Now can I laugh evilly?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Stay classy, Blayne.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As far as I can tell nobody died, and yeah I do think it is a little funny (although mostly sad) so I'm gonna say yes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Muahahaha.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I love how they have to say "because he believes (incorrectly) that Obama wasn't born in the United States." Yeah, that'll teach him Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They want to make sure they aren't Fox News who wouldn't say that or more correctly would try to insinuate it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, Fox would be "fair and balanced" and give his "opinion" equal footing with the facts.
In fact, they would lay out the argument that the birthers are making in detail, and include some quotes from the man and his family, and then include some hard-ass quotes from some government official that would make the POTUS look like an evil dictator socialist Hitler... and a black man, by the way.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I would issue a resounding golf clap to the individual who writes up that article.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The birthers are cheering. A court martial will require evidence to disprove his claim. Obama could make the birthers look foolish and put an end to it in an instant. All he needs to do is release his college transcripts, passport information and birth certificate.
Did he hold a foreign passport? Did he use foreign student aid? Does he have an official birth certificate? Simple questions to answer. People wonder since he'd rather spend millions fighting them. Perhaps to him it's just a matter of principle. I've refused to let police search my car when I had nothing to hide. I wouldn't spend well over a million in legal fees to prevent it. Especially when being a citizen is a requirement.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The birthers are cheering. A court martial will require evidence to disprove his claim. Obama could make the birthers look foolish and put an end to it in an instant. All he needs to do is release his college transcripts, passport information and birth certificate.
Did he hold a foreign passport? Did he use foreign student aid? Does he have an official birth certificate? Simple questions to answer. People wonder since he'd rather spend millions fighting them. Perhaps to him it's just a matter of principle. I've refused to let police search my car when I had nothing to hide. I wouldn't spend well over a million in legal fees to prevent it. Especially when being a citizen is a requirement.
A court martial will do no such thing. All that is required is that someone above him in the chain of command issued a legal order. His commander, his Col. , anyone in the Pentagon....anyone in his chain of command anywhere.
He is going down, over an issue that was settled years ago, and I say good. I know too many idiots in the armed services as it is, we don't need this moron.
Our soldiers deserve better than having to serve with this idiot. He'd get them killed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Mal, doesn't being a hack ALL of the time get tiring?
You have heard of snopes.com, right? You should make it your home page, it would save you a lot of face.
You obviously aren't familiar with the UCMJ. You are thinking about an Article 15 proceeding. All disciplinary actions start with an Article 15. Your misconduct is sent to the commander. All soldiers have the legal right to a court martial. Usually they let the senior officer decide their fate. If the military member doesn't want a single officer to decide, he can "request" a court martial. Court Martial sounds bad but in reality, it is a right to protect the individual soldier. A Court Martial is a legal proceeding equal to any civilian court. He has a right to a jury trial in a court martial.
Officers are unlike enlisted. They are unlike regular civilians. All the birther claims have been dismissed since the individual isn't personally effected. An officer answers to the president. They will have to prove that his claims are false. They will have to prove that the president is a citizen in order to convict this officer. The birthers are cheering. They cannot convict this officer in a court of law without proving him wrong. Only an officer can force the release of the actual documents. A single civilian doesn't have grounds. The court martial will decide this case.
Court martial isn't a bad thing for a soldier, it's a right. The same reason the Navy Seals chose court martial over article 15 for the alleged abuse of a terrorist. Article 15 is one man decides. Court martial is a legal right, a protection from politics, etc.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you know, even if Obama PROVED in EVERY SINGLE WAY possible that he is a natural born citizen, I imagine the birther movement would at most lose 10% of it's idiotic members.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He has proved it, mal. Obama's birth certificate has been verified by Hawaii officials. A copy was released. Honolulu newspapers listed his birth. The Snopes link above lists detailed sources.
All sniping about Obama's birth does is point out how ill-equipped most birthers are when it comes to criticizing Obama's policies in any useful manner.
Sorry, forgot; there is a good reason for continuing to spread the rumor that Obama is not a citizen: it's easier to condemn a foreigner. He's not one of us. A stranger has snuck in and home-invaded America! Ack! Hide your children!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: you know, even if Obama PROVED in EVERY SINGLE WAY possible that he is a natural born citizen
What do you mean, "if"?!?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And yup, he's being hailed as an American Hero by all the hate-Obama-for-any-reason-we-can-think-of sites.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Are we relying upon Snopes to uphold constitutional requirements? Snopes isn't the source that issued my security clearance. If Snopes is the best you have, you're the hack. The FBI talked to my high school counselors and my grandmother's neighbors to grant me a security clearance. What this officer is asking is that Obama undergo the same scrutiny he underwent.
Why fight multiple lawsuits? Answer one and put an end to it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
He DID.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
rivka, sorry, I've seen the links before and know his birth certificate has been shown, and know about all the other material that has been put forth to prove his citizenship. My point, as evidenced by mal's refusal to accept any of it, is that these people don't buy it. They have an even longer laundry list of specific things they want to see to prove that Obama is a citizen and will accept nothing less. I'm suggesting that even if Obama jumps through every single hoop these people demand, only a very small percentage of them will actually find it satisfactory. Because this isn't about facts or proof. This is about believing what you want to believe, and I don't think any amount of evidence will convince these people otherwise.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Damn birthers. Barry Sotero was a citizen of Indonesia who went to Pakistan when US Passport holders were not allowed in that country.
He was probably born in Hawaii but doesn't want to admit he claimed to be Kenyan in order to get good financial aid in college. He was probably born in Hawaii but doesn't want to admit he claimed to be Indonesian in order to get a passport.
I do believe he was born in Hawaii. He doesn't want to admit the other issues. Afterall, he can use a negro dialect when he wants to. He can be Indonesian or Kenyan if it suits his needs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At worst, that makes him a politician. You think cultural pandering is purely an Obama tactic?
You just admitted you think he is an American citizen. Now you're just complaining that he's used his heritage to try and get ahead in life.
Do you throw hissy fits when Americans wear maple leaves on their backpacks in Europe because they don't want to get heckled?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You just admitted you think he is an American citizen. Now you're just complaining that he's used his heritage to try and get ahead in life.
In fairness to Mal, at no point in this thread did he actually say he didn't think Obama was an American citizen. He just expressed varying degrees of sympathy towards people who think that.
As far as the OP goes: Good riddance. Using flimsy birther BS to try and weasel out of your duty is pathetic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It seems like there could be more to it than 'weaseling out of his duty.' The guy is an 18 year veteran. A lifer. Why would someone who has been in the military that long, who likely already served several tours over the last nine or so years of conflict in the Middle East, suddenly say he doesn't want to do it this time around, and use the BIRTHER nonsense of all excuses as his reason?
Something doesn't quite click there. I have to hope there's more to it than that. As ridiculous as I think the birther movement is, I'll have a great deal more respect for the guy's honor if he honestly believes his orders are illegal than I would if he was just skipping out. On the other hand, I won't have much respect for his intelligence.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wow, he's an 18 year veteran? That wasn't in the OP, and I'll admit to not looking this story up much elsewhere.
I guess he's just a really hardcore Birther? Bah. That's... ugh. I feel like I "get" the Tea Parties really well, for the most part, and agree with what they stand for, for the most part. But I really don't get the Birthers.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The birthers are cheering. A court martial will require evidence to disprove his claim.
HAHAHA. So if you court martial someone who claiming the President is a lizard, and therefore unfit for command, you are required to blood test the President to make sure he isn't a lizard?
No. He disobeyed orders, so he is court martialed. That's all that needs to be proved.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is it really that cut and dried? You have the right to refuse illegal orders in the military, no? In order to determine whether or not those orders are legal or illegal, wouldn't the legality have to be ascertained before they can decide if the soldier was right or wrong to refuse them?
I guess the crux comes in how far they're allowed to go to ascertain validity. Obama's actual order was not illegal in any sense that I can think of, so that's simple enough. But the solider is questioning the validity of Obama's powers to give the order in the first place. I'm not sure how that fits into the structure. Maybe Kwea or other vets could shed light on how the UCMJ operates in this area. It's been awhile since I've watched JAG.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I'm suggesting that even if Obama jumps through every single hoop these people demand
I believe it would change ZERO PERCENT. Some of the things they keep demanding DO NOT EXIST and CANNOT.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You have the right to refuse illegal orders in the military, no?
Not always. You better be darn tootin' sure they're illegal.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I'm suggesting that even if Obama jumps through every single hoop these people demand
I believe it would change ZERO PERCENT. Some of the things they keep demanding DO NOT EXIST and CANNOT.
Fair enough. I agree. I was just trying to be generous!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Snopes isn't the source that issued my security clearance. If Snopes is the best you have, you're the hack.
Snopes isn't the source, just a handy location for finding references. The FactCheck link is even more thorough, listing all the suspicions about the birth certificate and knocking them down one buy one with examinations of the actual birth certificate released. If the Hawaii state health director, Chiyome Fukino, and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have both personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate, why isn't that sufficient?
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Wow, he's an 18 year veteran? That wasn't in the OP, and I'll admit to not looking this story up much elsewhere.
I guess he's just a really hardcore Birther? Bah. That's... ugh. I feel like I "get" the Tea Parties really well, for the most part, and agree with what they stand for, for the most part. But I really don't get the Birthers.
Birthers are steadfast in the belief that Obama is Other, and they are desperately seeking evidence that proves they were right all along to feel that way and not horrible racists who can't admit to themselves that brown people scare them. Seriously, the argument boils down to "I don't trust him because he doesn't look like (what I think) an American (should look like) and has a funny name" and they're trying to legitimize themselves by looking for evidence to support those uneasy gut feelings.
I know there's been a lot of screaming about whether or not the anti-Obama camp is racist and I'm not really going to get into the whole debate on that. But WRT the Birthers, do you guys really believe they would exist if Obama was white and had an Anglo name? Ask yourselves honestly if it would even be brought up at all, much less be given airtime on major news networks. (Hint: You can be white, have an Anglo name and still be from another country or have spent time in another country.)
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
Possible tangent discussion:
If the President has to be a "natural-born citizen", wouldn't that disqualify everyone who came into this world by means of a c-section? *
Now, please note that I'm not aware of the precise phrasing of the requirements, so don't all start berating me if the above is incorrect.
*Is not sure which emoticon would be appropriate.
[ April 15, 2010, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Y ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If the President has to be a "natural-born citizen", wouldn't that disqualify everyone who came into this world my means of a c-section? *
No.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:If the President has to be a "natural-born citizen", wouldn't that disqualify everyone who came into this world my means of a c-section? *
No.
Obama was from his mother's womb untimely ripped?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If the Hawaii state health director, Chiyome Fukino, and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have both personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate, why isn't that sufficient?
Because it bursts mal's bubble. Please just stop feeding the troll.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:If the President has to be a "natural-born citizen", wouldn't that disqualify everyone who came into this world my means of a c-section? *
No.
Obama was from his mother's womb untimely ripped?
Heh.
Posted by Mr. Y (Member # 11590) on :
I wasn't referring to Obama specifically. I don't know anything about the details of his birth and do not especially want to know.
It was more of an idle thought that could be applicable to all the former presidents as well.
@fugu13: Your short and brisk answer brings more questions to mind. Did you mean that a) "natural-born citizen" is not the correct phrasing. b) a c-section birth does not mean that one is excluded from the group of people that can be called natural-born? -or- c) This is getting silly and I will not merit such nonsense with a full length reply, lest this thread be derailed.
Just curious. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Misha, I think you have nailed it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:b) a c-section birth does not mean that one is excluded from the group of people that can be called natural-born c) This is getting silly and I will not merit such nonsense with a full length reply
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
IS OBAMA A LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN?
DOES KIM JUNG EEL PLAN TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
ARE LINSEY LOHANS BOOBS FAKE?
DOES MTV STILL PLAY MUSIC?
DOES TYPING IN ALL CAPS MEAN THAT I AM YELLING AT YOU VIA YOUR OWN INNER MONOLOGUE?
Why have all these very important questions gone unanswered!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Y: If the President has to be a "natural-born citizen", wouldn't that disqualify everyone who came into this world by means of a c-section?
Certainly not a question I've seen posed in this debate so far.
Ahah. But, um, yeah. No.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He was probably born in Hawaii but doesn't want to admit he claimed to be Kenyan in order to get good financial aid in college. He was probably born in Hawaii but doesn't want to admit he claimed to be Indonesian in order to get a passport.
I do believe he was born in Hawaii. He doesn't want to admit the other issues.
I too find myself possessed of the flaw of not wanting to admit issues I don't actually have.
quote:Update May 5 2009: A new Obama citizenship story story claiming to be from the Associated Press saying that a group called "Americans for Freedom of Information" released copies of Occidental College transcripts showing that the "Fulbright Foundation" had awarded Barack Obama, under the name of Barry Soetoro, financial aid to attend Occidental College. This claims to be the "Smoking Gun" to the rumor about his natural born citizen status. The eRumor began circulating in April 2009 and by the end of the month reached critical mass. There is no such story by the Associated press and looking at the dateline this appears to be an April Fools joke.
An Occidental College spokesperson told TruthorFiction.com that President Obama's records are still sealed and no such transcripts have been released. When asked if the future President used the Obama or Soetoro name at the college, the spokesperson said that although he had not seen the sealed transcripts he had seen a 1981 photo book that was handed out to students and faculty at the beginning of the college year with student photos, names and hometown information. The 1981 photo book had "Barack Obama" under the student's photo and indicated a home state as Hawaii.
There is no "Fulbright Foundation" but there is a Fulbright program that is sponsored by the US Department of State and does award scholarship grants to students working towards higher degrees who already have a Bachelor of Arts degree. The program was established in 1946 under legislation introduced by late Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and each year awards approximately 7,500 grants. The grants are for both American students who want to study abroad and foreign students who want to study in the US.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is it really that cut and dried? You have the right to refuse illegal orders in the military, no?
I think only if you are sure that they are illegal- if you only suspect it, I don't think that's good enough. Soldiers do have some protections against prosecution if they follow order which they have no reason to believe are illegal. This would be one such case- following orders from say, an imposter superior. And anyway, in this case the orders didn't come from Barack directly, so the guy still broke with his chain of command.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
There is a lawyer that is continually fighting in court to get Obama ousted due to the birther argument.
While they acknowledge that Obama could have been born in the US, there were other circumstances regarding his stay in Indonesia that raise questions.
It argues that he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and attended public school. The only way a child can attend a public school in Indonesia is if they became a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at the time, so Obama's would have had to give up his US citizenship. This would disqualify him from becoming the President.
For the most part I think it is a waste of time for the birthers keep going at it, but there are a few valid questions that should be answered.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
From wikipedia:
quote:Philip Berg, who brought lawsuits seeking to prevent the Electoral College from being seated in the 2008 presidential election, also claims that Obama was supposedly adopted by his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, and therefore Obama lost his U.S. citizenship.[44] Berg's claim relies on the fact that Obama used the name "Barry Soetoro" when he lived in Indonesia, and ignores the Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg, which states that minors cannot, as a result of actions of their parents, lose U.S. citizenship obtained at birth.[45]
It seems that Perkins v. Elg renders that entire line of attack to be moot Geraine, even if it did happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
obamacrimes.com is a Berg site.
Philip Berg's questions have pretty much all been answered. Wiki is a good start, but if there's any other questions you can posit them here and there's plenty of impartial analysis sites that can provide those answers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: At worst, that makes him a politician. You think cultural pandering is purely an Obama tactic?
You just admitted you think he is an American citizen. Now you're just complaining that he's used his heritage to try and get ahead in life.
Do you throw hissy fits when Americans wear maple leaves on their backpacks in Europe because they don't want to get heckled?
Actually I kinda want to complain about that as if they screw up then that means no more free ermm.. "stuff" from the Dutch in Holland.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, in the analogy said Americans would have some form of Canadian heritage (like Obama has some form of Kenyan/Indonesian heritage), so technically that should be within bounds.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You obviously aren't familiar with the UCMJ. You are thinking about an Article 15 proceeding. All disciplinary actions start with an Article 15. Your misconduct is sent to the commander. All soldiers have the legal right to a court martial. Usually they let the senior officer decide their fate. If the military member doesn't want a single officer to decide, he can "request" a court martial. Court Martial sounds bad but in reality, it is a right to protect the individual soldier. A Court Martial is a legal proceeding equal to any civilian court. He has a right to a jury trial in a court martial.
Officers are unlike enlisted. They are unlike regular civilians. All the birther claims have been dismissed since the individual isn't personally effected. An officer answers to the president. They will have to prove that his claims are false. They will have to prove that the president is a citizen in order to convict this officer. The birthers are cheering. They cannot convict this officer in a court of law without proving him wrong. Only an officer can force the release of the actual documents. A single civilian doesn't have grounds. The court martial will decide this case.
Court martial isn't a bad thing for a soldier, it's a right. The same reason the Navy Seals chose court martial over article 15 for the alleged abuse of a terrorist. Article 15 is one man decides. Court martial is a legal right, a protection from politics, etc.
Actually, I am VERY familiar with the UCMJ. Not to mention actual facts, and the effect they have on rational arguments.
You should bone up on both, IMO. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Are we relying upon Snopes to uphold constitutional requirements? Snopes isn't the source that issued my security clearance. If Snopes is the best you have, you're the hack. The FBI talked to my high school counselors and my grandmother's neighbors to grant me a security clearance. What this officer is asking is that Obama undergo the same scrutiny he underwent.
Why fight multiple lawsuits? Answer one and put an end to it.
Dude...check out the sources listed by snopes, you moron. They are all legal, binding, and verified. The documents in question have been reviewed by actual ex[perts and sworn officials.
BTW, I have a level 2 TS clearance from my days at USAMRIID. I originally had a level 1 TS granted pending, but after a year and a half they realized they had forgotten to follow up on it, so I went though the in depth review for a level 2. They talked to teachers, family members, school officials, church officials, neighbors......you name it.
I passed.
Nice try, though.
[ April 15, 2010, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
mal, I would gain some respect for you if you acknowledged that you are wrong. You've been shown the data, the links, the citations, the sources. You can internalize them and change your mind, or ignore them and continue to be...well...ignorant.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is it really that cut and dried? You have the right to refuse illegal orders in the military, no? In order to determine whether or not those orders are legal or illegal, wouldn't the legality have to be ascertained before they can decide if the soldier was right or wrong to refuse them?
I guess the crux comes in how far they're allowed to go to ascertain validity. Obama's actual order was not illegal in any sense that I can think of, so that's simple enough. But the solider is questioning the validity of Obama's powers to give the order in the first place. I'm not sure how that fits into the structure. Maybe Kwea or other vets could shed light on how the UCMJ operates in this area. It's been awhile since I've watched JAG.
It doesn't even matter, really. His orders come from his chain of command, and even if Obama wasn't American, he has been accepted as the CIC, and Congress has authorized action.
While Obama is the CIC, I'd bet this officer's orders are issued by his agency and his direct supervisors, and not obeying their orders is a violation of the UCMJ.
Even if the birthers don't believe the documents provided so far, it doesn't matter, because OUR COURTS do! So all that has to happen, at best, is that the documents already provided are shown to the court, and the officials who have already testified to their validity swear yet again they are valid, and the guy is screwed. He doesn't get a day in court.....court martial is a far cry from civilian court IRL. He doesn't get to make demands of his CIC.
He goes to jail. At best. In reality, he could be executed. He won't be, but it is actually considered treason to refuse a lawful order in a time of war....and thanks to Bush and Cheney there should be NO doubt that is what the government considers this to be....a time of war.
He is hoisted by his own petard.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We aren't at war. Congress didn't declare war.
Congress alone can't authorize any action. They can approve and fund the action that the Commander In Chief orders. The "action" originated with the CIC. Congress approved it. Congress cannot send troops to war.
We live in a country where an illegal immigrant who lives in Illinois can get in state college tuition while an American from Indiana has to pay twice as much. Obviously, citizenship laws are ignored. American Citizenship has been watered down to standing foot on American soil. Even a terrorist who was caught attempting to kill American citizens is given the "right to remain silent". The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
mal, you've ignored the bulk of the posts that have been directed at you.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
And is that necessarily bad? Putting the issue of college tuition aside, isn't it true that we have certain rights, such as the right to free speech and a fair trial (which the right to remain silent is part of), because we believe that they are basic human rights?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: mal, you've ignored the bulk of the posts that have been directed at you.
I read them all and thought about them all. I replied. Next time I'll quote all ten and make ten posts.
Doesn't change the fact that citizenship means nothing. The system has granted all the rights of citizenship to anyone who happens to reside here. Illegal aliens get in state tuition, welfare and public education. Even terrorists get "OUR" miranda rights. In fact, citizenship is a disadvantage. The IRS knows who you are.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
And is that necessarily bad? Putting the issue of college tuition aside, isn't it true that we have certain rights, such as the right to free speech and a fair trial (which the right to remain silent is part of), because we believe that they are basic human rights?
Of course, put the tuition part aside since it illustrates the stupidity of accepting illegal aliens as citizens. Can you be a citizen of a state but not of the nation? Can you legally enter a state while illegally entering the country?
We do believe in basic human rights. Until the rest of the world catches up with us, their citizens will just have to suffer. Of course we're imperialists trying to impose our way of government on other nations. Evil America trying to bring Democracy to the middle east. Who are we to judge another nation and impose our basic human rights system of government on them? In America a shoplifter has the right to remain silent, there they are obliged to have their hands cut off.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Who are we to judge another nation and impose our basic human rights system of government on them?
That's a different issue altogether. What I'm talking about is how we treat citizens of other nations when they're in our nation and under our jurisdiction. When a citizen of another nation is being tried in our courts, they should be given the same legal rights as an American being tried in our courts, including the right to remain silent.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You're right. Deportation is a horrible thing. American prisons are so much better than the prisons in Columbia. At least here they are given food and medical care. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to put them on a flight to their home country.
GITMO waterboarding is nothing compared to what the Egyptian would endure in Egypt, if we returned him to his home country with the same list of charges. Ask the Chinese GITMO detainees where they wanted to go upon release.
If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's always fun to watch mal give up on one point that he had been completely disproved about and switch to a completely different one, pretending that it's the same issue . . .
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's always fun to watch mal give up on one point that he had been completely disproved about and switch to a completely different one, pretending that it's the same issue . . .
Just because you can't comprehend that it is the same issue......
Citizenship means nothing in America. You think I've sidetracked the issue? The same people who argue that non US citizens be granted all the rights of citizens, are the same ones attacking the birther's claims.
If an illegal alien can get in state tuition while an American from another state pays double, an illegal alien under 35 should be eligible for presidency. If terrorists from other countries are given US Constitutional rights, citizenship is meaningless.
US citizenship laws are the most neglected laws of them all.
[ April 16, 2010, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote: American prisons are so much better than the prisons in Columbia
That's right, brother! South Carolina was the first to secede and will NEVER join the oppressive union!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I read them all and thought about them all. I replied. Next time I'll quote all ten and make ten posts.
Well, that's a flat-out lie.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I read them all and thought about them all. I replied. Next time I'll quote all ten and make ten posts.
Well, that's a flat-out lie.
No, it's sarcasm against a cop out.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You entire argument is a cop out. The birther's claims are false, and he had no right to refuse direct orders from his chain of command. All of this other crap is just a smokescreen because every single point you made otherwise has been refuted, most with links and supporting documentation.
:::yawn:::: it's standard procedure for you, and a little boring at this point.
Thank God you, and people like you, don't get to define what is and isn't America for the rest of us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, it's sarcasm against a cop out.
No, it's a flat-out lie. You absolutely will not directly respond to all points made to you attacking your 'arguments'. I know this because you have never done this. You almost certainly won't respond directly even to most of the points made against your arguments. You hardly ever do that.
Look at this thread. First your points were, "Why doesn't he refute these birther arguments? It'd be easy to do so, and they pose some serious, troubling questions." Within a matter of hours, it was shown conclusively that he had refuted those arguments, and even if he hadn't they weren't actually very serious or troubling to begin with except to the lunatic fringe.
Now, though, the argument has somehow become how American citizenship law is something which is helpless, and about terrorists getting rights when blah blah blah.
So, you can call it sarcasm all you like. That's not what it is, though. You're getting worked in this thread as usual, and as usual your defense is to behave as though your critics are ridiculous without ever actually refuting their statements.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
As far as I can see, mal, your college example (which you have admittedly put aside), is merely state residency trumping federal citizenship. It's actually a (tiny) triumph for State's Rights over the Federal hegemony.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Congress alone can't authorize any action. They can approve and fund the action that the Commander In Chief orders. The "action" originated with the CIC. Congress approved it. Congress cannot send troops to war.
FMI, why is "authorize" different from "approve?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Even a terrorist who was caught attempting to kill American citizens is given the "right to remain silent". The rights of an American citizen have been extended to everyone.
The Declaration states:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
For an alleged patriot, you know very little about the philosophy of our government.
FYI: the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America. Stop being such a putz.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is a little more nuanced than that; the Constitution uses the terms citizen and person in different contexts, with precision. (In fact, a typical phrasing boils down to "no person who is not a citizen").
Most of the rights provided for are phrased in terms of persons, not citizens. Additionally, I believe the discussion around ratification included fairly significant discussion of the issues.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Kwea sums up the case for me reasonably well - the officer is, of course, free to make a stand for his belief.
He must also be willing to accept the consequences for those actions - at the very least, he is disobeying lawful orders by the officers placed over him.
Whether or not the President meets all the legal requirements, for me, is a moot point. Those questions could have and should have been raised during the election.
Barring proof coming to light after the fact, it's a little late to be asking questions. Particularly from the military sworn to serve.
-Trevor
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
The constitution, with all its enumerated rights, applies to everyone. Its limitations, as enumerated, also apply. I'm simply responding to the idea that the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, is for Americans only.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
But that's the magic of a place like gitmo, is that it meant that they could be tortured for real by the united states.
I can see why you are ignoring that consideration, though I'm wondering if you believe we didn't torture people 'for real.' Or if there's some other inane parcel of malanthropification at work.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The constitution, with all its enumerated rights, applies to everyone. Its limitations, as enumerated, also apply. I'm simply responding to the idea that the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, is for Americans only.
Or even for Americans at all. When non-citizens are exempted from the Bill of Rights, you can be sure citizens are next. Anwar al Awlaki, a US citizen, is now on the "kill or capture" hit list.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Meh. If he is abetting a foreign enemy, then he's a traitor. You do have to pick your battles, I think. A person operating outside the United States, in conflict *with* the United States- I don't honestly know what their rights are at that point. If he's caught, he has the right to a trial.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How do we know he's abetting a foreign enemy? His American father has gone to the press claiming the accusations are false.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If you want someone tortured, for real, send them home.
But that's the magic of a place like gitmo, is that it meant that they could be tortured for real by the united states.
I can see why you are ignoring that consideration, though I'm wondering if you believe we didn't torture people 'for real.' Or if there's some other inane parcel of malanthropification at work.
I think I will have fun tonight defining malanthropification. LOL
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: How do we know he's abetting a foreign enemy? His American father has gone to the press claiming the accusations are false.
I can't know personally. I do have enough faith in the government to make that judgment when necessary. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to say what I think about the validity of the accusation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:the Constitution is not exclusive to American citizens. It was very deliberately meant to apply to everyone who set foot in America.
Can you explain this?
That is-- certain parts of the Constitution apply to everyone in America: the right to free speech, the right to practice their own religion.
Other things in the Constitution are not permitted to non-citizens: the right to vote, the right to hold certain public offices, for example.
Let's not get carried away here...there are definite advantages to being an American in America, and some of those advantages are exclusive, and protected by the Constitution.
Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration. I didn't really think about it much until Florida refused to accept my WA driver's license as proof of citizenship. FL has a list of states that grant licenses to illegal aliens. Had I come from Texas, they would've issues me a FL license with no questions asked. Since I had a WA license, I had to order my birth certificate. Illegal aliens do have the right to vote, in many states.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, illegal aliens do not have the right to vote, in any state. Voter fraud, Mal, is a crime.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, illegal aliens do not have the right to vote, in any state. Voter fraud, Mal, is a crime.
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Learz (Member # 8925) on :
My post for the year: Taking a break from studying finals, I decided to randomly browse around here, and found this wonderful thread. I haven't laughed so hard in some time. Thank you, Hatrack (and a certain, unnamed individual in this thread!), for making my day Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration.
I've also obtained a license in WA state. Since you had one as well, you must be aware that what you wrote isn't actually true. You would have to be aware of it, because you yourself would have had to meet those requirements.
An electric bill may be sufficient to show residency in WA state. There are other identification requirements as well.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Glad we could amuse you, Learz. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Washington State has a "Motor Voter" law. In Washington, an electric bill with your name on it gets you a drivers license and with it, automatic voter registration.
I've also obtained a license in WA state. Since you had one as well, you must be aware that what you wrote isn't actually true. You would have to be aware of it, because you yourself would have had to meet those requirements.
An electric bill may be sufficient to show residency in WA state. There are other identification requirements as well.
Re: "must be aware" -
earlier on, he demonstrated that he either did not know how his own taxes worked, or was lying about how he filed them too.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Y'know, I actually thought about that one for a few seconds before I wrote it.
It could be possible that he unwittingly obtained his license illegally - the guileless beneficiary of a Department of Licensing employee's bizarre and random generosity.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nah. Considering his past posting history, it's more likely that he is deliberately discarding any facts that refute his premise.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh, I just had to giggle at the idea of some DMV worker standing behind his desk, a crazed gleam in his eye, thinking "Number 466 is it? I'm not going to ask THIS one for his social security card! But 467 is getting referred to Fish ad Wildlife, the fool! MUAHAHAHAHA!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They will have to prove that his claims are false. They will have to prove that the president is a citizen in order to convict this officer.
All the proof needed to decide that issue is his birth certificate -- which he has already made public, which the state of Hawaii has verified as valid and which the courts have already ruled on.
The question has already been decided by the courts. Its no longer a question unless you are a loon.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
quote:Afterall, he can use a negro dialect when he wants to
Mal, one question... what, exactly is a "negro dialect"? If you are referring to what has been previously called "ebonix", that isn't necessarily a "negro dialect" as people of all races and colors talk that way everyday in numerous cities throughout the US. That statement alone makes me think that you are either prejudiced or ignorant. Ignorant would be the better alternative, but reading your comments makes me think both are true.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:If you are referring to what has been previously called "ebonix", that isn't necessarily a "negro dialect" as people of all races and colors talk that way everyday in numerous cities throughout the US.
Okay, so I know Wikipedia isn't a highly reputable source, but it does say this:
quote:Ebonics is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from Black African slaves, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Over time, and especially since 1996, it has been used more often to refer to African American Vernacular English
Which mirrors other definitions that I've seen of ebonics. Although you can nitpick, it does generally refer to a vernacular spoken by African Americans, not other groups.
I agree that "negro dialect" is not the way to put it though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's how it started, perhaps, but I believe that Jenni's point was that at this time a lot of people who are not black speak that way. It's more of a city thing at this point than a race thing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just to be clear, JenniK, I would direct that question not to Mal, but to Harry Reid. Mal's parroting a term Reid used to describe Obama, in an attempt to illustrate that the side that is ostensibly less racist is the side that has, of late, produced several high-publicity figures making racist-sounding remarks.
Google "negro dialect" and the very first hit will involve Senator Reid.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He can define it however he wants. Doesn't mean I, or my wife, agree with the term, or with the racist sentiment behind it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: That's how it started, perhaps, but I believe that Jenni's point was that at this time a lot of people who are not black speak that way. It's more of a city thing at this point than a race thing.
I don't know how far I agree with that conclusion. Even if a lot of people do it, I tend to still think it's about race. It's maybe not the sole property of a single race, but it's all still *about* race, right? Ebonics, whatever it is, is recognized as a dialect with a specific class and racial history. Speaking it has significance to people- or maybe the fact that people speak it is a greater remark upon them and their collective history. I wouldn't be so quick to discount it as not having a lot of significance in regards to race or race relations.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, illegal aliens do not have the right to vote, in any state. Voter fraud, Mal, is a crime.
This man speaks the truth.
It is federally illegal but if a state registers you to vote for presenting a library card.....who's breaking the law? It's also illegal to be in this country "illegally" they get welfare benefits and public education, non-the-less.
Is marijuana legal in Amsterdam?
[ April 21, 2010, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The "requirements" aren't necessarilly backed up by "proof". Although WA has a requirement that you are a citizen, an electric bill is proof of residency. They automatically assume that if you are a local resident, you are a resident of the nation. An electric bill gets you a drivers license and a voter's registration card.
I didn't think about this until FL refused to give me a driver's license based solely upon my WA license. They accept the licenses of 41 states as proof of residency. I had to order my birth certificate in order to get a FL drivers license. WA and 8 other states will accept a piece of mail as proof of residency and FL refuses to accept those states driver's licenses as proof.
Is marijuana legal in Amsterdam?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He can define it however he wants. Doesn't mean I, or my wife, agree with the term, or with the racist sentiment behind it.
Was this directed at me? I'm not sure I understand. Not trying to be a smart aleck here, I just don't quite understand what you're saying. Could you elaborate a little? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wouldn't assume you were being wise (getting smart with me), Dan. You said I should take it up with someone who defined it differently than I do, IIRC....
I meant pretty much that I define it differently,and that I don't agree with that narrow definition. My wife doesn't, either.
I know a lot of non-black people who speak with an inner city dialect/accent, and they aren't doing it to look cool or to pretend to be something they aren't. If you heard my sister in law , Jenni's sister, speak you'd never know that she was so white she makes Casper the Ghost look like he has a tan. It isn't about race, it is about socio-economic status.
She is college educated, intelligent, and was raised in the same household as Jenni was, but they don't sound alike at all.
Jenni's sister lives with and associates with people who are poor, live in government housing projects, and are less educated than most of us. Her kids, all of whom are very smart, speak that way as well, and they are half Hispanic, not black. But you couldn't tell that listening to them.
Is there a racial component to that type of speech? Yes.
But race doesn't even begin to describe at least 30% of the people who speak similarly. So I'd hardly call it a racial dialect these days. I'd call it an inner city dialect.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, illegal aliens do not have the right to vote, in any state. Voter fraud, Mal, is a crime.
This man speaks the truth.
It is federally illegal but if a state registers you to vote for presenting a library card.....who's breaking the law?
Well, if you are an illegal alien and you try to vote, you are breaking the law. It's not a grey area. Amsterdam, not being America, has nothing whatever to do with it.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
"But race doesn't even begin to describe at least 30% of the people who speak similarly. So I'd hardly call it a racial dialect these days. I'd call it an inner city dialect."
Trade one blunt piece of terminology for an equally useless euphemism, fine. You can at least agree it's more complex than geography- more complex even than economic status or education, but that would at least be closer.
-Ori
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The "requirements" aren't necessarilly backed up by "proof". Although WA has a requirement that you are a citizen, an electric bill is proof of residency. They automatically assume that if you are a local resident, you are a resident of the nation. An electric bill gets you a drivers license and a voter's registration card
That is simply not true. To get a driver's license in WA you must produce proof of identity, a SS# and proof of washington state residency. You keep omitting those first two items.
That said, last time I registered to vote, I wasn't even asked to show ID of any kind let alone proof of citizenship. It wouldn't be very difficult to vote fraudulently in the US, but I haven't seen any evidence the voter fraud is at all wide spread and certainly none that it has been a deciding factor in elections.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I might note that when we normally use the phrase "X dialect", we don't normally mean that X describes the people that currently use the dialect, merely where the dialect came from.
For example, lots of people in Hong Kong speak the Cantonese dialect. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are from Canton, thats just where the dialect historically originated from.
Similarly, saying that Ebonics is a "negro* dialect" shouldn't really mean that the dialect is only used by black people, but that it originally came from them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I wouldn't assume you were being wise (getting smart with me), Dan. You said I should take it up with someone who defined it differently than I do, IIRC....
I meant pretty much that I define it differently,and that I don't agree with that narrow definition. My wife doesn't, either.
I know a lot of non-black people who speak with an inner city dialect/accent, and they aren't doing it to look cool or to pretend to be something they aren't. If you heard my sister in law , Jenni's sister, speak you'd never know that she was so white she makes Casper the Ghost look like he has a tan. It isn't about race, it is about socio-economic status.
She is college educated, intelligent, and was raised in the same household as Jenni was, but they don't sound alike at all.
Jenni's sister lives with and associates with people who are poor, live in government housing projects, and are less educated than most of us. Her kids, all of whom are very smart, speak that way as well, and they are half Hispanic, not black. But you couldn't tell that listening to them.
Is there a racial component to that type of speech? Yes.
But race doesn't even begin to describe at least 30% of the people who speak similarly. So I'd hardly call it a racial dialect these days. I'd call it an inner city dialect.
Aha! I think we might be talking past each other slightly, then.
Basically, I was just commenting on Mal's use of the term "Negro Dialect," which many people think is offensive. I was trying to offer some clarity, in that I am almost positive Mal was using the phrase with his tongue in his cheek, as a reference to Harry Reid's gaffe with that term.
From his comment the conversation has turned to legitimate discussion of "negro dialect" as ebonics and what that entails. That's awesome, and an interesting line of discussion, but one that I had nothing valuable to add. So, I was going back to the beginning, rather than joining in on the current topic.
Does that make sense?
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
Yep.
No biggie, I was defending my wife's post, which was pointed at mal and his racism, not you anyway. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You said I should take it up with someone who defined it differently than I do, IIRC....