quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
That really depends on whether those 40% had any inclination to vote for her in the first place.
It also presumes that she would have run precisely the same ads if she had been campaigning solely against Owens or solely against Hoffman.
That is a particularly bad assumption.
It also presumes that the voters response to her ads was not influenced by her opponents campaigns.
There are a thousand reasons why it is impossible to predict the outcome of a 2 way race based on the outcome of a three way race. Trying to do so is utter non-sense.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what that link was all about but I absolutely believe that John McCain is left of JFK. I can only point to man representing the party from the last losing election as representative of the party. The major problem is that both sides are playing to the middle. I would prefer candidates that wouldn't play us but speak the heart. Let us elect them for what they believe inside. While our leaders should represent us, they should also be representative of us. Meaning, a red-neck congressional district should send a red-neck to congress, not a suit who knows how to speak red-neck while at home. Hillary's miraculous ebonics speach while at a black church should be a turn off.
We are yet to realize that politics has become a career option for college freshman. I prefer real people, but some enter college and major in political science, law, govt, etc with no intention of persuing a career in anything other than government. A career in POWER. They have nothing to do with the common man, they studied a way to rule the common man. Maybe I lacked ambition since I focused on career while others focused on ruling. Some seek to be providers for their families while others study for power. Senate and Congress was never intended to be a full time job. Human nature does not change that often...senators and congressmen were suppose to be people representing the average citizen in urgent situations. Now, they only think about reelection for a career they've studied for since graduating from high school.
Why do you think Hillary moved to NY and ran for Senate? She wasn't a New Yorker but she thought they would elect her. She was not a person who rose up amongst them to represent them, nor did she truly understand that district, but she did realize they would give her power. If our representatives truly came from us and represented us, they would rule differently.
posted
McCain planned to extend the Bush tax cuts; JFK lowered the top marginal rate to an amount almost twice what the top marginal rate was under Clinton. Unless you've seen one of JFK's memos detailing further massive cuts, I don't find your belief reasonable. It's also worth noting that Nixon - Nixon! - was open to healthcare reform.
To your other points... There is enough data that one could probably measure whether being a 'hired gun' vs. home-grown is better for their constituency (for some definition of better). Off the top of my head, I can think of some "ethically challenged" politicians from both sides of the aisle who would be considered home-grown. My sense is that competence is a more important trait.
If I'm making a general criticism of Washington, it is the undue influence of special interests. When a democrat (from Arkansas) is a sponsor of a bill that would lower a tax that hits a tiny proportion of Americans, but would significantly widen the deficit, you have to wonder who she's really representing.
Edited to add: I don't live in NY, but my understanding is that Hillary was highly regarded there and New Yorkers were satisfied with her performance.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That is far from complete. Do you want more or is that enough to start with?
Thanks, and well, both. It a good start, but I do have a few more questions.
quote:*I personally suspect that Pope John Paul II, having experienced the horrors of the post WWII Soviet Union was disinclined to look favorable on anything remotely Marxist.
Were there previous popes that might have been more favorable?
quote:The term is used widely to describe pretty normal Christian social justice theology all the way to fairly radical Marxist concepts. That end of the spectrum is not (to put it mildly) endorsed by the current Vatican
I was previously aware of the social justice end, both offline, and on Hatrack in particular I particularly recall a light-hearted conversation where BlackBlade described a few incidents involving Jesus and satirically noted that Jesus might seem like a socialist today. So that much makes sense to me.
I think I was more interested in the other more radical end, as in whether there were specific incidents where these groups (black or Catholic or otherwise) maybe cited specific Marxist historical figures in speeches, took inspiration from, or communicated with.
I guess I'm interested in specific historical incidents that might show the two are linked rather than just happening upon the same points independently.
(Anything going the other direction might be interesting too)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I'm interested in specific historical incidents that might show the two are linked rather than just happening upon the same points independently.
Gustavo Gutiérrez, who is considered the father of Liberation theology, has degrees in (among other things) philosophy. The chance that he had not read Marx is negligible. I have a copy of his A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, Salvation around here somewhere and I'm sure he cites him directly. I'll look for it tonight, if you want explicit quotes.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be appreciated, thank you. (It would also be interesting to see how he reconciled Marxism and its hostility towards religion (if he did) with liberation theology)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were only two previous Popes that might have had anything to say. It hasn't really been around all that long - only 40-50 years or so. John Paul I who, sadly, didn't have time to say much of anything and Paul VI. I would have to check, but my guess is that Paul VI would have been inclined to "dial it back" with regards to more Marxist ideas like materialism (for example) or the more radical over-throwing of institutions stuff but much of the social justice aspects that were the modern seeds of liberation theology can be found in this encyclical:
Lots of downright socialist stuff in there. For example:
"If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?."[21] It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich".[22] That is, private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities. In a word, "according to the traditional doctrine as found in the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians, the right to property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good". If there should arise a conflict "between acquired private rights and primary community exigencies", it is the responsibility of public authorities "to look for a solution, with the active participation of individuals and social groups".
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I was a math major and I'm interacting with writers. It's a strange scenario pitting logic against rules.
I have a degree in music theory. It's not math, but it's also not rule based. The assumptions you make about the people you are talking to should not change the actual veracity of your statements, nor the quality of your thinking, and I can assure that if your point here was represented as a mathematical proof, anyone here could easily point out why it was incomplete. Such is life- which is not mathematics. However, the quality of your communication ability is reflected in your use of the written language, where a certain arrangement of characters denotes a certain meaning. These are not "rules," but they function for the common understanding, and when you "break" them, out of laziness or ignorance, you foul your ability to complete a comprehensible statement. In all, your use of punctuation is the least of your stylistic woes- and it does matter: it tells that you either care so little for your own words that you fail to take care in writing them, or you are such a poor communicator, that you are unable to write comprehensibly. Considering your reading ability as reflected in your posts over the last several months, I'm leaning towards somewhere right in the middle of those extremes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: True, the rates were higher at that time but he was the first to realize (correctly) that a reduction in taxes benefit the US economy (founder of trickle down, ie voodoo economics).
And again, you fail to prove a very simple proof for the simple reason that it is incomplete. A 91% nominal tax rate reduced to a 77% nominal tax rate *can* improve the health of the economy for some very obvious reasons. Those reasons become less obvious the lower the nominal tax rate goes, and the effect of further cuts becomes less pronounced. A twenty percent cut from 99%, for example, is a HUGE difference. A twenty percent cut from 79% less so, and so on.Lowering exorbitant taxes is not the same either in name or effect as lowering reasonable tax rates.
On top of that, "voodoo economics" is also based on theories about the effects of government regulation, and how removing government regulation will improve the health of the economy. Now we run into the only real "law" we have to deal with in balancing government involvement in the economy, and that is "The Law of Unintended Consequences." Government deregulation, while it may benefit many businesses in certain ways, can also damage the economy in other ways. One need only look to the time before government regulation to grasp what we're talking about- slavish work hours and pay, usury of employees, child labor, shoddy safety conditions, monopolistic practices which damage the economy, and the list goes on and on. It's a balancing act. There is no "voodoo" economics, but there is bad and rash economic policy, both on the side of over-regulation and under-regulation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But the main problem is that no one knows for sure who or what Obama is. It is still not really settled whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
quote:In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
posted
Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been. Questions have been raised about all the evidence that has been cited in an effort to "prove" the Obamanite version of reality.
What makes the whole situation so bad for Obama is that everything about his past is concealed under a shroud of secrecy and suppressed records. The more journalists try to practice responsible journalism and ask the routine questions about his past, the more the Obamaneers hunker down and try to stonewall everything and denounce the journalists for doing their jobs. Then when a news network pursues such questions anyway, the Obamanators brazenly attack freedom of the press and decry that network for "not being a real news network," as if they even had a right to pass such a judgment.
When an ABC interviewer asked Obama on air whether he felt it was appropriate for his administration "to try to define what was and was not a news organization," pointing out that members of his own administration have raised this issue concerning Fox News, Obama's response was to say there are more important things for everyone to worry about, like the war in Afghanistan or the economy. That was his whole response.
I beg to differ. Freedom of the press is FAR, FAR more important than what is happening in Afghanistan and even the economy.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been." Ron, it's not because they assert that the issue is settled that the issue is settled. Do you understand the reason the issue is settled?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been. Questions have been raised about all the evidence that has been cited in an effort to "prove" the Obamanite version of reality.
The 'questions that have been raised' have all been settled fairly excellently. Let's try you, for example. I've presented a case that his birthplace is unambiguous and that he qualifies as a natural born citizen of the US. How about you do more than sit there and come up with a litany of dumb names for obama supporters as though they were a cultist cabal (Obamanite, Obamaneers, Obamanators) and actually make a case that shows us that Obama's birthplace is credibly in doubt.
Go ahead. Put up or shut up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some reasons why questions remain:
quote:According to CNN's researchers, the original birth certificate no longer exists, as Hawaii discarded all paper birth records in 2001, and the certification of live birth is the official copy. Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records.
....
According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.
With such contradictions, and with the multiply manifested bad faith of the Obama organization in trying to suppress everything about Obama's past and denouncing any responsible journalist who would persist in their inquiries, it is the height of arrogance to claim that all questions have been "incontrovertibly resolved." That is not true.
It is also "incontrovertibly" true that when Obama was born, his father had British citizenship, thus giving Obama dual citizenship. Natural born citizens cannot have dual citizenship. Theoretically he lost this dual citizenshp authomatically when Kenya declared independence of Britain, and Obama did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. But he did have dual citizenship at one point. The requirements for being a "natural born" citizen are much more stringent than for just being a citizen. Losing his dual citizenship would not logically confer on him the status of "natural born" citizen.
It is also incontrovertibly true that when Obama lived in Indonesia, he went by the name "Barry Soetoro," and later in his applications for candidate, he swore that he had never gone by any other name than Barack Hussein Obama.
Any way you cut it, it is incontrovertible that Barack Obama is a facile liar. (His denials of having William Ayers' and Jeremiah Wrong's support despite extensive documentary and eye-witness evidence to the contrary are more examples of this.) Thus it is probable that he has lied and still lies about everything. Those who doubt this are credulous dupes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also "incontrovertibly" true that when Obama was born, his father had British citizenship, thus giving Obama dual citizenship. Natural born citizens cannot have dual citizenship. Theoretically he lost this dual citizenshp authomatically when Kenya declared independence of Britain, and Obama did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. But he did have dual citizenship at one point. The requirements for being a "natural born" citizen are much more stringent than for just being a citizen. Losing his dual citizenship would not logically confer on him the status of "natural born" citizen.
Wow, even your own link discusses why this is false reasoning.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Parkour, are you capable of sufficient critical thinking to question what you read? Just because the Wicki article I cited purposes to debunk the questions about Obama's legitimacy, does not mean there are not statements that they do not refute as well as they think they do. For example, they do not even comment on the statement by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, that if "Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least 'five years after the age of 14'", but his mother was not yet 19 when she gave birth to Obama.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: No, they can't. Think about what the framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned about, when they added the stipulation about presidents being "natural born" citizens, as opposed to just being citizens. Don't confuse recent restatements of the requirement with the law as it existed at the time Obama was born, either. The natural born requirement, and not holding dual citizenship, are what keep California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for president (he was born in Austria). To the best of my knowledge, he still has dual citizenship. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-22-austria_x.htmPosts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much as I hate to get in a discussion with someone as blinkered as Ron, I will.
The US does not acknowledge there is any such thing as dual citizenship (for US citizens). In the eyes of US law, no citizen of the US is ever a citizen of anywhere else. The way this is treated is, if a person has "citizenship" somewhere else by their rules at birth, it is irrelevant to someone's US citizenship status. If someone gains citizenship somewhere else by swearing allegiance, the US legally frowns on it, but usually ignores it. If someone swears allegiance to the US, but the other country allows them to retain their citizenship papers, the US doesn't care (this is nearly just a special case of the first case).
Precedent as to what makes a natural born citizen is quite clear: Someone who, when born, was a citizen. Obama was a citizen when born, as confirmed by copious documentation and legal experts. The Schwarzenegger example is less than irrelevant; the reason he is excluded is not because Austria still thinks of him as a citizen (that is irrelevant to his status as a US citizen, since he has not sworn allegiance elsewhere since he swore allegiance to the US), but because he was not born in the US. A qualification stated remarkably clearly by those writing the constitution: "natural born citizen".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu13, Schwarzy's dual citizenship would NOT be ignored by Democrats if he were to run for president (as a Republican). They would use that to question his undivided loyalty. You know they would.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Parkour, are you capable of sufficient critical thinking to question what you read?
Why do you question everyone's "critical thinking" when they disagree with you using facts? It is what you do every single time there is a contradiction between the facts as they stand and an opinion you have taken.
The fact of the matter is that whether or not Obama has dual citizenship or ever had dual citizenship is irrelevant, because natural born citizens can have dual citizenship.
All of the information you need is right there in the link that you used to present the reasons why you think questions remain.
Are you going to say that because I am pointing out that you are totally wrong, that I am "incapable of critical thought" or that I am "blind" and "misled"?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here are some reasons why questions remain:
quote:According to CNN's researchers, the original birth certificate no longer exists, as Hawaii discarded all paper birth records in 2001, and the certification of live birth is the official copy. Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records.
....
According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.
So, is this quote supposed to be proof that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?
really confused there, Ron. if all you're doing is saying that there is a controversy (which is all that page asserts, neutrally) I agree. Of course, there is also a controversy about whether or not we landed on the moon.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: he can't run for President (absent a constitutional amendment). He is not a natural born citizen, because he wasn't born in the US. His dual citizenship is irrelevant.
Furthermore, even if people made political hay about a dual citizenship of a Presidential candidate (who would be stupid not to have ditched it long before they thought about seeking such high an office), that does not mean it would be a legal impediment, as you are asserting is present.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, Ron, you're flat up wrong on that one. Let's just start with that. Can you even back up from the most blatantly incorrect portions of your conspiracy theory?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just found out from a friend that Obama is a gay Muslim Klingon. I am pissed, I tell you. I cannot BELIEVE he would betray the American people like this.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My birth certificate even has my original baby footprint on it.
You might be pleased to know that the doctor who delivered me committed suicide a few months later. (Truth.) Consider that tidbit troll food.
Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all. Perhaps you are merely posing for the appreciation of your fellow travelers on this board. I hope you enjoy their applause. You will never get any from me.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't care whether or not I get any applause from you. I'm interested in seeing if you can acknowledge what FactCheck, Fugu, Wikipedia, Tom, etc are plainly asserting to you.
The Birther Conspiracy is pretty laughable on its own, but you're buying into a part of it which isn't even really followed by most of its adherents anymore because it was an even simpler matter of stipulation. You can have dual citizenship and still be a natural born citizen. Clarification is everywhere. But you won't — you can't — allow yourself to be corrected. Not even on such a plainly non-ambiguous point.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my beef: Even if Obama were a muslim born in Kenya--I WOULDN'T CARE. The rules in the constitution, while very well-intentioned, are completely arbitrary in today's world. Obama is qualified to lead and represent this country for all of his LEADERSHIP qualities, not because of his birthplace.
I'm very tired of the treatment of our Constitution as some sort of holy document that must be defended at all costs. It needs to evolve with the times.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all.
Oh, haha. I didn't realize it was this easy to refute someone.
Ron, I am not inclined to buy any of your stupid crap.
There. You are SO VANQUISHED!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm very tired of the treatment of our Constitution as some sort of holy document that must be defended at all costs. It needs to evolve with the times.
Errr...well, this is very strange thought to me, Launchywiggin.
The President is supposed to do, among other things, "...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," but you think it doesn't matter? Aside from the very obvious problem of not caring if the guy with the launch codes is elected according to the rules or not?
It very, very much matters whether or not* President is a natural-born American citizen because...those are the rules we've all agreed to follow. If you're unhappy with it, the proper thing to do is change the process, not to be apathetic if it's violated.
*Of course, he is, Ron's lunatic fringe protestations notwithstanding.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think LW was agreeing with you. It looked like his point was: A: the accusation isn't true, and B: if it *was* true, we should have already changed the constitution.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Launchywiggin, perhaps you do not realize how dangerous the ground is on which you have chosen to tread. You see, we are either a nation ruled by law, or a nation ruled by men. If the latter, then what we have is dictatorship. Only having a law that is above the opinions of any individuals or parties can assure us of any real hope of meaningful freedom.
The talk some people engage in about the U.S. Constitution being "a living document" is utter foolishness. It can be modified by a substantial enough majority to be responsible and respectful of the rights of minorities (hopefully). But the idea that the U.S. Constitution can be set aside and disregarded willy-nilly just because someone thinks it should have "evolved with the times" according to his personal political views, is immensely dangerous.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Like with Georgie W Bush and Cheney?
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: My birth certificate even has my original baby footprint on it.
You might be pleased to know that the doctor who delivered me committed suicide a few months later. (Truth.) Consider that tidbit troll food.
Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all. Perhaps you are merely posing for the appreciation of your fellow travelers on this board. I hope you enjoy their applause. You will never get any from me.
[Removed. --PJ]
[ November 08, 2009, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, I'm glad in Canada where we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" or has lived in Canada most of their life. Oh, you spent years clearly dedicated to the wellbeing of the citizens of this country? Nice! Clearly you care a lot about Canada and its people.
quote:Think about what the framers of the U.S. Constitution...
I'm also glad that our constitution's framers were mostly anonymous bureaucrats whose names are forgotten except to the scholar who cares to find out. It means we can change our constitution with just the right amount of hoo-ha, and we do not worship it like some kind of increasingly stagnant and stale religious document instead of a very interesting bit of old paper with some pretty good seedling ideas on it.
Come to Canada! We've got sanity!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies for my lack of clarity--my last post was a short, frustrated rant at the birther movement.
quote:You see, we are either a nation ruled by law, or a nation ruled by men.
Either/Or? Weren't the laws written by men, and aren't they upheld by men? You say I'm on dangerous ground, but isn't questioning authority exactly what the founding fathers were doing?
quote:It very, very much matters whether or not* President is a natural-born American citizen because...those are the rules we've all agreed to follow. If you're unhappy with it, the proper thing to do is change the process, not to be apathetic if it's violated.
So it very, very much matters...because it's in the rulebook? What I'm asking is "don't we have a better reason?"
I hope that doesn't come across as apathetic. I'm just not the type to follow rules only because they're there.
Edit: Because I hadn't addressed it, I don't think we should ignore the constitution, but that it need to be easier to update it. It's very hard to do because of a sort of reverence given to it as if it were from the mouth of God--and that most of the problems of the country could be solved if we could just get back to doing what the holy document of our forefathers tells us to do.
quote:So it very, very much matters...because it's in the rulebook? What I'm asking is "don't we have a better reason?"
It being in the rulebook matters very much to the question of whether someone should be allowed to violate the rules. It matters not at all to the question of whether we should change the rules.
Basically, you said that even if it turned out President Obama weren't a natural-born American citizen, it shouldn't matter. That particular statement is what I was objecting to, not suggesting that we shouldn't change the rules just because they're the rules.
[quote]
Edit: Because I hadn't addressed it, I don't think we should ignore the constitution, but that it need to be easier to update it. It's very hard to do because of a sort of reverence given to it as if it were from the mouth of God--and that most of the problems of the country could be solved if we could just get back to doing what the holy document of our forefathers tells us to do.[/quoite]
What problems our country faces do you believe would be more easily addressed if the Constitution were more easily amended?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: ... we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" or has lived in Canada most of their life.
Mostly, but not totally.
quote: Ignatieff has been razzed in Conservative party advertising for being out of touch with ordinary folk, spending so much time outside Canada and being elitist. ... "I'm much criticized for having been away for a long time, but I think sometimes you see places more clearly from afar than you see them close up."
That said, we definitely have a less pervasive and less virulent strain of the birther insanity (meme?). We sadly still have it though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I had Ignatieff in mind when I wrote: "...or has lived in Canada most of their life."
Obama has lived all his adult years in America and proved his dedication to the country by working their voluntarily. He chose, in his adult years, to live in America.
What happens when you're a child or teenager is much less under your control.
This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the furor surrounding Ignatieff, although I see where it is coming from.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kinda not following. (Edit to add: I'm tired, so its probably on my end. Actually, did you mean something more like "we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" *when they have* lived in Canada most of their life"?)
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not only that, Blayne, but he left it dangling and said, "Here's an offensive joke for you trolls to make."
And look who snatched it up. Thanks to PJ for removing Blayne's troll-y remark, though it really didn't bother me. (I did see it before it was removed. I didn't even bother to reply.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, I don't consider the work Obama did for Acorn as a "community organizer" to be working for America. And wealthy liberals financed his eduction. No wonder he chose to live in America.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Acorn recruits liberal voters selectively, and has been shown to be guilty of criminal activity including voter fraud on numerous occasions.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before we continue, Ron, do you concede the point that, yes, Obama is in fact the constitutionally legitimate president?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
