|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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':
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Once the personal attacks start I stop reading. They should stop your typing, too...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Because Gore was a more viable candidate than Nader ever was. That makes it Nader's fault that Gore lost?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024