3rdnlng Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Despite what you may have heard, all men may not actually be created equal, so you shouldn't feel intimidated. You obviously (and rightly so) don't know what my screen name stands for, do you? Edited April 25, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It's not mentioned because the Constitution says you have to be naturally born in the US, ie, you must pop out of your mom's womb in the USA. (I think there is a military base exception or something like that but I could be wrong.) No, it says you must be a "natural-born" citizen. Not "naturally born in the US". Christ, if it said that, that would mean that no one born by Caeserian could be President. Again: there's only two types of citizenship: legally made a citizen (naturalized), or inherited from one or both parents (born). There is no "born a citizen, but not within the US borders" option, or any other third option. You're born a citizen, or you're naturalized. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It's not mentioned because the Constitution says you have to be naturally born in the US, ie, you must pop out of your mom's womb in the USA. (I think there is a military base exception or something like that but I could be wrong.) No it doesn't: "No person except a natural born Citizen..." Nowhere does it say anything about being born in the US. Explanation that's better than Wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 No, it says you must be a "natural-born" citizen. Not "naturally born in the US". Christ, if it said that, that would mean that no one born by Caeserian could be President. Again: there's only two types of citizenship: legally made a citizen (naturalized), or inherited from one or both parents (born). There is no "born a citizen, but not within the US borders" option, or any other third option. You're born a citizen, or you're naturalized. Period. Never trust one of those Caeserian bastards. They're always looking for the easy way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 The only people who keep the birther issue alive are the leftists and their media minions who use it to keep the "GOP/teaparty are full of evil racist white people" narrative going.....and Donald Trump. That would be convenient for you, if true. Not only was there an attempt to pass birther legislation in Arizona (which even Jan Brewer realized was nuts), but there are Republicans in Louisianna and Texas pushing for similar legislation in their states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Never trust one of those Caeserian bastards. They're always looking for the easy way out. And forget Picotin, too. And "life begins at conception"...so those in-vitro !@#$heads are right out, too. Nope, the only people eligible to be President are those conceived within the US in the good ol' missionary position, then pushed out of a woman's uterus without the benefit of drugs. That would be convenient for you, if true. Not only was there an attempt to pass birther legislation in Arizona (which even Jan Brewer realized was nuts), but there are Republicans in Louisianna and Texas pushing for similar legislation in their states. Which is really not bad legislation, prima facie. (A useless waste of time, yes. But necessarily bad to say "Prove you meet the qualifications for President before we put you on the ballot"? Not so much.) The real problem with the legislation is that it's so obviously motivated by a bunch of !@#$wits with the specific intent of targeting one man, simply because they don't like him, and who wouldn't even believe he met the qualifications even if he did so under the very law they've pushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 And forget Picotin, too. And "life begins at conception"...so those in-vitro !@#$heads are right out, too. Nope, the only people eligible to be President are those conceived within the US in the good ol' missionary position, then pushed out of a woman's uterus without the benefit of drugs. Are the salad spoons allowed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BWHEkAqmc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 No it doesn't: "No person except a natural born Citizen..." Nowhere does it say anything about being born in the US. Explanation that's better than Wiki Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying the birther issue isn't even an issue if he was born in Kenya? I have avoided this story like the plague so I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying the birther issue isn't even an issue if he was born in Kenya? I have avoided this story like the plague so I have no idea. That is true. His mom's a US citizen. Citizenship only needs to transfer from one parent who meets the residency requirements (in her case, something like 4 years in-country, which she met), and then it doesn't matter where you're born. It's a completely !@#$ing ridiculous issue, based on the asinine belief that "natural-born" means "born in the US," which is so entirely unsupportable it's only believed by gap-toothed hicks who can't count past 10 with their socks on. Are the salad spoons allowed? youtube.com/watch?v=V4BWHEkAqmc I was going to mention those. Breech baby? Tough ****...if mom didn't kill herself as God intended pushing you out, but the doctor used the foreceps instead...!@#$ you, you can't be President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) And forget Picotin, too. And "life begins at conception"...so those in-vitro !@#$heads are right out, too. Nope, the only people eligible to be President are those conceived within the US in the good ol' missionary position, then pushed out of a woman's uterus without the benefit of drugs. Which is really not bad legislation, prima facie. (A useless waste of time, yes. But necessarily bad to say "Prove you meet the qualifications for President before we put you on the ballot"? Not so much.) The real problem with the legislation is that it's so obviously motivated by a bunch of !@#$wits with the specific intent of targeting one man, simply because they don't like him, and who wouldn't even believe he met the qualifications even if he did so under the very law they've pushed. You have to wonder, would there be a strong push if John McCain had won the election? There are nutjobs out there that challanged his legitimacy as well. Edited April 25, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 You have to wonder, would there be a strong push if John McCain had won the election? There are nutjobs out there that challanged his legitimacy as well. You see--that's the part of this issue that leaked into my brain. I remember reading something about McCain being born out of country. My god, this really is the funniest issue. Someone I work with--a dyed in the wool Republican attorney--is constantly mentioning Obama's birth certificate to me and wondering why he won't just produce it. No matter how many times I tell him that even in my willful disinterest about this story, even I've seen the Certificate, he continues to question its authenticity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You have to wonder, would there be a strong push if John McCain had won the election? There are nutjobs out there that challanged his legitimacy as well. On the same principle. Probably largely the same nutjobs, too...lunatic Ron Paul supporters. My god, this really is the funniest issue. Someone I work with--a dyed in the wool Republican attorney--is constantly mentioning Obama's birth certificate to me and wondering why he won't just produce it. No matter how many times I tell him that even in my willful disinterest about this story, even I've seen the Certificate, he continues to question its authenticity. No one who believes there's a question will ever accept any answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 You see--that's the part of this issue that leaked into my brain. I remember reading something about McCain being born out of country. My god, this really is the funniest issue. Someone I work with--a dyed in the wool Republican attorney--is constantly mentioning Obama's birth certificate to me and wondering why he won't just produce it. No matter how many times I tell him that even in my willful disinterest about this story, even I've seen the Certificate, he continues to question its authenticity. You should tell your co-worker that if he is really a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, the smartest thing he could do is STFU about the birth certificate issue. It's a narrative the WH is counting on to help him get re-elected in 2012. "Look at the crazy people" will work because the MSM has done a terrific job of assigning that stigma to anyone who is considered "a birther." This is why you see REAL dyed-in-the-wool Republicans like Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter -- when pressed -- saying it's a ridiculous issue. Because it is. But I completely buy into the commonly held conservative belief that the WH loves this topic because it helps their cause for 2012. All you have to do is label ANY of the GOP candidates as "birthers" and they're done. Van Jones got kicked to the curb, in part, for being "a truther," and "birthers" will get the same treatment. In fact, I believe it HAS to work for 2012 because after more than two years in office, Obama has absolutely, positively NO substantial accomplishment to run on. Not a one. Which is why he's running around the country telling everyone that the GOP wants bridges to collapse and grandmas to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 In fact, I believe it HAS to work for 2012 because after more than two years in office, Obama has absolutely, positively NO substantial accomplishment to run on. Not a one. Health care. That is a substantial accomplishment. Of course, so was invading Iraq. Nothing says a substantial accomplishment has to be positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Health care. That is a substantial accomplishment. Yes, but what I said was a "substantial accomplishment to run on." The health care law is so bad that the last Rasmussen poll held this past month shows 57% of Americans STILL favoring repeal. It's so bad that some liberal congressfolk have publically asked everyone to stop calling it Obamacare because it's a derogatory name. You'd THINK he'd be BEGGING to have his name attached to such a glorious piece of legislation. Or as Obama himself once said, "You'd THINK they'd be THANKING me." Unemployment in the high eights. Gas already closing in on $5/gallon in California, with no relief in sight. No substantial accomplishment to run on. If things don't change soon, then to paraphrase a Jim Carrey character, "Someone tell the fat lady she's on in five." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Yes, but what I said was a "substantial accomplishment to run on." The health care law is so bad that the last Rasmussen poll held this past month shows 57% of Americans STILL favoring repeal. It's so bad that some liberal congressfolk have publically asked everyone to stop calling it Obamacare because it's a derogatory name. You'd THINK he'd be BEGGING to have his name attached to such a glorious piece of legislation. Or as Obama himself once said, "You'd THINK they'd be THANKING me." Unemployment in the high eights. Gas already closing in on $5/gallon in California, with no relief in sight. No substantial accomplishment to run on. If things don't change soon, then to paraphrase a Jim Carrey character, "Someone tell the fat lady she's on in five." I'd wager that 95% of Americans don't even know what's in Obama's health care bill, and I'd imagine that's a conservative estimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'd wager that 95% of Americans don't even know what's in Obama's health care bill, and I'd imagine that's a conservative estimate. I'd wager than 100% of the elected officials who voted for the health care bill don't even know what's in it, which is all 95% of Americans really need to know. And they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'd wager than 100% of the elected officials who voted for the health care bill don't even know what's in it, which is all 95% of Americans really need to know. And they do. Is 100% = to 1/3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Is 100% = to 1/3? About 70% of the time, unless you remeasure and it regresses to the true value of 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Is 100% = to 1/3? Only in a PPP poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts