I bchadwick is just highlighting the relevance of the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement for US Presidents. If Obama had been born in Kenya more than 25 years ago, he would not have been a US citizen by birth. He would have just been eligible for naturalization as the child of a US citizen. This is the aforementioned “legal technicality”. To answer your other question, I’m not white - not that this should matter for the purposes of this discussion. I was, however, born outside the US more than 25 years ago and am a naturalized US citizen through one of my parents who is a natural born US citizen.
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, put it this way. Let’s say I accuse Obama of being Hitler. It would be pretty easy for Obama to present DNA evidence that he is not Hitler. However, he should not have to do this. Why? Because the accusation is ridiculous. Similarly, why should Obama need to post his birth certificate on the internet? The accusation of him being born in Kenya is just some stupid theory from weird nut jobs.
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JOE2010 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > mar350 Wrote: > > > i still don’t get why it took that long or > why > > he > > > stuttered when trying to say ‘birth > > certificate.’ > > > just seems really wierd. > > > > I thought you were more intelligent than this? > > > than what? pointing out that he can’t say with a > straight face that he has a legal document proving > his birth in the us? > > he just had the chance and couldn’t do it. what am > i missing? > > you would think it would be extremely easy given > what a great public speaker he is. There’s only three reasons that I can think of to have the viewpoint of a “birther”. 1. Your life is so boring you need some sort of stimulus, (even if it’s nonsense), to keep it interesting. 2. You’re purely an idiot, or 3. You’re a racist. There are no other sane logical reasons. I think you are no. 2.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The accusation of him > being born in Kenya is just some stupid theory > from weird nut jobs. the more i look into it, the more it seems that way. the fabricated ‘certificates’ are the ones showing him of Kenyan descent. but i also don’t see where his citizenship or ‘natural born’ staus are verified (W’s school records came out and we all found out he was a D student - which didn’t really surprise anyone.) i know its stupid and trivial, but i really don’t like the guy and it would make me really happy for it to come out that he also happens to be an illegal immigrant (which, technically, he may be).
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohai Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The accusation of him > > being born in Kenya is just some stupid theory > > from weird nut jobs. > > > the more i look into it, the more it seems that > way. the fabricated ‘certificates’ are the ones > showing him of Kenyan descent. but i also don’t > see where his citizenship or ‘natural born’ staus > are verified (W’s school records came out and we > all found out he was a D student - which didn’t > really surprise anyone.) > > i know its stupid and trivial, but i really don’t > like the guy and it would make me really happy for > it to come out that he also happens to be an > illegal immigrant (which, technically, he may be). On this basis, I have upgraded you, you are now no. 2 and 3.
JOE2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- thanks for your valued opinion. like i said, i don’t like the guy and i think it would be great if he officially became the first illegal immigrant president. he’d probably like it.
It says certificate of “live” birth. How do we know our president is not really a zombie or robot, and therefore not actually “live”? I am skeptical. I’m a lifer.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mar350 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Ok, put it this way. Let’s say I accuse Obama of > being Hitler. It would be pretty easy for Obama to > present DNA evidence that he is not Hitler. > However, he should not have to do this. Why? > Because the accusation is ridiculous. > > Similarly, why should Obama need to post his birth > certificate on the internet? The accusation of him > being born in Kenya is just some stupid theory > from weird nut jobs. Agreed. This whole thing is just so stupid. There are such bigger issues and we stop to focus on this crap? Well I guess the weird right and left are somewhat even: 9/11 was an inside job vs. Obama’s birth certificate.
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BChad come on the right isn’t saying he’s not a > citizen. Certain fringe elements are, it’s not > the RNC’s stance he’s not a citizen. > Fair enough. I guess I feel that the center right has let the far right dominate things for so long, that I’ve come to fear that any fringe right activity has a real chance of being in practice what the rest of the right ends up pursuing. But you are correct that it is a fringe group… Just an increasingly loud fringe group. The interesting political dynamic on the right these days is whether the tea party will end up breaking away from the republicans or stay with them as a political organization. Our system doesn’t tend to be supportive of more than two dominant parties, due to the single-member district system, but parties have evolved over time. I would like to state for the record that I think a healthy center-right is important in this country, even though I tend to be more center left myself.
For some reason this thread reminded me of this - an oldie but a goodie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs NSFW w/o earphones
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wish that there was a better way than “left” and “right” to categorize political preference. What if I support gay marriage but want lower tax rates?
Tea baggers just hate black people. Just like quite a few people on this board. Had Obama’s father been a white Canadian, French, or German, this would never had become the issue is has among some. Now can everyone get on to the real existential issue to the US, the economy.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I wish that there was a better way than “left” and > “right” to categorize political preference. What > if I support gay marriage but want lower tax > rates? Closest thing to that is a Libertarian.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohai Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bchadwick Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > I wish that there was a better way than “left” > and > > “right” to categorize political preference. > What > > if I support gay marriage but want lower tax > > rates? > > Closest thing to that is a Libertarian. Fiscal conservative, social moderate? That’s how I describe myself.
Fiscal moderate, social moderate. That’s how I describe myself. Is there a party for me?
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Fiscal conservative, social moderate? That’s how > I describe myself. A huge number of people would describe themselves that way.
Financial markets tend to attract libertarians. They want to be as free as possible to make money any way they can, and then they want to be as free as possible to spend money (and time) any way they want. But some Libertarians get so extreme as to get to really wacky positions, and they tend to defend them ardently. Libertarians and I get along pretty well on most social issues, and I think that fiscal conservatism is often sensible (basically I think that market interventions are occasionally necessary, but need to pass a fairly high bar. In general, you don’t want the government standing in the way of the market). But then sometimes you get to really weird positions like “People ought to be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, because to prohibit this would be an infringement of people’s right to control their own person,” which on an individual level just is weird and might be defensible if you can assure yourself that someone is making an informed choice. But then you start to go down a slippery slope where people have now “implied consent” to have horrible things done to them, and it just gets wackier from there. So libertarians always strike me as Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde types, where you’re merrily getting along with someone, and then suddenly you’re being accused of undermining the free world because of something you said.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fiscal moderate, social moderate. That’s how I > describe myself. Is there a party for me? Who would you consider a social liberal if you consider yourself a social moderate?
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Financial markets tend to attract libertarians. > They want to be as free as possible to make money > any way they can, and then they want to be as free > as possible to spend money (and time) any way they > want. > > But some Libertarians get so extreme as to get to > really wacky positions, and they tend to defend > them ardently. Libertarians and I get along > pretty well on most social issues, and I think > that fiscal conservatism is often sensible > (basically I think that market interventions are > occasionally necessary, but need to pass a fairly > high bar. In general, you don’t want the > government standing in the way of the market). > But then sometimes you get to really weird > positions like “People ought to be allowed to sell > themselves into slavery, because to prohibit this > would be an infringement of people’s right to > control their own person,” which on an individual > level just is weird and might be defensible if you > can assure yourself that someone is making an > informed choice. But then you start to go down a > slippery slope where people have now “implied > consent” to have horrible things done to them, and > it just gets wackier from there. > > So libertarians always strike me as Dr. Jekyl/Mr. > Hyde types, where you’re merrily getting along > with someone, and then suddenly you’re being > accused of undermining the free world because of > something you said. I was attracted to the Libertarian Party a while back and got turned off for this exact reason (not the consensual slavery reason, the general wacky positions reason). I realize the Republican and Democratic parties have their share of wackos, but historically they’ve been relatively anonymous. There are so few Libertarians that the wackos really stand out.
Omg, if marcus is “moderate”, liberal basically means you are Osama bin Laden.