Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's a discussion point that some congressman flunky is going to sue to force the issue.
edit: here we go
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Report_Arizona_Rep_considering_birther_lawsuit.html

JohnHwangDD wrote:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98589

The end times are near.

whitedragon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98589

The end times are near.

'
About freeking time. Do you know how much it costs to keep a tank full of sharks with freeking laser beams adequately fed?

halonachos wrote:
But what kind of moral "good" does it do.

My default answer would be a utilitarian one, because I am a utilitarian.

"The greatest good, for the greatest number."

halonachos wrote:
There's qualitative and quantitative moral good.

There's quite a bit more to it than that. You can approach the concept of good from an almost unlimited number of angles: Utilitarian, Kantian, Platonic, Aristotelian, etc.

halonachos wrote:
Sure it helps out 1/6 of the nation at the the expense of 5/6 the nation, so its not quantitative good or else it would help out 5/6 of the nation at the expense of 1/6 the nation.

Have you not been paying attention? The primary argument for a public option is that it works to increase competition by segregating insurance from employment. It helps out 6/6 of the nation.

halonachos wrote:
Surely it must be qualitative good, but these people are strangers for the most part and the money should be spent to help family or friends, so guess it isn't qualitative either.

It seems you're under the impression that morality is a universal construct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
WTH are you talking about?

If he wasn't even born in America - how can he qualify as a Natural-Born Citizen?

First, he doesn't necessarily have to be a Natural-Born Citizen. That isn't how the Constitution reads. That's how its been conventionally interpreted, but it certainly isn't iron-clad.

Second, Natural-Born Citizen has no legal definition. If you take the statement at face-value it seems to imply that the President must be a citizen from birth, but that is itself a very murky concept. If you're not a Birther its fully possible for someone to be born in another country to possess citizenship from birth.

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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.

But how is this healthcare thing helping.

I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.

If I already have insurance this public plan won't truly help me. Even with the competition it may cause me to lose my insurance when my insurance company tanks.

So no, its not utilitarian.

Halapenos wrote:I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.

In case you did not know it is actually the year 2009 and there is no bill that has been passed putting this into effect.

One question, do you support re=working medicare/medicaid? If so, how do you explain to the people that are not eligible for it and even more importantly, the people who go bankrupt while having private insurance? In such a prosperous country this kind of moral debate is utterly disappointing to me, no Doctor in their right mind would not want change to the system. At this point I worry that the fear-mongering has effectively neutered any chance of real reform, not on the part of the people, but on the part of the congressmen and women who would like to avoid getting shot over it.

Welcome to the good ole' land of John Wayne Reagan pie, and shotgun shells that we use for our anesthesia... doesn't seem to be very effective.

halonachos wrote:Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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.

Pay attention to that word 'or'. Its a very important word.

halonachos wrote:
But how is this healthcare thing helping.

I already have insurance along with 5/6 of the nation. All this is doing is taxing those with insurance so that a public option may be made because 1/6 of the nation lacks insurance.

Its also shifting the market agency for insurance to the people who will actually make use of the plan. This is important, because its the key component in both cutting costs, and benefiting everyone in the US. Pretending that it isn't critical to the argument is either disingenuous, or willful ignorance.

halonachos wrote:
If I already have insurance this public plan won't truly help me. Even with the competition it may cause me to lose my insurance when my insurance company tanks.

So no, its not utilitarian.

Then you'll have the public option to depend on while any insurance companies which fail are replaced. So yes, it is utilitarian.

Remember, 'good' is a highly relative concept; especially in utilitarian ethics. The act itself is not intrinsically utilitarian, however I am a utilitarian and so I judge 'good' according to a utilitarian standard. I believe that the public option is the best way to improve US healthcare, therefore I believe it is moral according to utilitarian principles.

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

So, by RAW, no one not alive at the date when the Constituition was adopted is eligible for the presidency then ? Also wasn't the country considerably smaller then too ?

So pretty much every president for ... what.. 150 odd years has in fact been illegal.

reds8n wrote:

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

So, by RAW, no one not alive at the date when the Constituition was adopted is elliganle for the presidency then ? Also wasn;t the country considerably smaller then too ?

So pretty much every president for ... what.. 150 odd years hs in fact been illegal.

methinks you've been drinking. Likely Scottish whisky. Its best if you head over to the boycott Scotland thread then...

Pfft... I've been boycotting Scotland for years anyway.

..with the exception of Irn Bru.

And tablet.

No reds8n, it means that you have to be born in america. However, at the time of the signing of the constitution most of them were british citizens and not american citizens because america had yet to be made.

That last bit just made it so that any of the colonists could be president as well as their children.

Assuming you gave the direct and accurate quote that's not what that says though. It might be what they meant but that's not what they've written.

Astonishing, it's almost like much if it is broadly open to debate and interpretation.

Good Lord.....The great Birther Debate begins!!!!!!


sigh......


GG

generalgrog wrote:Good Lord.....The great Birther Debate begins!!!!!!


sigh......


GG

JohnHwangDD wrote:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98589

Heh. I mean, I think most of us had figured out your interest in reality was loose at best, but that's quite something.

You know what'd be more fun... pretending that Obama was ineligible because he was really only 32 years old. It wouldn't be any dumber and it would be at least a little original.

Well if we want to get original we could just call Obama a lizard... wait, that has been done. A crab... no.... horse... no (heh... funny)....a ... you know what this is dumb, find another maker-upper I quit.

Wow... I mean this one wins... by like a mile and 2.54 quarters... wait... hmmm.



They forgot to put "But he's Christian!"

sebster wrote:
You know what'd be more fun... pretending that Obama was ineligible because he was really only 32 years old. It wouldn't be any dumber and it would be at least a little original.

Turns out his real name is Danny Almonte.

The resemblance is uncanny.





He also may, or may not be Elian Gonzalez.

I'm weird, in that I'm giving Barack Obama a chance here, he inherited a pretty rough situation war and economy wise and has barely had 8 onths to turn things around.

I gave the last guy a year in office (which included 9/11) before becoming critical of him, and I'm doing the same for Obama.

Not being a US citizen, of course, I voted for none of the people in power

Nothing that Obama can do regardless of his blackness, supposed citizenship issue, or :gasp: Islamic connection can be worse then what has been done to the U.S. previous to his election by various administrations.


Nor will he be better. He is a politician, and is part of a corrupt and inefficient system of government so no miracles will be forthcoming.

The elite rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to fight their wars and die for their stock portfolios and racists and religous/political extremists will continue to wallow in ignorance.

Good times...

, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

There is no debate, the commas separate it. Without the above it says:
No person except a natural born Citizen 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.

The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.

So if you became a citizen at the time of the constitution then yes you could be president, I however doubt that the constitution is signed each year so that anyone who becomes a citizen can still run.

I maintain my sanity with controlled substances and Warhammer. If I had my way in this country there would be a big change. Things would ahppen...wonderful, terrible things.

Ah for a dictatorship for a day. Problem is can anyone be disciplined enough to allow a political system to railroad dramatic policy changes through and then switch back.

Before I die I will be moving to Canada. I have a lot of love for my country but it is less and less every year. I am glad Obama became president as I don't believe he is inherently evil and inept like the previous administration. I want drastic change and that is because I am a absolute socially progressive libertarian. And I totally feel that people in most other developed countries ahve way more on the ball then 80% of the zealous retards in America.

I think that Bush only played stupid to win the public over.

If that is true give him a Oscar. Obama is really an alien and after he takes away all the guns the invasion will begin. You have been warned.

Lemartes wrote:If that is true give him a Oscar. Obama is really an alien and after he takes away all the guns the invasion will begin. You have been warned.

Ahhh yess.. It's amazing the Alien connection hasn't been mentioned until now. When will the American people wake up and realize the true threat is the Alien connection. I heard he is a secret Martian and has plans to sell out Earth.

Martian Communist...grumble grumble....

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean really why doesn't he provide proof that he wasn't born on Mars? What is trying to hide...Hmmmm?


GG

halonachos wrote:
The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.

The commas also mean the sentence could be interpreted a different way from the way you are claiming. As none of the founding fathers are alive to ask, the meaning remains unclear, except that plenty of constitutional historians have debated it's meaning for a long time.

So yea, clear to you, and clear as mud to everybody else.

Needless to say, Obama is an American citizen, born in Hawaii, and thus is eligible to be President of the United States.

EDIT:

And if you want to continue this ridiculous line of thought, how is John McCain eligible to be President? Where was he born again?

(BTW, McCain is eligible, I'm just curious if ol' halonachos is just parroting nonsense, or if he actually has a clear grasp of the issue.)

halonachos wrote:, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

There is no debate, the commas separate it. Without the above it says:

I take it you never learned the rules of punctuation. Read and learn. Focus on point three. When you use commas to remove a clause from the normal flow of a sentence it does not follow that it has no effect on the sentence. If that were the case there would be little point in the existence of the clause at all. And lets not even get into what a 'Natural Born Citizen' is.

Also if your point is to be taken at face value, we cannot consider 'or a citizen of the United States' linked to 'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'. Which neatly sidesteps the point you make below.

halonachos wrote:
The commas were put there meaning that those who became citizens because of the constitutionand the revolutionary war would be able to be president.

You're debating meaning, not letter. You don't get to clarify the meaning of the letter. You didn't write it.

halonachos wrote:
So if you became a citizen at the time of the constitution then yes you could be president, I however doubt that the constitution is signed each year so that anyone who becomes a citizen can still run.

Debate letter, not meaning. Repeat that to yourself as often as possible because meaning is a debate predicated on desire and historical context.

Rerspectfully Dogma, its an issue of some legal debate by legal scholars and historians. All of your points are in debate by people better versed in the topic than us. Halo's points are valid in that context.

All our interpretations are irrelevant if it goes to court.

Frazzled wrote:Rerspectfully Dogma, its an issue of some legal debate by legal scholars and historians. All of your points are in debate by people better versed in the topic than us. Halo's points are valid in that context.

All our interpretations are irrelevant if it goes to court.

Ah, I didn't meant to say I was right. I meant to say that his comment of 'there is no debate' is wrong. Because, as you've pointed out, there is a great deal of debate.

Though I still say its rather odd to treat one comma as some kind of wall, while treating another like it isn't there.

There is great precedent for that in the Constitution and arguments about such.

I know. I think its odd in all of them.