will always invent a reason to not like you. OT Obama doen't have a hand on an Oil price nob. Ask the Oil speculators about that. Or even better outlaw them.
Phototoxin wrote:I hope the birthers are asking for the next president's birth cert. I would have assumed that as a requirment is 'being american' that you need to prove these sort of things before being allowed run anyway...
It's only cos he's black. Frigging joke.
I hope the "it's only cos he's black" was the joke. But I would agree with your second point, I had assumed that one requirement to run for office was to present a valid birth certificate (since one requirement of being President is "Natural Born Citizen").
Who was the last white president who's identity needed to be proved?
I do think its partial racism... if he was white and blonde saying he's kenyan wouldn't get you very far. But yes its mostly an Ali G 'is it coz I is black' joke. The whole thing is a farce. US democracy... you have a binary choice... not really a choice at all to be honest.
US Republic in the first place. Second of all we do have a choice, its just that the Democrats and Republicans usually take the ideas of the third or fourth parties.
Also, its not because he's black(although some may see it as that). If a white guy says he's from Kenya it would be hard to believe simply due to the odds. Same concept applies to when people think of Africa they think of a black person and forget about South Africa's white population.
Obama's father was Kenyan citizen and his mother was an American citizen, that's why it went so far.
Melissia wrote:Probably not. Birthers are all pretty nutty.
That's true. Never let facts stand in the way of your argument, right?
I think long form birth certificates should be required before posting on the intranetz.
On the positive, now I can call Obama "Junior"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:
biccat wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:I hope the birthers are asking for the next president's birth cert. I would have assumed that as a requirment is 'being american' that you need to prove these sort of things before being allowed run anyway...
It's only cos he's black. Frigging joke.
I hope the "it's only cos he's black" was the joke. But I would agree with your second point, I had assumed that one requirement to run for office was to present a valid birth certificate (since one requirement of being President is "Natural Born Citizen").
Who was the last white president who's identity needed to be proved?
I do think its partial racism... if he was white and blonde saying he's kenyan wouldn't get you very far. But yes its mostly an Ali G 'is it coz I is black' joke. The whole thing is a farce. US democracy... you have a binary choice... not really a choice at all to be honest.
Actually he would have to eventually. Several states have now passed legislation (or at least pending) requiring proof. We should note this was also an issue for McCain, but the Senate passed a resolution so it was all good.
Phototoxin wrote:Who was the last white president who's identity needed to be proved?
I do recall there was some discussion about whether McCain was eligible to run for President due to his birth in the Panama Canal zone. I don't recall how this coincided with the Obama birther issue.
Also, there was a major push by nutjobs on the Left to suggest that G.W. Bush's military records were somehow tainted. I believe a major journalist eventually stepped down for reporting on false documents.
The coalition of angry swift boaters or whatever they were called weren't an underhanded conservative nutjob scheme though, right? I think most of the disparity about Dubyahs military service wasn't about paperwork, but about his attempt to come off as some kind of real hero about it. The embarrassingly transparent carrier visit where he actually flew the plane (except for the take off and landing parts) kind of helped fan that flame.
mister robouteo wrote:The coalition of angry swift boaters or whatever they were called weren't an underhanded conservative nutjob scheme though, right?
Right.
mister robouteo wrote:I think most of the disparity about Dubyahs military service wasn't about paperwork, but about his attempt to come off as some kind of real hero about it. The embarrassingly transparent carrier visit where he actually flew the plane (except for the take off and landing parts) kind of helped fan that flame.
Do you think the Navy (or Secret Service) would really let a pilot who hadn't flown for 30 years try to take off or land a multi-million dollar aircraft on an aircraft carrier (which AFAIK he had never done before, he was National Guard, and I think all of his experience was land-based), all while risking the president's life?
I understand the reasoning behind it. But why try and play it off for the press that the President flew his own plane? Was my point. It just gave people something else to make fun of.
mister robouteo wrote:I understand the reasoning behind it. But why try and play it off for the press that the President flew his own plane? Was my point. It just gave people something else to make fun of.
He wore a flight suit because its customary to wear a flight suit and helmet when one rides in a jet aircraft.
Melissia wrote:Probably not. Birthers are all pretty nutty.
That's true. Never let facts stand in the way of your argument, right?
Something like that. I recall there was one birther tossing incorrect bible quotes out, and his preacher corrected him. He shrugged and continued using the wrong quote once he got out of church because it suited his argument.
I question why a person has to be born here anyway. It's hardly appropriate for a nation of immigrants with equal rights. For that matter, the 35 year thing doesn't make sense either. Suppose I was very qualified, 34 years old, and came to the country when I was 6 months old? I guess I would have to concede that I am unqualified for the job based on rules written back in the age of sailing ships where 35 was "old", much like arguing about the rules for the electoral college or districting that were written when there was horse-drawn-carriage travel involved with having a say in government representation. Those that back it because it hurts the opposing team have no reasonable explaination of it other than that it is "the rules". Rules that make no sense due to being outdated should be overturned, not coddled to on the sole qualifier of being The Rules.
mister robouteo wrote:I question why a person has to be born here anyway. It's hardly appropriate for a nation of immigrants with equal rights. For that matter, the 35 year thing doesn't make sense either. Suppose I was very qualified, 34 years old, and came to the country when I was 6 months old? I guess I would have to concede that I am unqualified for the job based on rules written back in the age of sailing ships where 35 was "old", much like arguing about the rules for the electoral college or districting that were written when there was horse-drawn-carriage travel involved with having a say in government representation. Those that back it because it hurts the opposing team have no reasonable explaination of it other than that it is "the rules". Rules that make no sense due to being outdated should be overturned, not coddled to on the sole qualifier of being The Rules.
Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.
Being born in America also means that you're tied to America and helps prevent foreign influence in matters.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Don't worry, they will find something else.
I mean, I don't recommend it, but on other forums I frequent I've seen snippets of comments from fox and other places...
To them, its a forgery and a 50 year old (or however old obama is) kingmaker play from the secret society that runs the world. Or something.
Oh, there's something else (that the birth certificate just released doesn't address), but it's a stupid argument.
Also, in my experience Fox has been pretty dismissive of the issue. I think even Beck called it the "dumbest thing I'd ever heard."
Was mostly talking about the people in the comments section, but they've given plenty of airtime to questioning his 'Merican authenticity.
I was happy when Papa Bear (O'Reilly) actually came out and said the birther's are wrong. I still don't particularly like him, but hes not a complete nutbag like Beck.
1) Obama was clearly born in Hawaii. Even before this, there was more than enough evidence to show that he was born in Hawaii. He had shown a certification of live birth in 2008, which is all that is needed to prove anything!
2) The entire Birther movement relies on the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". They interpret this to mean "born on US soil". But, that definition is only 1 of the 2 ways a child can be born as a US citizen. The other way is for your parent to be a US citizen! So, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was still a US citizen, so he was a still a natural born citizen.
Now, I hope this will be the end of the birther movement. But, I think I'm giving too much credit to the logical part of people...
Grakmar wrote:The Birther movement is idiotic for 2 reasons:
1) Obama was clearly born in Hawaii. Even before this, there was more than enough evidence to show that he was born in Hawaii. He had shown a certification of live birth in 2008, which is all that is needed to prove anything!
2) The entire Birther movement relies on the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". They interpret this to mean "born on US soil". But, that definition is only 1 of the 2 ways a child can be born as a US citizen. The other way is for your parent to be a US citizen! So, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was still a US citizen, so he was a still a natural born citizen.
Now, I hope this will be the end of the birther movement. But, I think I'm giving too much credit to the logical part of people...
I have a problem with #2 here. Forgive my elitist dismissal of the notion of an educated majority of voters, but how many people who eat this garbage up on the news are aware of this? Unfortunately, and again I go back to the "should be ashamed" rant, I would have hoped that the people making a stink about it would at least have been aware of it. Maybe the only reason they haven't gone after his mother proving her citizenship is that it would look bad to the patriotic family values dupes if they made a dig at a guy's mom.
Grakmar wrote:The Birther movement is idiotic for 2 reasons:
1) Obama was clearly born in Hawaii. Even before this, there was more than enough evidence to show that he was born in Hawaii. He had shown a certification of live birth in 2008, which is all that is needed to prove anything!
2) The entire Birther movement relies on the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". They interpret this to mean "born on US soil". But, that definition is only 1 of the 2 ways a child can be born as a US citizen. The other way is for your parent to be a US citizen! So, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was still a US citizen, so he was a still a natural born citizen.
Now, I hope this will be the end of the birther movement. But, I think I'm giving too much credit to the logical part of people...
A person born to a US citizen on foreign soil(outside of an embassy or military base in a foreign country) can apply for dual citizenship and once that child turns 18 he/she can choose a citizenship.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The same thing applies to State senators, they have to of had lived in a state for a certain amount of time. It helps make sure that you understand the people that you're supposed to represent along with the values they hold.
mister robouteo wrote:I have a problem with #2 here.
Do you mean that #2 is incorrect? Because it (probably) is, at least, as it relates to "natural born citizen."
mister robouteo wrote:Forgive my elitist dismissal of the notion of an educated majority of voters
It's not elitist if it's true. Very few voters are actually educated on even a small subset of the issues at stake in an election. For example, you probably didn't know about your Representative's stance on the Patent Reform Act when you voted.
mister robouteo wrote:but how many people who eat this garbage up on the news are aware of this? Unfortunately, and again I go back to the "should be ashamed" rant, I would have hoped that the people making a stink about it would at least have been aware of it.
Huh? Are you saying that natural born citizenship is jus sanguinis.
mister robouteo wrote:Maybe the only reason they haven't gone after his mother proving her citizenship is that it would look bad to the patriotic family values dupes if they made a dig at a guy's mom.
I don't think his mother's citizenship was at any time an issue. I think it had something to do with her age at the time of his birth.
Nowhere on that 'long form birth certificate' does it list which Hawaii, which Earth he was born in.
Until we know for certain that Obama was born here on Earth Prime and not on Earth 2 or Earth 616 or God Forbid the anti-matter Earth, Htrea, we should not accept this.
Do we know for a fact that Hawaii is even a state on Htrea?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:The Birther movement is idiotic for 2 reasons:
1) Obama was clearly born in Hawaii. Even before this, there was more than enough evidence to show that he was born in Hawaii. He had shown a certification of live birth in 2008, which is all that is needed to prove anything!
2) The entire Birther movement relies on the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". They interpret this to mean "born on US soil". But, that definition is only 1 of the 2 ways a child can be born as a US citizen. The other way is for your parent to be a US citizen! So, even if Obama was born in Kenya, his mother was still a US citizen, so he was a still a natural born citizen.
Now, I hope this will be the end of the birther movement. But, I think I'm giving too much credit to the logical part of people...
They've gone farther than that, born on US soil with 2 US citizen parents, a standard that does not exist anywhere in law and would mean my (hypothetical future) kids could not president.
halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.
Being born in America also means that you're tied to America and helps prevent foreign influence in matters.
A surprising number of people are having trouble following Obama despite the fact he is a poster boy for immigration and assimilation into the American culture.
My brother's wife is pregnant, they live in Oregon, he is British, she is American. The baby will be born in the USA. He or she will be entitled to a UK passport, which will allow him to live anywhere in the EU without conditions.
My wife is Japanese and I have a resident visa for Japan. If my brother and his wife died shortly after the birth of their child, in a car accident perhaps, their nearest relative to adopt the baby would be me.
I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35. Or s/he might take Japanese citizenship and become Prime Minister, or become Prime Minister of the UK.
Alternatively, my wife and I could die suddenly, and our half-Japanese, half-British daughter could be adopted by my brother in Oregon, go to the local school, grow up saying "eeew" and "omg". After 24 years she would not be eligible to be President.
Kilkrazy wrote:I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35.
halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.
Being born in America also means that you're tied to America and helps prevent foreign influence in matters.
I've lived here for 29 years and there are some facets of "Merican Culture" I would LOVE to change, and could totally get behind someone wanting to change things!
This is also a ridiculously broad, sweeping statement of your opinion, and contrary to what you might think, we do not all share it.
Being born here doesn't make you more 'Merican than anyone else that has been stuck here for too long.
Kilkrazy wrote:I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35.
No, she wouldn't.
...unless she moved here at some point and resided here for at least 14 years. Which could be anytime after having grown up in a totally different culture with a totally different language.
She would if she started that tourism business from a location within the United States assuming a four year stint at uni. The math actually works out quite well.
Kilkrazy wrote:I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35.
No, she wouldn't.
...unless she moved here at some point and resided here for at least 14 years. Which could be anytime after having grown up in a totally different culture with a totally different language.
Kilkrazy's point is well made.
Since you changed this before I responded...
Your math is off.
18 years in Japan + 4 years university + some time in Turkey + 14 years > 35 years.
Even if we don't fill in the gaps to allow for the 14 year residency requirement, nitpicking that detail doesn't detract in any way from Kilkrazy's point. Which is that being born here in no way means you were necessarily raised here or are attached to/inculcated in our culture.
As for the residency argument, don't forget the recent ruling in regards to Rahm Emanuel and his Chicago residency status. All you have to do to claim residency is to own a property and keep some personal possessions there.
So, we have the following scenario:
Child is born to two parents, an American mother, and a non-American father on a US Military Base with all foreign doctors and nurses.
The father dies during the pregnancy, and the mother dies during childbirth.
The child goes to live with the non-American parents of the father in a foreign country.
The child grows up, never having been to America, not speaking English, and never having met an American.
The child buys some property in America through a proxy, and ships some personal effects to be stored in the property.
14 years later, the child (now a 35 year-old adult) runs for President and wins, while doing all his or her campaigning via virtual means.
So, it seems totally legit to have a President who has never stepped foot in US borders and never having even met an American.
Let's assume my brother wills his house in Oregon to me.
To be realistic, it would be absurd to suppose that people would vote for the adopted Kilkrazy candidate, who has never been to the USA and can't speak English. OTOH the other Kilkrazy candidate could be as American as apple pie, (she goes to an American school now) but wouldn't be eligible.
My point is that factors of birth and upbringing are possibly minimal in legal terms when considering these questions of acculturation.
There are actually two members of the Japanese Diet who were born foreign. One is ex-Taiwanese, who gained her citizenship through jus sanguinus, the other is ex-Finnish, who naturalized.
I have more in common with Obama (which isn't much) than I did with BUsh. Bush is a rich kid through and through, while Obama is a self-made man.
Dunno, if it's a personal connection that you people are talking about as far as culture, that definitely puts me wanting to associate more with the latter than the former. I don't know why a lot of people who are themselves self-made people feel they have more in common with a rich boy who inherited his wealth and family name and basically runs using those...
Some people who like Bush and dislike Obama were born wealthy themselves, rather than self-made. Many others are not self-made but wish they were/think someday they will be, and thus support lower taxes on the wealthy people they WANT to be.
It's particularly ironic because Republicans tend to get more support in states which have more poverty and make heavier use of those support programs. A lot of these folks are literally voting to take food out of their and their neighbors' own mouths.
Mannahnin wrote:It's particularly ironic because Republicans tend to get more support in states which have more poverty and make heavier use of those support programs. A lot of these folks are literally voting to take food out of their and their neighbors' own mouths.
Hey, fearmongering (not by the candidates, necessarily) and building a sense of comradely can get you places.
Long-form, schmong-form... So what if the Birthers have been refuted in every simply way possible?
I'm a die-hard After-Birther!!!
I demand that the so-called President Obama show us his placenta! Anything less than that is not acceptable and Trump needs to be notified immediately!
Gotta love The Onion...
Valete,
JohnS
Oooh... And as an added plus, this is my past Dakka post as a "triple digit-er". It's 4 digit post counts from here on out baby!!!
halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.
Being born in America also means that you're tied to America and helps prevent foreign influence in matters.
A surprising number of people are having trouble following Obama despite the fact he is a poster boy for immigration and assimilation into the American culture.
My brother's wife is pregnant, they live in Oregon, he is British, she is American. The baby will be born in the USA. He or she will be entitled to a UK passport, which will allow him to live anywhere in the EU without conditions.
My wife is Japanese and I have a resident visa for Japan. If my brother and his wife died shortly after the birth of their child, in a car accident perhaps, their nearest relative to adopt the baby would be me.
I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35. Or s/he might take Japanese citizenship and become Prime Minister, or become Prime Minister of the UK.
Actually, Japan doesn't recognize dual or multi-citizenship. If a dual citizen of the US and the UK is naturalised in any other nation besides the US, they will lose their US citizenship. So if the child becomes a naturalized Japanese citizen he won't be a UK or US citizen. Dual citizenship is another big thing, because even though the child is a US citizen by birth he is also a UK citizen by birth. If the child renounces his citizenship in any manner of fashion he renounces the right to run for president and would have to become nationalized.
The president renounces the allegience to another country and would have to forfeit his UK citizenship and passport. So even if the child decided to run he would lose his rights as a UK citizen in order to do so. And even then people most likely would not vote for him seeing as though he has a slim connection to the country.
But no, there is an american culture and the government requires the obligations of a person who is a citizen of the US and only the US. Children are usually naturalised if they are adopted to avoid issues with the other government, so if you adopt your brother's child he may lose his US citizenship to avoid laws from two countries interacting with each other, it all depends on the myriad of citizenship and adoption.
We had an issue with a Navy man and his Japanese citizen wife recently. They had conceived a child in Japan before they were married, he was stationed back in america before they could get married and the marriage was finally approved while she was in Japan and he was in the States. He died before he could return or she could come to america. After the child was born she came to america and the child was removed from her and given to the man's family due to citizenship laws concerning their marriage. There was some law saying that they had to 'seal the deal' after marriage in order for it to count, so she was denied citizenship and her child. Got to love arbitrary laws.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Beck didn't. That was Hillary Clinton during the '08 election in an attempt to gak all over everyone to become president.
The second point was something 4chan came up with. They have something involving Bob Saget as well IIRC. Besides, if you're going to quote memes, do it right. It was 1990.
The point of the meme was to demonstrate how disingenuous Beck's argument was. "I don't really believe this, and I'm sure it's not true, but isn't it funny that he hasn't just proved it" is an argument engineered to provide deniability while still spreading the rumour that it just might be true.
When making an argument, the point is to put forward the evidence for the case, not just talk about how it's interesting that Beck hasn't done anything to prove he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:You know that there was a lot more going on with Clinton than a BJ, right?
You know there actually wasn't, right?
That millions of dollars in legal costs and an immense amount of the president's time was wasted on bs allegations, that all amounted to nothing other than the revelation that the president got a blow job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:On the positive, now I can call Obama "Junior"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mister robouteo wrote:I think most of the disparity about Dubyahs military service wasn't about paperwork, but about his attempt to come off as some kind of real hero about it. The embarrassingly transparent carrier visit where he actually flew the plane (except for the take off and landing parts) kind of helped fan that flame.
There was a real belief among the leftwing that Bush had actually gone AWOL or something, and that there was this big effort to cover it all up. It was bs, and the only proof for it was that people really didn't like Bush.
It was really no different to people believing the Clintons had killed all those people, or scammed people with Whitewater or whatever.
It's bad when both sides do it. Though few crazy bits of nonsense, on either the left or the right, have been as bad as this birther nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.
Then you and everyone else would be free to not vote for him.
That's the thing that puzzles me about not just the 'natural born citizen' requirement but about any kind of criteria for the presidency... who better than the electorate to decide what really matters to them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:There are actually two members of the Japanese Diet who were born foreign. One is ex-Taiwanese, who gained her citizenship through jus sanguinus, the other is ex-Finnish, who naturalized.
Here in Australia the former premier of New South Wales was an American, who first came to Australia in 1994 at the age of 26 to be with her husband. Despite all that foreign-ness corrupting her brain, she seemed to do alright.
Well, she did terribly and led the party to one of the greatest electoral defeats not only in the history of NSW, but of Australia, and by some arguments, in the world. But that wasn't really her fault, the party she tried to lead was well and truly out of control.
If the typically republican-associated anti-abortion stance that life begins at conception is to be taken as a premise for lawmaking, perhaps when they get their way changing laws about that they can follow it up by making sure all potential presidents were actually concieved within U.S. borders accordingly?
mister robouteo wrote:If the typically republican anti-abortion stance that life begins at conception is to be taken as a premise for lawmaking, perhaps when they get their way changing laws about that they can follow it up by making sure all potential presidents were actually concieved within U.S. borders accordingly?
Only if it wasn't conceived by at least one american sex cell.
I hope this wont necessitate escalating into another inquiry into politicians "family" lives then. Neither party does well with those. I think they should prove that the doctor who signed it wasn't born someone else too, and a background check on the parents concerned there too. After all, if China can breed olympic gymnasts, they could breed a president and a doctor just as easily. You never know how much this foreign conspiracy might run and you can't be too careful when the absolutely rational rules of the U.S. Constitution are questioned.
I knew it! No wonder so many politicians hate the common American taxpayer. The whole thing is just another way of those Commies undermining our economy. Now I'm wondering if India is breeding customer service people too. This stuff goes WAY deeper than Donald Trump thought.
Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?
Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?
Per gallon.
It's cheap because we don't pay $5 per gallon in taxes.
Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?
Per gallon.
It's cheap because we don't pay $5 per gallon in taxes.
It would be great if we only paid $5/gal in taxes... :(
Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
biccat wrote:When one race votes 55-43 for Candidate A, the only conclusion is that the voters are racist.
What conclusion can you draw when another race votes 95-4 for Candidate B?
(note for non-Americans biccat is talking about African American support for Democrats)
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
The Republicans have made ever effort to lose African American support and this is the result.
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
I wipe my ass with the opinions of Irish national radio. The thought that they know anything about the US or US politics makes baby Jesus cry.
Well A bunch of conservative radio host said it was a fake because it said "African" and not "Negro" Turns out the doctor was Hawaiian and not some Klan member. They even found the doctor's wife and had her verify the sig. People are still saying his father maes him "less American than they are.
Here a link. Complete with racial remarks in the comment section.
biccat wrote:When one race votes 55-43 for Candidate A, the only conclusion is that the voters are racist.
What conclusion can you draw when another race votes 95-4 for Candidate B?
(note for non-Americans biccat is talking about African American support for Democrats)
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
The Republicans have made ever effort to lose African American support and this is the result.
biccat wrote:When one race votes 55-43 for Candidate A, the only conclusion is that the voters are racist.
What conclusion can you draw when another race votes 95-4 for Candidate B?
(note for non-Americans biccat is talking about African American support for Democrats)
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
The Republicans have made ever effort to lose African American support and this is the result.
It's less that Republicans made an effort to lose it (in the 1960's) and more that up until Lyndon B. Johnson, neither party made a real effort in securing the vote. They used blacks as a swing block and promised them candy corn every four years to try and get the vote. The black vote became concentratedly democrat not on the fault of the republicans but the democrats, who finally gave them what they wanted. I mean, I know people like blaming party a for problems b-d, but at least give party b credit where credit is due. In one swoop the dems secured the black vote (and lost the southern bible belt vote which is why there's so much red on the electoral collage chart down south today).
The comparison would only be valid if the black vote percentage was markedly different from previous presidential elections. Say, if in 2004 it had been 66% dem and 33% repub, I'd say we have a reason for all this hubalu. But I just made those numbers up and have no idea what the vote percentage actually is/was
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
Please tell me this isn't true?!
The Republicans mostly oppose the voting rights act because it grants federal oversight for election administration in certain states (that is, southern states). The argument is that it is no longer necessary because these states have no more interest in disenfranchising voters than northern states.
Note that when the act was enacted, Republicans supported the act (30-2 and 112-24) more than Democrats (47-17, 221-61).
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
Please tell me this isn't true?!
Without Republicans the civil rights legislation would never have been passed. Al Gore's Dad voted against it. And thats why he's cursed to chase Manbearpig. The sins of the father and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please tell me this isn't true?!
Yes it is true. People voted for Al Gore. I know its hard to believe.
It's an invalid comparison since African Americans vote for both black and white Democratic candidates. The reason they're not voting is Republican is simple, in the 60s the Republicans made a stand against voting rigts and civil rights for African Americans. To this day the party opposes renewing the voting rights act when it comes up.
Please tell me this isn't true?!
Without Republicans the civil rights legislation would never have been passed. Al Gore's Dad voted against it. And thats why he's cursed to chase Manbearpig. The sins of the father and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please tell me this isn't true?!
Yes it is true. People voted for Al Gore. I know its hard to believe.
I like you, you're a funny lad Frazz
I remember seeing a program the other week that was saying that good old Abe wasn't the civil rights believer that he's made out to be. "Opportunist" would be a way of describing him. You certainly have an interesting political past over there.
I know I did, But the man was a damned robot. I like robots. Nope Abe was not a saint, everything is a shade of grey. It's less good and band and more bad vs worse. Besides NOBODY leaves the union, at least not alive. Mua ha ha ha harr.
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
I wipe my ass with the opinions of Irish national radio. The thought that they know anything about the US or US politics makes baby Jesus cry.
Irish Times too low brow for you eh? You do strike me as aLe Monde diplomatique type.
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
I wipe my ass with the opinions of Irish national radio. The thought that they know anything about the US or US politics makes baby Jesus cry.
A bit harsh especially as a fair number of US politicians thought they new what was going on in Ireland during the troubles
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
I wipe my ass with the opinions of Irish national radio. The thought that they know anything about the US or US politics makes baby Jesus cry.
A bit harsh especially as a fair number of US politicians thought they new what was going on in Ireland during the troubles
Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters. We don't cotton to the French milled soap types.
WOuld it help if I said I wipe my ass with the opinions of US politicians? I left that out before because it kind of goes without saying.
Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?
WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?
Per gallon.
It's cheap because we don't pay $5 per gallon in taxes.
And because our economy is rather dependent on cheap gas, so both relatively low taxation on gas and negotiations to get it at good prices in the first place are critical. Most Europeans (and most Americans, for that matter, who largely aren't aware how expensive it is elsewhere) don't realize that this matters because almost all of our food and consumer goods need to be shipped long distances via truck, since our country is large and spread out.
olympia wrote:Irish national radio had an interesting piece this morning on the issue. They concluded that racism is endemic in the u.s. Kt is, according to these europeans, the only logical explanation for the staying power of this issue.
I wipe my ass with the opinions of Irish national radio. The thought that they know anything about the US or US politics makes baby Jesus cry.
A bit harsh especially as a fair number of US politicians thought they new what was going on in Ireland during the troubles
Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters. We don't cotton to the French milled soap types.
WOuld it help if I said I wipe my ass with the opinions of US politicians? I left that out before because it kind of goes without saying.
It does make you wonder what the point of them is as no bugger has any time for them any more
So basically President Obama withheld his birth certificate because he knew it would be a point of contention among his opponents and something like the birther movement would happen and that movement would be discredited.
He only produced it because it began to hurt his ratings.
MadEdric wrote:So basically President Obama withheld his birth certificate because he knew it would be a point of contention among his opponents and something like the birther movement would happen and that movement would be discredited.
He only produced it because it began to hurt his ratings.
Shrewdly played.
That was quite the master plan of his. It would have taken some sort of tactical geniu-
It certainly showed the Birthers to be completely delusional.
Birthers: "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate?"
Birthers: "WHY DOESN"T HE SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"
Birthers: "WHY DOESN'T HE JUST SHOW US HIS DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"
MadEdric wrote:So basically President Obama withheld his birth certificate because he knew it would be a point of contention among his opponents and something like the birther movement would happen and that movement would be discredited.
He only produced it because it began to hurt his ratings.
Shrewdly played.
That was quite the master plan of his. It would have taken some sort of tactical geniu-
CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!
Nah, I see it more as:
Republicans: Show us your birth certificate.
President Obama : Ummm.. not sure where it is (who actually has immediate access to their birth certificate?).
Republicans: Liar! You weren't born in America!
President Obama: Oh.. here it is.. wait those guys are frothing at the mouth, let's hold on for a while and see how much of fools they can make themselves.
Republicans turned Birthers: WARBLGARBLEWARBLE
President Obama: Tee Hee
Average Joe: Wha? Warblegeablewarble?
Birthers: WARBLEGARBLEWARBLE!!!!!11!
Average Joe: WARBLEGARBLE!
President Obama: Oh this game has gone on enough, here it is.
MadEdric wrote:So basically President Obama withheld his birth certificate because he knew it would be a point of contention among his opponents and something like the birther movement would happen and that movement would be discredited.
He only produced it because it began to hurt his ratings.
Shrewdly played.
That was quite the master plan of his. It would have taken some sort of tactical geniu-
CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!
Nah, I see it more as:
Republicans: Show us your birth certificate.
President Obama : Ummm.. not sure where it is (who actually has immediate access to their birth certificate?).
Republicans: Liar! You weren't born in America!
President Obama: Oh.. here it is.. wait those guys are frothing at the mouth, let's hold on for a while and see how much of fools they can make themselves.
Republicans turned Birthers: WARBLGARBLEWARBLE
President Obama: Tee Hee
Average Joe: Wha? Warblegeablewarble?
Birthers: WARBLEGARBLEWARBLE!!!!!11!
Average Joe: WARBLEGARBLE!
President Obama: Oh this game has gone on enough, here it is.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters.
1. Glad to know you got that handled. not sure we really needed to know, we just all kind of assumed.
2. Not sure why you think alot of little, long dogs are all that? never met a 'vicious' one. and any mean ones quickly find out i'm more mean than they are.
just sayin'....
Frazzled wrote: Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters.
2. Not sure why you think alot of little, long dogs are all that? never met a 'vicious' one. and any mean ones quickly find out i'm more mean than they are.
just sayin'....
Be careful what you're saying, mate. Unless you have extensive personal experience with certain weiner dogs, you'd know that they are vicious little hunters, bred for hunting down the vermin of the forest.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters.
2. Not sure why you think alot of little, long dogs are all that? never met a 'vicious' one. and any mean ones quickly find out i'm more mean than they are.
just sayin'....
Be careful what you're saying, mate. Unless you have extensive personal experience with certain weiner dogs, you'd know that they are vicious little hunters, bred for hunting down the vermin of the forest.
Thanks micahaphone, but i feel pretty comforatble with where i'm at. In my line of work i can see 0 - any odd number of dogs in a day. hell, i've even been to several breeders homes.
none of them struct me with a sense of impending DOOM , Wiener dog or otherwise.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone who runs herd on Dachshundhammer are rough characters.
1. Glad to know you got that handled. not sure we really needed to know, we just all kind of assumed.
2. Not sure why you think alot of little, long dogs are all that? never met a 'vicious' one. and any mean ones quickly find out i'm more mean than they are.
just sayin'....
The mighty TBone disagrees with your statement frail human!
Of course, if you mess with Tbone you mess with Genghis Connie, and if you mess with her, you mess with her thousands of Henry repeater armed Mongols just waiting in the hills to strike.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Daschunds, bred for hunting boar and badger.
Badger Dog! When you're bred to climb into a tunnel and fight the vicious badger in his own home, you're a bad mamma.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh that is so awesome.
