Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 1639 (754865)
04-01-2015 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by caffeine
03-31-2015 2:47 PM


Re: An outsider's perspective
I've seen a lot of debate knocking around over the years since the birther controversy started over this controversial 'natural-born citizen' business in the Constitution. Maybe this is just my outsider's lack of understanding of American constitutionalism, but isn't the meaning plain as the bollocks on a well hung donkey? It means someone born a citizen, as opposed to someone naturalised later in life.
I agree. So I guess there is a case to be made for a difference between these two children being 'natural-born citizens':
  • a married man from Kenya knocking up an American girl, illegitimately marrying her in the US, and then having the child in Kenya
  • An American citizen women legitimately marrying a naturalized citizen and having the child in Canada

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 03-31-2015 2:47 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 04-01-2015 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2015 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2015 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 1639 (754887)
04-01-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Theodoric
04-01-2015 11:43 AM


Re: An outsider's perspective
Do you think the gender of the US citizen is relevant?
According to the law it is, as well as whether or not they are married.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2015 11:43 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2015 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 1639 (754919)
04-01-2015 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by nwr
04-01-2015 3:20 PM


Re: An outsider's perspective
"I'm not being serious", if you will
In that other thread where this came up I had some unanswered questions, from Message 1416:
quote:
If I go down to Tijuana and knock up a Mexican prostitute, would that child be a natural born citizen (in the US)?
What if it wasn't a stranger and instead it was a woman who I had been married to, would that matter (in the legal sense)?
I've been reading over the laws for birthright citizenship since I first posted in this thread, and I think I got it figured out.
If it is a female US citizen, then it doesn't really matter what happens, her kid is a citizen too.
But if it is a male US citizen, and the mother is not, then there are some extra things that need to go down for the child to be a birthright citizen if you are not married to the mother.
Regarding Obama in particular, I honestly couldn't care less where he was born. In my ignorant opinion, if you can become president of the US, then you can. I also don't doubt that he was born in Hawaii.
Do any birthers have any reasons why I should care where they flopped out of their mom's vagina? Like, some real reason other than some convolution of citizenship laws?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by nwr, posted 04-01-2015 3:20 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 1639 (759277)
06-10-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by xongsmith
06-10-2015 11:34 AM


Re: amphibious
Actually I believe this was done on purpose. A few years ago a basketball player was being interviewed (or maybe a football player?) and was asked about why he was so good from both sides. He looked straight at the camera grinning and said "Because I'm amphibious!" This was ricocheted around the sports world and after the initial laughter died down became a meme similar to "pwned". Note the second paragraph spells it right.
Reminds me of this:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by xongsmith, posted 06-10-2015 11:34 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by 1.61803, posted 06-10-2015 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 683 of 1639 (778263)
02-18-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Theodoric
02-18-2016 5:13 PM


Re: Hillary, the sociopathic choice.
Once the personal attacks start I stop reading.
They should stop your typing, too...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2016 5:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 955 of 1639 (778643)
02-22-2016 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 954 by Modulous
02-22-2016 5:43 PM


Re: What do other nations think?
For us powerless people - we continue to find American politics entertaining.
As a powerful person, I find it embarrassingly pathetic; so I get how that could entertain you.
Most Europeans can talk about US politics better than vice versa - but even sometimes better than they can about their own politics.
That y'all care more about ours' than your own, though, is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 954 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2016 5:43 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1593 of 1639 (788107)
07-26-2016 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1591 by coffee_addict
07-25-2016 7:11 PM


We now see the extent of the damages Sanders have done to the progressive movement.
Yeah, but how does that compare to the damages that Hillary did?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1591 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2016 7:11 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1595 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1596 of 1639 (788146)
07-26-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1595 by coffee_addict
07-26-2016 1:31 PM


What damages are you referring to?
Being a conservative bully.
I hold Nader personally responsible for the lives lost in Iraq. If Trump wins, I will hold Sanders personally responsible for all the ills that Trump will do.
Wow, that's a whole new level of crazy.
Do you hold the police force responsible for all of the gang gun violence in Chicago?
Like, it's not the gangs fault for shooting each other, it's the anti-gangs fault for not stopping it?
Is that how you view things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1595 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 1:31 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1597 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1598 of 1639 (788156)
07-26-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1597 by coffee_addict
07-26-2016 2:54 PM


Do you or do you not deny that Nader cost Gore the election?
I do neither.
But I don't see the point in looking at it any other way than whether or not Gore appealed to enough people to garner enough votes to get elected.
You could just as easily say that Gore cost Nader the election, no?
Or Bush cost them both the election...
Why blame one guy for a complex problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1597 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 2:54 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1599 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1606 of 1639 (788194)
07-26-2016 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1599 by coffee_addict
07-26-2016 3:26 PM


Because Gore was a more viable candidate than Nader ever was.
That makes it Nader's fault that Gore lost?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1599 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 3:26 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1607 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1608 of 1639 (788210)
07-27-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1607 by coffee_addict
07-26-2016 8:56 PM


Since you've decided to play dense, I can play dense, too.
I'm not playing, you're really not making sense to me.
I hold Nader personally responsible for all the lives lost in Iraq.
Yes, you've already said that. That is what I am asking about.
Your position seems to be this: If Candidate C was less viable than Candidate B, and Candidate C did not stop running, then Candidate C is personally responsible for the lives lost in the war that Candidate A started.
Do I have that right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1607 by coffee_addict, posted 07-26-2016 8:56 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024